Vermont candidate to prosecute Bush if she wins

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

let me look but before i do let me explain their thinking. they believed their "coprosperity sphere" was manifest destiny. and that the united states was attacking when it restricted trade and exports of raw material. in their view they were just protecting themselves against the evil usa.  their beliefs had a religous fervor

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

http://americanhistory.suite101.com/article.cfm/japan_favors_war_with_america

Japan Favors War with America
U. S. Places Trade Embargo Against Japan

? Mary Trotter Kion

Nov 23, 2006
Hanauma Bay, Oahu, Hawaii, Brodebund? ClickArt 750,000
An embargo is placed on Japan by the United States, depriving her of much needed natural resources to carry on her war with China.

Prior to the December 7, 1941, bombing of Pearl Harbor, Oahu in the Hawaii Islands by Japan, that country had signed a Pact with Germany and Italy. Not only was the pact designed to expand Japan's industry but to allow Japan to carry on its ongoing assault on China for another three years.

This was the start of Japan's "special undeclared war with China." Shortly afterwards, on July 7, 1937, Chinese and Japanese forces clashed outside of Peking. This Japanese encroachment on China had been taking place long before 1936.
Japan in Need of Natural Resources

Basically, Japan, in order to expand her industry, need China's natural resources. By 1939, Europe's own move toward war all but halted Japan receiving any natural resources from that factor. Not only that, but also by this time Japan was going broke as her ongoing conflict with China was costing her some $5,000,000 a day.
United States Cuts Natural Resources to Japan

In 1940, as events heated up in Europe, the commercial treaty governing trade relations between the United States and Japan lapsed. From that time on, in Congress there were demands for a "total trade embargo against Japan." The result was that Japan was deprived of aviation fuel, scrap metal, and eventually copper and brass, then virtually every raw material of importance from America.
Japan Favors War with America

Needless to say this did not make the Japanese happy campers or look upon the United States with kindness because on July 21, 1941, the Japanese government "formally declared" that it was in favor of war with the United States of America.


i had the misfortune to be educated back when they taught history   before the internet

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

Prelude to War
Japan Negotiates and Prepares for Attack

? Mary Trotter Kion

Nov 24, 2006
Honolulu Harbor, Oahu, Hawaii, Brodebund? ClickArt 750,000
An embargo is place on Japan by the United States, depriving her of much needed natural resources to carry on her war with China.

Japan had now, in 1941, officially declared itself in favor of war with the United States in order to secure control of Southeast Asia. This, from their standpoint was necessary due to the embargo the United States had placed against Japan, cutting off this source of badly need natural resources. Japan had no choice now but to look toward China for these resources.
Negotiations to Life Embargo Continues

Negotiations were now underway between the Untied States and Japan to lift the embargo. America's price tag to Japan for removing the embargo was for Japan to evacuate China and French Indo-China. For Japan this would mean walking away from all she had gained since her invasion there had commenced in 1937. This prescription for peace between Japan and the United States was too much of a bitter pill for Japan to swallow.
Japan Chooses Official War Date

On September 4, 1941, Japan made the official decision for war to begin at the end of October. However, Japan continued her 'peace' negotiations with the United States. In part, these negotiations were being used as a cover-up for Japan's preparations for the war she would soon wage against America. It is also believed that these negotiations were, also in part, a genuine attempt to find peace.

As these negotiations dragged on in Washington D.C., and yet to be known by the Roosevelt administration, the Japanese embassy in Washington had received instructions to end their negotiations to the State Department at 1300 [1:00 p.m. civilian time in Washington] local time on December 7, 1941.
United States Guesses Wrong

Japan continued its negotiations with the United States and at the same time prepared for war with America. By now the United States was well alerted to the fact that they would be pulled into this conflict but at the same time the idea that its involvement would be triggered by a strike against her Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor was simply unimaginable. She was wrong, dead wrong.

[MicroBalrog]

Oh, in that sense, certainly. I thought you meant to that the JApanese believed that the US was about to strike them militarily.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

its hard for a westerner to understand the japanese mindset.  all that polite hides aggresion thats quite remarkable

[Bigjake]

its hard for a westerner to understand the japanese mindset.  all that polite hides aggresion thats quite remarkable

James Bradley has a book addressing that.  Flyboys.  Good read.

[De Selby]

Cassandra's daddy, I think you are right about Japan...but look how our legal system handled that one afterwards.

What a nation's leaders believe or claim in statements won't protect them from prosecution.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

japan lost  if they had not truman woulda hung as a war criminal  but then again had the war of northern aggression ended differently sherman woulda met a similar fate. its most important to win wars

[De Selby]

japan lost  if they had not truman woulda hung as a war criminal  but then again had the war of northern aggression ended differently sherman woulda met a similar fate. its most important to win wars

ain't that the truth...seriously

[K Frame]

It's always amazed me that after the War of Southern Stupidity there was only one individual hanged for war crimes...

[RevDisk]

its hard for a westerner to understand the japanese mindset.  all that polite hides aggresion thats quite remarkable

My uncle worked as a linguist in Japan and married a local.  Mess with their racial superiority complex and see how "polite" they are.  They moved back to the US when their kids hit school age. 

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

i hear ya  i'm 1/2 japanese   and i know first hand how they feel about folks like me.

though folks here were not all cool either
wasn't legal for mom and dad to be married in md till i was 5.made me a tad mean kid

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

It's always amazed me that after the War of Southern Stupidity there was only one individual hanged for war crimes...

who would you have hanged?
besides mary surrat

[MicroBalrog]

its hard for a westerner to understand the japanese mindset.  all that polite hides aggresion thats quite remarkable

James Bradley has a book addressing that.  Flyboys.  Good read.

I have a book titled "Zero!", IIRC, written post-war by two of te leaders of the Japanese air forces (a general and a designer). They write that many of the Japanese brass had serious misgivings about starting the war, FWIW.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

yea and the politicians ignored em    sounds familiar
many of the military had been to the usa  amongst the leadership there was a religous devine right concept that got em in trouble

[Jeff B.]

As crazy as she sounds, within a very few limits (which are growing thanks to folks like her) she can say or promise what she likes in her campaign.  IF elected, I agree with the previous contributors who question the practicality of charging a former President who resides in another state.

The liberal bent of the NE is obvious, and has been accelerating in the last 10 - 15 years, IMHO.  I went to school in Maine, (5 year plan  ) and have great memories of the state, but could not live there or in the NE due to the prevailing beliefs.  With that, if they choose to follow what some call a "secular-progressive" lifestyle, that's great for them.  For now, I am happy in Texas with its generally more conservative outlook.

Jeff B.

[roo_ster]

By definition, the war was legitimate (setting aside subjective right and wrong) as it was voted on in Congress and was justified under any number of violated UN resolutions, acknowledged at the time by the Security Council, completely separate from the claimed connections to 9/11 or fears of WMD.

That is a summary of the Government's legal argument in favor of the war, but it is a hotly disputed interpretation. 

Many folks still hotly dispute the spherical nature of earth, too.  Doing so doesn't make "dissidents" out of "knuckleheads."

[MicroBalrog]

as it was voted on in Congress

This is different from Congress declaring war, technically.

[De Selby]

By definition, the war was legitimate (setting aside subjective right and wrong) as it was voted on in Congress and was justified under any number of violated UN resolutions, acknowledged at the time by the Security Council, completely separate from the claimed connections to 9/11 or fears of WMD.

That is a summary of the Government's legal argument in favor of the war, but it is a hotly disputed interpretation. 

Many folks still hotly dispute the spherical nature of earth, too.  Doing so doesn't make "dissidents" out of "knuckleheads."

True, but the disputing party here would be the Government-before the Iraq war, there weren't any authorities who made the case that any nation could unilaterally enforce claimed violations of Security Council resolutions by means of a war.

Think about the catch 22 here: If no nation needs the UN to act before it can declare a war illegal, why can't any European country whose population hates Bush legally indict him for war crimes on that country's own position that Bush violated the laws of war?

If the Security Council needs to take action to declare that a violation of its rules has occurred, then the Iraq war was clearly illegal.  And if it doesn't...then why can't some other nation levy charges against the US leadership, on the theory that any nation can individually enforce violations of UN resolutions and laws?

[K Frame]

It's always amazed me that after the War of Southern Stupidity there was only one individual hanged for war crimes...

who would you have hanged?
besides mary surrat

I didn't say that I would have hanged anyone.

But take a look at civil wars in other nations. The winners usually do a pretty good job of cleaning house of the losers.

Hell, the English executed their King after the end of their civil war.

[roo_ster]

By definition, the war was legitimate (setting aside subjective right and wrong) as it was voted on in Congress and was justified under any number of violated UN resolutions, acknowledged at the time by the Security Council, completely separate from the claimed connections to 9/11 or fears of WMD.

That is a summary of the Government's legal argument in favor of the war, but it is a hotly disputed interpretation. 

Many folks still hotly dispute the spherical nature of earth, too.  Doing so doesn't make "dissidents" out of "knuckleheads."

True, but the disputing party here would be the Government-before the Iraq war, there weren't any authorities who made the case that any nation could unilaterally enforce claimed violations of Security Council resolutions by means of a war.

Think about the catch 22 here: If no nation needs the UN to act before it can declare a war illegal, why can't any European country whose population hates Bush legally indict him for war crimes on that country's own position that Bush violated the laws of war?

If the Security Council needs to take action to declare that a violation of its rules has occurred, then the Iraq war was clearly illegal.  And if it doesn't...then why can't some other nation levy charges against the US leadership, on the theory that any nation can individually enforce violations of UN resolutions and laws?

First off, you imbue the UN with more authority it has or merits.  It has no real authority to more than talktalktalk.  If it wants something done, it has to ask a nation-state to do it.  For instance, it has condemned the Joos countless times in its existence and Israel still exists, as the UN can't get a nation-state to do anything about the nasty Joos.  All it can do is assail the Joos with harsh language.

GHWB made the mistake of getting the UN on board for GWI and the UN & UN-o-philes have had delusions of relevance since then.

Second, sovereign nation-states can pass laws a their leisure.  If they want to indict our political leaders, that is their prerogative.  I am sure Iran, the Norks, and various and sundry other countries have done so already.  A few more won't tilt the world upside-down. 

They might not like the consequences, though, if they do try such shenanigans.  An executive order here & there can make a government foolish enough to indict squeal* for uncle.   If COTUS gets its back up, there might be even greater consequences.  They will likely be cowardly and only indict after the official(s) are out of government.

Third, Iraq after GWI was defeated and signed a cease-fire agreement.  Iraq then violated the cease-fire agreement every day and twice on Sundays.  We needed no one's permission to go back and finish the job.



* Oh, so sorry, we are no longer granting visas for citizens of Indictastan.  We also will not allow any of our military personnel into your country, even if you are NATO...BTW, we will be moving all our personnel currently stationed in your country to another country.  We are also slowing down delivery of all those F35 JSFs your Air Farce wants.  And spare parts for your older F16s.  You mean you want access to your country's gold bullion reserves stored at Ft Knox?  It can be moved only in the presence of one of your gov't oficials.  Since we are no longer issuing visas...

[De Selby]

Third, Iraq after GWI was defeated and signed a cease-fire agreement.  Iraq then violated the cease-fire agreement every day and twice on Sundays.  We needed no one's permission to go back and finish the job.

Okay, this misses the entire point:

There are many national governments and other authorities that claim Bush violated the Geneva conventions, the UN Charter, and the Security Council resolution that was cited as authorization for war in Iraq.

If you don't need anyone's permission to punish a nation for violations of SC resolutions and other international law, how come another nation would be in the legal wrong to prosecute GW for these things?

The point here is that, if any nation can decide that another nation violated Security Council resolutions and then punish the violator of its own accord, how can you possibly claim that it would be illegal for a nation to do it to George Bush?

And if it's up to the Security Council and the UN to decide when a war was conducted in violation of its resolutions, before a member state can act on said violations....then what's the legal argument in support of the Iraq war?

Catch-22: If Bush acted legally (based on the legal arguments his administration advanced in support of the war), then a prosecution of GW Bush for violations of SC resolutions and the UN charter can be entirely legal.   And if it's actually illegal for a nation to decide on its own when a violation of the SC resolutions/UN Charter/International law has occurred...then what's the argument in support of Iraq, again?

You seem to be arguing that the law doesn't matter-that's fine, but that isn't the Bush admin's position.

[RevDisk]

* Oh, so sorry, we are no longer granting visas for citizens of Indictastan.  We also will not allow any of our military personnel into your country, even if you are NATO...BTW, we will be moving all our personnel currently stationed in your country to another country.  We are also slowing down delivery of all those F35 JSFs your Air Farce wants.  And spare parts for your older F16s.  You mean you want access to your country's gold bullion reserves stored at Ft Knox?  It can be moved only in the presence of one of your gov't oficials.  Since we are no longer issuing visas...

Don't have a problem with your theoretical suggestions except for the last.   Looting other country's gold reserves that we hold in trust is a bad idea. 

Allow me to make a very simplified analogy.  Would you put your own money in a bank that at will seized a customer's entire account on ideological cause?    Even if the person whose funds were seized was ideologically different than you, what's to say the political leaning of the bank would not change in the future?

[Matthew Carberry]

By definition, the war was legitimate (setting aside subjective right and wrong) as it was voted on in Congress and was justified under any number of violated UN resolutions, acknowledged at the time by the Security Council, completely separate from the claimed connections to 9/11 or fears of WMD.

That is a summary of the Government's legal argument in favor of the war, but it is a hotly disputed interpretation. 

Many folks still hotly dispute the spherical nature of earth, too.  Doing so doesn't make "dissidents" out of "knuckleheads."

True, but the disputing party here would be the Government-before the Iraq war, there weren't any authorities who made the case that any nation could unilaterally enforce claimed violations of Security Council resolutions by means of a war.

Think about the catch 22 here: If no nation needs the UN to act before it can declare a war illegal, why can't any European country whose population hates Bush legally indict him for war crimes on that country's own position that Bush violated the laws of war?

If the Security Council needs to take action to declare that a violation of its rules has occurred, then the Iraq war was clearly illegal.  And if it doesn't...then why can't some other nation levy charges against the US leadership, on the theory that any nation can individually enforce violations of UN resolutions and laws?

As I recall, the consequences for violating the SC Resolutions were explicitly laid out and authorized within the Resolutions themselves and included military force.  There was no need for a follow-up vote to "authorize" them, merely evidence that the Res's had been violated.

Once Saddam broke just one, it was on with no further discussion required.

The fact is that we kept giving Saddam second chances when GW II could have lawfully been kicked off by any signatory a dozen times prior for simple violations of the no-fly zones.



Also, think it through.

Every declaration of illegality requires a prior overt act.  Without an action there is nothing to find illegal.

Or should I be able to be declared in violation of (insert crime here) without committing it first?

Domestic or international, you have to have the crime first.

[roo_ster]

You seem to be arguing that the law doesn't matter-that's fine, but that isn't the Bush admin's position.

I am not the Bush admin.

When you write, "the law," be sure to use modifiers.  US law matters, as do laws passed by sovereign nations (more or less).  International law & UN dictat?  Not so much.

Were it otherwise, those umpteen UN resolutions finding Saddam in violation of the previous resolutions would have efficacy.  IOW, they did not matter.

Don't have a problem with your theoretical suggestions except for the last.   Looting other country's gold reserves that we hold in trust is a bad idea. 

Allow me to make a very simplified analogy.  Would you put your own money in a bank that at will seized a customer's entire account on ideological cause?    Even if the person whose funds were seized was ideologically different than you, what's to say the political leaning of the bank would not change in the future?

Not so much looting as an effect of denying all visas.  One effect among many, I suspect.  It is still their gold.  Unless we get really cranky I guess they could authorize some third party to truck it about.

My point was that even without Congress dragging out the Ugly Stick, there are means at the executive's hand to make foolish actions hurt the perpetrator.

Although, freezing of assets does seem to be used for truly obnoxious types like Iran & Iraq.