Buzsaw writes:
quote:
The invation was a multi-nation invasion.
No, not really. It was the US with a small amount of assistance from the UK and a few one-offs. It was also done in contradiction to the UN declarations as well as in defiance of the request of the weapons inspectors who were begging for more time.
quote:
Iraq defied the world body deband of inspections etc.
No, not really. While Hussein did kick the inspectors out, he let them back in. In fact, on the very day that Bush declared war on Iraq, the inspectors were destroying a set of missiles that violated the standard set by having too large of a range. Contrary to your claims, the weapons inspectors were in Iraq and doing their jobs. The US had to evacuate them in order to start their attack.
quote:
Iraq funded terrorist suicide bombers.
Incorrect. Many nations fund suicide bombers, but Iraq wasn't one of them. Instead, we should have invaded Saudi Arabia. After all, 15 of the 19 hijackers came from there. Not a single one was Iraqi.
quote:
The US lost two of the world's tallest buildings, part of the pentagon, 4 airliners and occupants, thousands of other lives and a crippled economy.
None of which had anything to do with Iraq. The equivalent is that when Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, the United States should have invaded Norway. After all, Norway was one of the primary sites to produce heavy water, a component for nuclear weapons and since the US lost a large part of its Pacific fleet, a great loss of life, and was a blow to the economy, obviously Norway was the right choice.
That said, let's go to the actual topic of this thread:
The 25th Amendment concerns presidential succession:
Amendment 25, Section 4: Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.
So the President being out of the country and in jail in and of itself is not enough. The rest of the government needs to decide that he cannot do his job from where he is.
Now, there are extradition treaties but members of government are often given wide leeway. A case could be made that Mugabe of Zimbabwe should be arrested and brought before the ICC or Hague, and indeed there is a protestor in England who routinely tries to take him under citizen's arrest and/or convince the UK government to arrest him when he visits, but the British authorities refuse to take up his cause.
If the countries of the world truly think that the US President were that bad, I doubt they would restrict themselves to simple legal maneuvering. Even if they did, I can guarantee you that the expectation would be that there would need to be a US trial to determine if the extradition is warranted and will be carried out. I have a hard time thinking it would ever happen that a US court would send the President to stand trial in another country without being forced to at the end of a gun.
Rrhain
Thank you for your submission to
Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
No, I guess not. I just get tired of my country getting weaker is all.
™ Version 4.2