Hillary Clinton: Syria's Assad could be labeled a war criminal
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said on Tuesday that an argument could be made that Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad is a war criminal.
"There would be an argument to be made that he would fit into that category," Clinton told a Senate committee hearing, responding to a question from Senator Lindsey Graham as to whether Assad could be called a war criminal.
But she added that using such labels "limits options to persuade leaders to step down from power."
Clinton was also asked whether she thought Assad was on his way out eventually. "I do," she said. "I just don't know how to define eventually."
http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/28/10529610-hillary-clinton-syrias-assad-could-be-labeled-a-war-criminal
Hugabear
(10,340 posts)Yet they still walk free.
teddy51
(3,491 posts)Bush and Cheney on trial as well.
leftyohiolib
(5,917 posts)so blah blah blah hillary
Dack
(5 posts)It's sheer hypocrisy to denounce another head of state for war crimes if yourself have blood on your hands for crimes for which you probably will be convicted at The Hague. Denouncing the former Republican administration for war crimes is easy but to ignore or to overlook the crimes that happen right now of the current Democratic administration because you are affiliated or sympathetic to them is just wrong. We should look into our own crimes and stop committing them.
(I don't suggest you belong to this kind of group, to be clear)
What should Obama do? Put the former Republican administration on trial for war crimes? He should do it but only if he applies the same principles to himself and his administration. If he or others are guilty has to be assessed by an uninvolved third party like the ICJ/ICC.
Fool Count
(1,230 posts)be a war crime worthy of prosecution in the Hague.
teddy51
(3,491 posts)the Hague if you don't have the stomach to deal with it.
Lint Head
(15,064 posts)and-justice-for-all
(14,765 posts)cstanleytech
(26,361 posts)Dont get me wrong, I dont disagree that they shouldnt be charged and in fact I support them being charged because I believe they did commit said war crimes but imo its time to stop bringing them up whenever it comes to alleged crimes of someone else or some other countries actions.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Looking forward and not backward, water under the bridge, don't cry over spilt milk, etc, etc..
cstanleytech
(26,361 posts)Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Then their crimes will eventually be forgotten, eventually they will never be brought up.
Which is what's going to happen anyway, I'm just a stubborn old curmudgeon.
Serious question..
If you don't bring up Cheney, Bush, Rummy, et miserable al when war crimes are in the news then when *do* you bring them up?
They'll be deploying the snow plows in Hell before the M$M ever utter so much as a syllable about that subject..
cstanleytech
(26,361 posts)Sure, Bush and Cheney did things they should be in jail for imo (or have their heads on a pike for) but what does mentioning them have to do with what is in this article itself?
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)When an American official starts talking about "War crimes" a little voice in my head starts chanting "Shrubbie, Ctheney, Rumsferatu", I can't stop it.
The powers that be desperately want the entire decade forgotten.. Well, up to 2008 anyway. We went straight from Clinton to Obama with just a patch of fuzzy math in between, move along, nothing to see here and certainly nothing to remember.
It's up to us to remember and then when we do remember even here on DU people complain..
cstanleytech
(26,361 posts)to be invoking Bush and Cheney but as I said you have some good points so I'll just take some deep breaths when they do.
Ruby the Liberal
(26,219 posts)cstanleytech
(26,361 posts)at the drop of a hat in a kind of childish "but they started it" like whine has just gotten repetitive.
But hey who am I to argue with people wanting to relive their 2nd childhood *shrug*
Ruby the Liberal
(26,219 posts)cstanleytech
(26,361 posts)OH and good morning to ya, want a ? They're fresh.
Phlem
(6,323 posts)mainly the Bush regime, before we start labeling others Hillary. Fix what's wrong at home first then you words might have weight.
-p
sofa king
(10,857 posts)We risk turning ourselves to frogs.
cstanleytech
(26,361 posts)I mean I disagree that we should ignore x's actions until x is addressed.
If we followed that logic with all crimes then until x murder case was solved the police shouldnt investigate any others, its just not a practical way imo for the police to be investigating crimes.
Sure we should always strive to see that those we believe are guilty are brought to justice (like Bush) but neglecting other cases in order to achieve a single goal is wasteful as it might be years (if ever) that Bush and cheney are brought before a court.
Phlem
(6,323 posts)and my comment was a broad brush not meant to literally stop any action on wrong doings. Just trying to avoid the pot calling the kettle black situation. Hypocrisy has always turned me off. Especially if the subject is one they are guilty of.
I suspect we would have more credence on the world stage if we practiced what we preach.
-p
cstanleytech
(26,361 posts)hypocrisy
Phlem
(6,323 posts)or did at one time.
-p
cstanleytech
(26,361 posts)but I dont recall our government ever claiming that.
Phlem
(6,323 posts)claim that and a whole host of other things, let's pick one. Any water boarding deaths? We'll never know that.
It's easy to claim peacekeeper all the while building military bases around the world to "keep the peace." Have you seen how many military bases we have around Iran?
Anyway, it's been great banter cstanleytech. This has been one of the best discussions I've had on this group.
Stay safe and I've got yer back as with all the rest of my brothers and sisters.
Now it's time for me to go shoots me up some monster hoard and whip up magical spells, have a great night.
-p
Beacool
(30,254 posts)Bring it up to Holder and the DOJ.
BadtotheboneBob
(413 posts)... considering, um, like, you-know-who and what-they-did.
gratuitous
(82,849 posts)And this isn't really an issue on which the United States has a whole thundering herd of credibility nowadays.
apnu
(8,760 posts)tk2kewl
(18,133 posts)We don't need no stinking badges...
or courts...
or criminal charges...
David__77
(23,635 posts)Besides which, some Syrian opposition groups have already labeled Assad a "war criminal." So it would be nothing new. But the ICC has no jurisdiction over Syria, and will NOT have jurisdiction over it, because the UN security council will NOT refer this question to the ICC. So, anyone is free to say "war criminal," but it will be a mere taunt.
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)Right after you report to Libya for starting a war and making the Islamists topple another government.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)She knows war from firsthand experience of coming under sniper fire in Tuzla..
BlueStater
(7,596 posts)No one in the government even has the fucking courage to call them out for what they are.
Maybe we shouldn't be so quick to judge others until we apply those same standards to ourselves.
Nihil
(13,508 posts)How many sovereign nations has he invaded?
How many bombs dropped on foreign civilians?
How many soldiers & marines deployed abroad?
How many cruise missiles launched into an independent nation?
How many illegal prisoners kidnapped, held for years and killed?
Yes, he's a first-class shit to a lot of his own people.
So was Saddam.
So was Gaddafi.
He's definitely committed crimes against innocent civilians in his own country.
Unlike the current and preceding Presidents of the USA though, he hasn't committed
the above crimes so STFU Hillary until you are prepared to publicly criticise *THEM*
in the same terms.