Can leaders be sued for INACTION, such as the Germans sitting ideally by while millions suffered, or the yearly disapperance of 200,000 civilians?

Better yet, how about the ability to sue if the mess created was of German doing. Afterall the Ba'athist party is based off of GERMAN NAZI fascism.

Dear Germany,

We expected shit like this from France, afterall, we all know that they are true wimps, but you, you with a heritage of action, though in WW2 it did get misguided, you have matured and added the safeguards to ensure that not happening again. So why have you become so French.

PS: We will be re-organizing our station troops, our soldiers are looking forward to exceptional beer, afterall the Czechs can even out drink you. What oh what has happened to you Germany.

You have become a bunch of socialist, wine sipping pussies!

Its OK, we still have a number of actions pending against Germany, here in NY, in relation to actions of a former regime there.

Oh, and how about this tidbit from another story on Command Post today. Maybe German lawyers should tidy up their own home first:

" While some of that could be related to double-counting of some assets originally, the disappearance of other funds was more puzzling, he said. Germany, for example, had reported about $359 million in assets frozen in 1991, but now reported none."

I'm tellin' ya......we get no respect!

It's obvious we're dealing with the mob. France, Germany, and Russia have to answer to no one. They've been profiting off of this deal very handsomely. As we raise more concern, they will take all the cheap shots they can. They will continue to undermine anything we try to do. They figure if they harass us enough, it will water down any of their scandals, that we expose.

It's sad in the fact that I don't think most of the German people agree with their govt's actions.

At least the Wehrmacht had balls.

The moon in silence goes its way and heeds no yelping cur.
- Charles XII, King of Sweden 1682-1718

How ironic. The country that brought nazism to the world sues its liberator.

I'm sure Washington is terrified.

Lawyers, who happen to be from Germany, just acting like lawyers do... Wonder who will get billed the hours?
Meanwhile, the US bases in the Vatterland will be singing "Goodbye, Farewell, Auf Veidersahn Goodnight" just like the Von Trapp Family

Right on Capsu78, the problem is lawyers, not necessarily Germans. We have American lawyers suing our government too, over the war. Shakespeare had it right!

Hee. I feel the sudden compulsion to email the judge with my interpretation of the UNSC resolutions. Think they'd listen?

TBox,

simple answer... NOPE!

Save your postage.

Are there any opposing views out their?

damn i wonder is this a class action lawsuit?, i was injured from watching to much tv, i'm almost blind now. it's bush's fault the war and all i want JUSTICE......lol{save your comments, i am being facesous{spe;lling?} i've been constipated since the war started, i need compensation.....lol

Sounds like Germany got invaded by Belgium and we didn't even notice!!

Strange, heard something like this on the radio this morning. Thought it was in a Belgian court, not a German court ... I'm sure that reference was made to the fact the Belgians have claimed juristiction over the whole world, for the issue of war crimes ... I'll see if I can check that out.

The Belgians tried that with Israel's prime Minister, Thats why I made the post, oddly connected somehow

Don't jump all over Germany just yet. This is just a bunch of activist lawyers, much like the idiots who tried to take Bush to court in this country.

Now if the court takes this case seriously, bashing Germany over this is in order.

-- Erik

Either Ananova didn't check its facts...
or the French proxies in Belgium have indeed conquered Germany.

Yes there has been talk of a Belgian case. In the Belgian case there was talk of 19 Iraq's who would be the plaintiffs and the case was to be for the war crime of 'deliberately targeting civilians' and was directed against Tommy Franks.

As an attorney I think both of these cases are loosers: While wars of aggression are illegal, this was not one of them. In contrast wars of liberation are legal. Unfortunately most groups that are fighting for liberation arent legal (such as palestinian groups) becouse they deliberately target civilians (and women with babies in the case of the palestinians). In addition this was a continuation of the first authorized gulf war. In addition while there was not a specific authorization for this war the last UNRez on the subject (1441) provided for 'serious consequences' in the event of Sadam's non compliance.

Finally as to the charge of 'deliberately targetting civilians' which is a war crime, well--we didnt. Putting military targets in civilian areas is a war crime. but its not an absolute shield against attack. the attackers (us) must use reasonable efforts to avoid civilian casualties and from what I hear- we did- its in our ROE. The fact that civilians got killed anyway is a war crime- Sadam's.

I would like to conclude by saying that while I support this war, Im again ashamed of this administration. Instead of making our case before the world, they resort to bullying our allies. Putting on our case and responding to these baseless accusations would go a long way to legitimizing the war before a skeptical world. Bullying and threats against germany and belgium do the opposite.

Are these lawyers also trying to ban imports of Oreo cookies? Seems right up their alley...

Mein lieber G-tt... I thought the Belgian chocolate poodles claiming universal jurisdiction set a new benchmark for chutzpah, but Germany doing the same thing takes this to an absolutely cosmic level.

I am sure that whoever drafted this law in Germany meant well. But as Sam Neill said in the only memorable moment in Jurassic Park III: "Some of the worst things imaginable have been done with the best intentions".

Perhaps the US can draft a law granting itself universal jurisdiction in matters of "international judicial harassment". Under such a law, anyone found guilty of filing patently frivolous suits in international courts could be made liable for either libel damages or locked up in an isolation cell with a 24h Geraldo Rivera channel as the only entertainment. Oh shoot, the US Constitution prohibits cruel and unusual punishment ;-)

How about if the US declared universal jurisdiction over human rights violations and didnt stop enforcement at some of our earstwhile 'allies'.

I don't know if anyone remembers, but didn't Presedent Bush get congress to pass an immunity law?
I'm almost certain of this, but I can't remember the details

Also, I should add, that it sounds more and more, as if Europe is challenging to be the" 'new world order".
The scary thought is, they just might get the "un" to back them.
all things considered, wasn't the UN the USA's Idea?
I really think this is a serious political issue, and should be adressed soon

Sorry, one last thing.

maybe it gives better understanding why President Bush has been trying to build up the Nato alliance.

Bubba: the trick is (I believe) that in order for belgium (and probably germany) to try someone they have to be in the country for it to assert jurisdiction..
They wouldnt be able to issue a warrant and have it enforced in the US. Any kidnapping (a la eichman) would cause a great big stink.

I was under the impression that Belgium had modified their silly law, and that it now only applies to belgiums citizens, I think I can dig up that story.

This is what suprizes me, is that Germany would try the same crap.

Meanwhile I hear that french law applies to any french citizen, anywhere in the world. They use it to prosecute against the child-sex-tourists who go to indonesia or wherever to get some pre teen sex.
Did you know in the late 80's a case went to the US Supreme court as to wether the Saudi Govt. could legally torture an american citizen. The answer: no. And of course the govt. submitted its brief in support of Saudi immunity. What scumbags.

Aaron : thank you! that was indeed the story I'd heard, concerning Gen. Franks. I was in and out of the vehicle and did not catch it all. Something about the use of cluster bombs being a war crime, which as far as I know isn't.

But if you will, where did you see bullying and threats on this matter, directed by the US towards Belgium and Germany? Can you provide links? I would like to read such a story.

Sorry, I meant that yes the Saudi goverment was held immune to suit for torturing a US citizen that it had hired in the US to work in the royal hospital. Seems he had been raising a ruckus that the hospitals oxygen supply piping- had instead been made of standard plumbing-rendering it a serious infection risk to anyone who might have needed oxygen.

JRM: Havent seen anything directly about germany but given the predilictions of this administration and their intense opposition to any kind of international jurisdicition Im imagining a full on behind the scenes arm twisting...
As for Belgium: I recall an article more direct than this but havent found it yet:
http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/05/14/sprj.irq.franks.suit.reut/index.html

Cluster Bombs are not illegal, thats anti war propaganda.
some groups try so say that the unexploded ordanance from these, are like land mines.
There is no connection. perfectly legal.

Off thread, but cluster bomblets are most dangerous in the hands of Japanese reporters!

AARON SAID, "I would like to conclude by saying that while I support this war, Im again ashamed of this administration."

??? This administration has more integrity than any, in my lifetime. When George Bush gets that funny little grin on his face when he's addressing the people, it's not because he's gettin' a blow job behind the podium.

AARON SAID ,"Instead of making our case before the world, they resort to bullying our allies."

We spent 12 years making our case. The French leadership was the ones bullying our allies. Where you been, man?

AARON SAID, "Putting on our case and responding to these baseless accusations would go a long way to legitimizing the war before a skeptical world."

Yeah, we could 'WASTE' alot more time and money trying to convince monkeys that it's not ok to eat their feces. Hell, we don't have anythiing else to do than to worry about what friggin morons, like DDPtG think. It'd be easier to convince Forrest Gump, that Jenny, was nothing but a no good slut.

AARON SAID,"Bullying and threats against germany and belgium do the opposite."

Did you mean to say, "Bullying and threats by Germany and Belgium do the opposite."???

Aaron Responds: George W. Bush is the mother of all liars. He has lied over and over and over. And not on whether he got a b.j. from an intern: he lies on all the important stuff:
Bush said we had to go into Iraq becouse of 9/11 and to destroy the terrorist threat due to Iraq's Al-quida connection and for our national security. Weve seen how much of a military threat Iraq was. As to the Al-quida connection that Bush specifically refered to: Lies according to an open letter by Tenant- head ot the CIA published the next day. 'no such information exists'. Hell we havent even found WMD's.
Now personally, I think freeing the Iraqi people from torture and the Baath party, justifies the whole thing in and of itself (provided we actually spend the money to fix the place up). But I didnt claim to be going in becouse of WMD's or Al-quida connection. I also didnt claim to run the country on a bipartisan basis then try to pack the courts with far right leanind anti abortion hacks, nor did I claim that the first massive tax cut in the middle of a budget deficit would add jobs (which it hasnt), nor did I claim another round of tax cuts will add jobs and stimulate the economy in the midst of deapening deficits (which it also wont), nor did I claim that drilling in ANWR is necessary for our national security while giving a pass to the auto industry on requiring SUV's to be included in CAFE. George W. Bush did. Becouse he's the Mother of all Liars.

MORE: Bush also said there was a connection between 9/11 and Iraq. There was none. He used 9/11 for political advantage. That makes him a major scumbag.

MORE: Bush also said there was a connection between 9/11 and Iraq. There was none. He used 9/11 for political advantage. That makes him a major scumbag.

Aaron, produce the quote where Bush--OR ANY ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL--said that Iraq was directly connected with 9/11.

Produce that quote or admit to being a liar.

As for your "no connection to Al-Qaida" point, your information is out of date. Documents were a couple of weeks ago; the reports were posted here on Command Post. It really is a non-issue, because Saddam was openly and generously supporting more than one terrorist organization.

Name one "far-right anti-abortion hack" that Bush has nominated to the bench, and produce quotes to back up your assertion. If you're were talking of Priscilla Owen, you are lying, because her ruling had nothing to do with keeping, or not, abortion legal. (She refused to overturn a parental-notification law in Texas. Not parental consent--parental notification, which currently polls 80% of Americans in favor.)

Oh look: Slate thinks that Ari Fleischer had to leave becouse he started telling the truth! Seems he's leaving the Baghdad Bob school of PR.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2083117/