NationStates Jolt Archive

...in regards to the Abu Gharib abuse? And has someone done it already? And could I do it, being an Englishman who lives in England?

You'd have to have some pretty amazing lawyers.

And by "you," I don't mean YOU, because unless you've been personally affected, you cannot sue someone for grievances - you haven't suffered any. Someone else has.

And additionally, you can't use America's civil courts if you're not an American citizen, to the best of my knowledge, and certainly not as plaintiff.

And the personnel involved in the Abu Ghraib scandal were punished, were they not?

I think someone would have already if it were possible.

I think a lot of people would have.

You could file it.

If you do it in the US be careful of Rule 11.

...in regards to the Abu Gharib abuse? And has someone done it already? And could I do it, being an Englishman who lives in England?

You need attention that bad? Seriously though there is a department that handles it. Write your name, number, address and write telling the US government and the Bush administration of your grievences. After done with that wad it up into a nice little ball and throw it in that circular container next to your desk. It is actually a US government transporter. After tossing the wad into the circular container it will send the information quickly to George Bush's desk. :rolleyes:

And additionally, you can't use America's civil courts if you're not an American citizen, to the best of my knowledge, and certainly not as plaintiff.



Yes you can. Canadians, check your merchandise 'contracts'...you know, the fine print included in your software bundle, etc etc...generally there are jurisdictional clauses which mean if you have a beef, you need to take it to where they say...which is often somewhere in the US.

But...on what grounds would you be suing the US gov't?

Seriously...if everything the US helped happen in Latin America wasn't enough, I can't see this being enough.

You need attention that bad? Seriously though there is a department that handles it. Write your name, number, address and write telling the US government and the Bush administration of your grievences. After done with that wad it up into a nice little ball and throw it in that circular container next to your desk. It is actually a US government transporter. After tossing the wad into the circular container it will send the information quickly to George Bush's desk. :rolleyes:

http://images.bestwebbuys.com/muze/books/59/0763626759.jpg

Oh, really?

Well then, I stand corrected.

I think my other points still stand, though - I'm nearly certain I remember learning that you cannot file a civil suit on the behalf of someone else unless you have been personally affected by what you're suing for.

Yes you can. Canadians, check your merchandise 'contracts'...you know, the fine print included in your software bundle, etc etc...generally there are jurisdictional clauses which mean if you have a beef, you need to take it to where they say...which is often somewhere in the US.

But...on what grounds would you be suing the US gov't?


I don't have thorough knowledge of the US constitution (though I do have an online copy available) so I can't say under what specific laws right now, but basically for war crimes, torture, abuse of power, libel (bush at least once publicy referred to the uncharged, untried, accused prisoners as "terrorists"), anti-social behaviour, and every other thing I can think of, no matter how small.

On a side note, can I sue Tony Blair for false advertising as he claimed he wouldn't put tax up?

Not even God could help you.

Not even God could help you.

Yeah, that guy is on too many people's sides anyway to really be trustworthy.

...in regards to the Abu Gharib abuse? And has someone done it already? And could I do it, being an Englishman who lives in England?
Even people who've been in get their cases lobbed out of court because "it might endanger national security".

No chance, sadly.

...in regards to the Abu Gharib abuse? And has someone done it already? And could I do it, being an Englishman who lives in England?
You'd have to show standing to bring the suit in the US courts, and that would be especially difficult. But in the World Court? Maybe.

sovereign immunity. Aint that a bitch.

Actually, if you were able to sue, which you can't, unless you just want to throw your money away. Congress authorized the war. The war in Iraq wasn't solely President Bush. So you'd have to sue the entire US government, which would be very unlikely to ever happen. People seem to forget that both republican and democrats are the ones who authorized the war. The President gave the go ahead after the authorization.

As Arthais said, the Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity (something we inherited from English Common Law, btw) disallows any suit against a Sovereign State unless that state expressly permits it to occur. That happens more often than you might think, but I seriously doubt it would occur in this case.

Actually, if you were able to sue, which you can't, unless you just want to throw your money away. Congress authorized the war. The war in Iraq wasn't solely President Bush. So you'd have to sue the entire US government, which would be very unlikely to ever happen. People seem to forget that both republican and democrats are the ones who authorized the war. The President gave the go ahead after the authorization.

congress authorized human rights violations?

No I doubt you can sue President Bush while he is in office.
I believe there are specific barriers intended to prevent the President being restrained in his or her duties through entanglements in civil court.

Otherwise in even a small group some time-waster with a grudge against any aspect of buracracy would sue the President - multiply the potential for such nuisnances by the large size of the population of the US and if the President were not specifically protected, he'd spend his whole term in civil court arguing that it is not his fault little Joe Smith cut his foot on glass when running bare-foot in Yellowstone Park.

Add to this the fact that it wouldnt be easy to demonstrate you have any standing, even if you could prove a cause of action.

Why use the courts when a rifle and a few accurate shots will do the job?

Why use the courts when a rifle and a few accurate shots will do the job?

That would be illegal and to advocate such is a violation of US Law and subject to arrest for threatening the life of the President of the United States.

That would be illegal and to advocate such is a violation of US Law and subject to arrest for threatening the life of the President of the United States.

Where's the United States?

That would be illegal and to advocate such is a violation of US Law and subject to arrest for threatening the life of the President of the United States.
Some places it would be. I'm not sure it would be everywhere.

Some places it would be. I'm not sure it would be everywhere.

It's legal pretty much everywhere not the United States.

It's legal pretty much everywhere not the United States.
Not necessarily. In many places advocating a serious crime (for instance murder) is a criminal act.

No I doubt you can sue President Bush while he is in office.
I believe there are specific barriers intended to prevent the President being restrained in his or her duties through entanglements in civil court.
I still think the biggest problem in Multiland's scenario is that as a British citizen with no apparent connection to anyone tortured at Abu Ghraib, he lacks standing to bring any suit. But you may have a point here as well. When Paula Jones sued Clinton, the suit went forward because it didn't interfere with his presidential duties--and that gave us the Lewinsky deposition, etc. But when it comes to matters of public policy, there may be a wall between civil suits and the president.

Where's the United States?

:rolleyes:

A person can sue anybody, they just need evidence and a rational argument, and that is where so many Bush haters fall into the pit. After all, war funding could be cut and the President impeached, starting in January. Will it happen? No. Because the Democrats lack evidence.

...in regards to the Abu Gharib abuse? And has someone done it already? And could I do it, being an Englishman who lives in England?

Why, first of all, could you sue the administration because people abused prisoners in Abu Ghraib? You'd have to prove that the administration was solely responsible for committing the atrocities, and that would require one hell of a Watergate-type scandal to even have a remote chance of working.

Second of all, and off topic, I'm just wondering - Why is it these terrorists or whoever in these jails complaining about their treatment when they blindfold our own civilians, show them pleading in front of the camera to leave Iraq, then behead them while the camera is still rolling? If an American was to do that, the issue would be so embarrassing that we'd HAVE to leave Iraq.

But, of course, these are Islamic fundamentalists we are dealing with, and since they have no concept of the Geneva convention (at least, while they are beheading civilian captives) or human rights, we don't have to press that issue.

A person can sue anybody, they just need evidence and a rational argument, and that is where so many Bush haters fall into the pit. After all, war funding could be cut and the President impeached, starting in January. Will it happen? No. Because the Democrats lack evidence.

NO, because there's no precedent for impeaching a president after Congress allows an administration to go to war.

There's also no precedent for impeaching a president for being in a war in the first place.

NO, because there's no precedent for impeaching a president after Congress allows an administration to go to war.

There's also no precedent for impeaching a president for being in a war in the first place.


Of course. Because the action that you are talking about was and is legal.

Of course. Because the action that you are talking about was and is legal.

which? going to war or impeachment?

Chill dudes, it was a joke, or was it....

The Democrat senate passed the very use of force that President Bush persued. The information and reasoning that President Bush gave was exactly the same given by the majority of the Senate Democrats both before and after we knew who President Bush even was.

The Democrat senate passed the very use of force that President Bush persued. The information and reasoning that President Bush gave was exactly the same given by the majority of the Senate Democrats both before and after we knew who President Bush even was.

true.

both Kerry and Edwards saw the same evidence Bush saw and made the same conclusion - Invade Iraq.

why the white house isnt pursuing this, i havent the foggiest. does show how iffy Kerry really is on some issues, though.

I am glad to see a non-kool aid drinker here.;)

Why, first of all, could you sue the administration because people abused prisoners in Abu Ghraib? You'd have to prove that the administration was solely responsible for committing the atrocities, and that would require one hell of a Watergate-type scandal to even have a remote chance of working.
If the other barriers to bringing a suite didnt apply and this were a 'normal rules' civil- suite, then no it wouldnt be necessary to prove sole responsibility in order to prove a cause of action and successfully prosecute a civil suite.

If the other barriers to bringing a suite didnt apply and this were a 'normal rules' civil- suite, then no it wouldnt be necessary to prove sole responsibility in order to prove a cause of action and successfully prosecute a civil suite.

NO. because those responsible for torturing those prisoners acted alone and without consent from the US govt.

NO. because those responsible for torturing those prisoners acted alone and without consent from the US govt.
Not relevent.

Your earlier statement was a generalisation about legal culpability (and proof of); that earlier statement is simply wrong.

As for your more specific statement above, that doesnt necessitate the exclusion of culpability either.

...in regards to the Abu Gharib abuse? And has someone done it already? And could I do it, being an Englishman who lives in England?



Its already being dealt with, don't even think about wasting any time.

Not relevent.

Your earlier statement was a generalisation about legal culpability (and proof of); that statement is simply wrong.

As for your more specific statement above, that doesnt necessitate the exclusion of culpability either.

So... who is responsible, then?

So... who is responsible, then?
'Responsible' isnt the issue. The point at issue is 'culpability'.

It isnt true that 'sole responsibilty' is a necessary condition for being found culpable at law. It is not true that if one neither participates in, nor consents to/authorises an act they necessarily cannot be found legally culpable in connection with that act.

If Bush is not responsible in this particular case, the above still holds true and your two earlier statements both remain untrue. The same applies even if Bush is not culpable. Whether or not Bush is culpable is a function of factors such as those I describe above. Whether or not the facts I describe above are true, is not a function of whether or not Bush is either responsible or culpable in this particular case.

true.

both Kerry and Edwards saw the same evidence Bush saw and made the same conclusion - Invade Iraq.

why the white house isnt pursuing this, i havent the foggiest. does show how iffy Kerry really is on some issues, though.

Of course, the info that was given to Congress was doctored. The reason that nothing has been done yet (as far as impeachment, etc) is because a Republican controlled congress would never give the go ahead for investigations to complile the evidence. That may change now, but there is so much to do, that I am not sure that it will be a priority.

Not necessarily. In many places advocating a serious crime (for instance murder) is a criminal act.

Most places inciting a serious crime is illegal. Talking about it is not. And the kind of place where it is, I don't imagine they much care about the US president.

Of course, the info that was given to Congress was doctored. The reason that nothing has been done yet (as far as impeachment, etc) is because a Republican controlled congress would never give the go ahead for investigations to complile the evidence. That may change now, but there is so much to do, that I am not sure that it will be a priority.
Congresswomen, Cynthia McKinney introduced articles of impeachment against Bush, Rice and Cheney on the 8th of this month, but that doesnt mean that anything will actually come of it.

It seems DIY inclined US citizens keen on impeachment dont have to wait around hoping someone else will act. Apparently they can exercise their own right as individual citizens to submit their own memorial for impeachment. (http://impeachforpeace.org/ImpeachNow.html)

Most places inciting a serious crime is illegal. Talking about it is not. And the kind of place where it is, I don't imagine they much care about the US president.
As interesting as that is, I dont see what it has to do with my comments. I made no comment about your location, nor about whether or not you specifically were advocating a crime of some kind.

You need attention that bad? Seriously though there is a department that handles it. Write your name, number, address and write telling the US government and the Bush administration of your grievences. After done with that wad it up into a nice little ball and throw it in that circular container next to your desk. It is actually a US government transporter. After tossing the wad into the circular container it will send the information quickly to George Bush's desk. :rolleyes:

Don't be silly. It goes into his head. That's how he gets information into his head. That's why we know he isn't going to do anything with the Iraq Study Group's suggestions. He wouldn't go through a process as inefficient as reading it if he actually wanted to know what it said.

...in regards to the Abu Gharib abuse? And has someone done it already? And could I do it, being an Englishman who lives in England?

Well, someone already tried sue under the RICO act. I believe the finding was that you can't sue the president under the RICO act because that law is only meant for keeping Anglo businesses from having to compete with Italians.

As interesting as that is, I dont see what it has to do with my comments. I made no comment about your location, nor about whether or not you specifically were advocating a crime of some kind.

Because advocating a crime is not the same as inciting it.

Because advocating a crime is not the same as inciting it.
I've not claimed that they are the same. Why are you quoting my comments with yours? Nothing you are saying either agrees, disagrees, confirms or repudiates anything said in the comments of mine that you are quoting so far as I can tell.:confused:

...in regards to the Abu Gharib abuse? And has someone done it already? And could I do it, being an Englishman who lives in England?

Even if you were able, the US has sovereign immunity. You have to get the permission of the US in order to sue it.

'Course, you never wanted to sue Hussein for gassing the Kurds, filling mass graves, his rape rooms, etc., did you?

Nah. Hussein was a pure angel, right?

Even if you were able, the US has sovereign immunity. You have to get the permission of the US in order to sue it.

'Course, you never wanted to sue Hussein for gassing the Kurds, filling mass graves, his rape rooms, etc., did you?

Nah. Hussein was a pure angel, right?

How does one follow the other? Only in Retardo World does thinking that the Abu Ghraib prison scandal was a bad thing make you a fan of Saddam Hussein.

The Democrat senate passed the very use of force that President Bush persued. The information and reasoning that President Bush gave was exactly the same given by the majority of the Senate Democrats both before and after we knew who President Bush even was.

Actually, it was a Republican Senate that passed the legislation. Just some of the democrats agreed to it.

Of course, the info that was given to Congress was doctored.

:rolleyes: If we want to go down that road, and I am going to get hammered for even bringing this up, but then one can say that the evidence was doctored prior to Operation Desert Fox. After all, most of the intelligence used by President Bush to invade Iraq was the same evidence that Clinton used to bomb Iraq.

:rolleyes: If we want to go down that road, and I am going to get hammered for even bringing this up, but then one can say that the evidence was doctored prior to Operation Desert Fox. After all, most of the intelligence used by President Bush to invade Iraq was the same evidence that Clinton used to bomb Iraq.
I won't hammer you. I'll just point out that the intel Clinton used in 1998 was relatively fresh. When Bush used it, it was the same stuff, and was therefore at least five years old.

I was opposed to this war well before it started--I was even making posts here to that effect (under another nation name, of course), and here's why. On the one hand, this war was going to be a cakewalk--greeted as liberators, the Iraqi Army couldn't hope to stand against us, etc. etc. etc. On the other hand, Iraq posed a grave threat that we had to address NOW! and not wait for another second because they could attack us with 45 minutes warning and the smoking gun could be a mushroom cloud. Those two things don't go together, so someone was making shit up, and given the Bush administration's less than stellar track record already, I tended to disbelieve them. It just didn't add up.

Does that make me smarter than the average Senator and Congressperson? Maybe--though that's faint praise, to say the least. What it really makes me is cynical when it comes to politicians saying we must go to war.

I won't hammer you. I'll just point out that the intel Clinton used in 1998 was relatively fresh. When Bush used it, it was the same stuff, and was therefore at least five years old.

I was opposed to this war well before it started--I was even making posts here to that effect (under another nation name, of course), and here's why. On the one hand, this war was going to be a cakewalk--greeted as liberators, the Iraqi Army couldn't hope to stand against us, etc. etc. etc. On the other hand, Iraq posed a grave threat that we had to address NOW! and not wait for another second because they could attack us with 45 minutes warning and the smoking gun could be a mushroom cloud. Those two things don't go together, so someone was making shit up, and given the Bush administration's less than stellar track record already, I tended to disbelieve them. It just didn't add up.

Does that make me smarter than the average Senator and Congressperson? Maybe--though that's faint praise, to say the least. What it really makes me is cynical when it comes to politicians saying we must go to war.
Well, we might make a new rule.

When you change administrations, you can't keep the same CIA Chief.

That would have at least eliminated the George Tenet "slam dunk".

I would add that it's apparent that you have more functioning brain cells than Reyes.

How does one follow the other? Only in Retardo World does thinking that the Abu Ghraib prison scandal was a bad thing make you a fan of Saddam Hussein.

It's called consistency.

Further, care to point out where I said he was a "fan" of Hussein's?

I didn't. I pointed out that he had no problem with Hussein's acts, yet wishes to blame Bush for the acts of individuals.

Those at Abu Ghraib who so evilly and cruelly pointed at genitals did so against policy. And, they were courts-martialed.

Blaming Bush for it, is an exercise in ridiculous futility.

Well, we might make a new rule.

When you change administrations, you can't keep the same CIA Chief.

That would have at least eliminated the George Tenet "slam dunk".
Cheney would've still gotten what he wanted, no matter who the CIA chief was.

Cheney would've still gotten what he wanted, no matter who the CIA chief was.

Do you have proof that this all occurred because it was what "Cheney wanted"?

It's called consistency.In Retardo World perhaps.

Further, care to point out where I said he was a "fan" of Hussein's?

I didn't. I pointed out that he had no problem with Hussein's acts, yet wishes to blame Bush for the acts of individuals.Except that there's nothing to indicate that the poster had no problem with Hussein's acts. That only happened in what passes for your brain.

Do you have proof that this all occurred because it was what "Cheney wanted"?

Bob Woodward does, among others.

In Retardo World perhaps.

Except that there's nothing to indicate that the poster had no problem with Hussein's acts. That only happened in what passes for your brain.

Bravo!

What arguments - the skill, the technique!

What a Master Debator!

Bravo!

What arguments - the skill, the technique!

What a Master Debator!
I own your ass often enough.

I own your ass often enough.

"Retardo World" - what a great technique.

I own your ass often enough.

Yeah...

That must be it...

Why use the courts when a rifle and a few accurate shots will do the job?


how does it feel to advocate terrorism?

...in regards to the Abu Gharib abuse? And has someone done it already? And could I do it, being an Englishman who lives in England?

You can not sue the United States Government in the US without their permission. Yes, that is a true statement not a joke.

You'd have to have some pretty amazing lawyers.

And additionally, you can't use America's civil courts if you're not an American citizen, to the best of my knowledge, and certainly not as plaintiff.

And the personnel involved in the Abu Ghraib scandal were punished, were they not?


Well, we've established that you know absolutely nothing about American law and you could very well be a complete moron.

Going by your claim that non US citizens not only can't use American civil courts, but also can't be the plaintiffs in a case, then if a member of Ku klux klan decided to kill hisself some of them daym Ayrabs terrorists and took his shotgun and drove down to the local convieneince store and blew the Sikh who was in the US on a student visa, and hence not a US citizen in half, the Klansman could not be charged with 1st degree murder, in fact he couldn'ty be charged with any crime, but instead would be given the key to the city as a well as a lifetime supply of blowjobs and $10,000,000 in cash.

Your complete and utter ignorance and failure to graps even the most basic concepts of the law is staggering.

And as for your claim that those involved in the Abu Ghraib scandel were punished, if by punished you mean given a slap on the wrist, a stern talking to and then sent right back to the prison or given a promotion, if that's your idea of punishment, then sure, they were punished, quite harshly.

You can not sue the United States Government in the US without their permission. Yes, that is a true statement not a joke.

No it's complete and utter bullshit.

The ACLU has routinely sued the government countless times over the past 50 years and they never had to get permission to do so.

And who exactly does one get permission from?

The President?

You give morons a bad name.

No it's complete and utter bullshit.

The ACLU has routinely sued the government countless times over the past 50 years and they never had to get permission to do so.

And who exactly does one get permission from?

The President?

You give morons a bad name.

Wow....

I don't even have time to go into this other than to say "statutory waiver of immunity" and call you a dumbass.

No it's complete and utter bullshit.

The ACLU has routinely sued the government countless times over the past 50 years and they never had to get permission to do so.

And who exactly does one get permission from?

The President?

You give morons a bad name.

Actually, the ACLU sues individuals working for the government--for instance, Donald Rumsfeld has been sued. But you can't sue the government itself.

Umm...it depends on who's doing the suing. The federal government has been sued before and it has both won and lost cases. (a nice little aspect of US government is that indpendent judiciary). At any given time there are probably 100 lawsuits out from foreign people against the US government. But you...yourself could no sue. You have no legal base to do so. another government could do it...but...ehhhh that would be a violation of our sovereign rights especially considering that it would have to be tried in an international court. And i think that a big part of why you started this thread is just to stereotypically bash the american system of government. honestly, if your going to start a thread about something like this...make it worthwhile...ok.

In Canada we have something called the Government Act-a law that forbids the suing the government for negligence.....but we have also had people compensated by the Government when wronged by the Government...it makes no sense to me......

Suing the US government in US courts is unlikely to be possible for you. At first it would seem that filing in the World Court might be a good idea, but the United States has already demonstrated a willingness to ignore everything it doesnt like about what the World Court says, even when the UN weighs in with the WC. I am afraid that until the US becomes punishable in some court, your quest is hopeless. That is why I wish the rest of the world should trade sanction the US until we agree to abide by UN resolutions (I would even hope for a repeal of the one nation veto). But it is never going to happen. I think that the only hope is for a regime change in Washington DC. I will run for president eventually, but not for a good while yet.

Well, we've established that you know absolutely nothing about American law and you could very well be a complete moron.

Going by your claim that non US citizens not only can't use American civil courts, but also can't be the plaintiffs in a case, then if a member of Ku klux klan decided to kill hisself some of them daym Ayrabs terrorists and took his shotgun and drove down to the local convieneince store and blew the Sikh who was in the US on a student visa, and hence not a US citizen in half, the Klansman could not be charged with 1st degree murder, in fact he couldn'ty be charged with any crime, but instead would be given the key to the city as a well as a lifetime supply of blowjobs and $10,000,000 in cash.

Your complete and utter ignorance and failure to graps even the most basic concepts of the law is staggering.

And as for your claim that those involved in the Abu Ghraib scandel were punished, if by punished you mean given a slap on the wrist, a stern talking to and then sent right back to the prison or given a promotion, if that's your idea of punishment, then sure, they were punished, quite harshly.

Actually he's talking about a private civil action which is radically different from the example you provided.

Suing the US government in US courts is unlikely to be possible for you. At first it would seem that filing in the World Court might be a good idea, but the United States has already demonstrated a willingness to ignore everything it doesnt like about what the World Court says, even when the UN weighs in with the WC. I am afraid that until the US becomes punishable in some court, your quest is hopeless. That is why I wish the rest of the world should trade sanction the US until we agree to abide by UN resolutions (I would even hope for a repeal of the one nation veto). But it is never going to happen. I think that the only hope is for a regime change in Washington DC. I will run for president eventually, but not for a good while yet.

The world court is a joke and has no - zero - authority.

One more reason to make sure I have firearms in case the world court decides to try something.

Actually, the ACLU sues individuals working for the government--for instance, Donald Rumsfeld has been sued. But you can't sue the government itself.

Christ, how dense can you be?

In the example you made, Rumsfled is considered to be the government.

The world court is a joke and has no - zero - authority.

One more reason to make sure I have firearms in case the world court decides to try something.

the world court a joke?....I disagree it's Americans thinking that they are above International Law in regards to human rights that are a joke.....the World Court has done an admirable job in prosecuting war criminals, the USA is afraid of it because it would destroy the myth of US righteousness if any of it's public officials were to be held for trial(and there many who could be and would be justly convicted).

the world court a joke?....I disagree it's Americans thinking that they are above International Law in regards to human rights that are a joke.....the World Court has done an admirable job in prosecuting war criminals, the USA is afraid of it because it would destroy the myth of US righteousness if any of it's public officials were to be held for trial(and there many who could be and would be justly convicted).

I do not think that all Americans feel that they are above the World Court, but the current administration sure does. Diplomacy seems to be a dirty word to them. It has not always been so. One thing for sure... the regime change is definitely needed.

the world court a joke?....

Yup.

I disagree it's Americans thinking that they are above International Law in regards to human rights that are a joke.....

International law is also a joke.

We do not have a "one world government." Therefore, a "world court" has no jurisdiction over nations - except, of course, those spineless enough to give up their sovereignty to such a cursed organization.

Yup.



International law is also a joke.

We do not have a "one world government." Therefore, a "world court" has no jurisdiction over nations - except, of course, those spineless enough to give up their sovereignty to such a cursed organization.

those countries that have nothing to fear consent to be judged by the World Court, only those that ignore human rights defy it.....guess where that puts the USA, a country that harbors war criminals and terrorists....

Christ, how dense can you be?

In the example you made, Rumsfled is considered to be the government.
Let me explain again--and this time I'll type slowly so maybe you'll follow. Unless you have the permission of the federal government, you cannot name the federal government as a defendant in a lawsuit, i.e. you cannot sue the USA. You can, however, sue its representatives. The difference may seem small, but it isn't.

sovereign immunity. Aint that a bitch.
Not in Spain and Germany!

The world court is a "joke" because the most powerful nation in the world is exceedingly chauvenist.

The UN is international governance, but like any government only has the power the governed vest in it. The USA has decided that the UN can have power over weaker nations, but only so long as it does not conflict with US interests. This is foolish and short sighted, the United States is the target of so much hatred because of its arrogance and the evil things it has done to innocent people around the world (not that it has not also done some extremely good things as well) If we were to abide by international law everyone would be so much safer. The war in Iraq icreases terrorist threats to the United States, the Bush administration knew this, and yet violated international law on preventitive war anyways. Foolishness.

HMMM no explanation from Myseneum on why the World Court is a joke...can we assume that it was just spontaneous outburst with no rational to backup his claim?....

the United States is the target of so much hatred because of its arrogance and the evil things it has done to innocent people around the world (not that it has not also done some extremely good things as well) If we were to abide by international law everyone would be so much safer. The war in Iraq icreases terrorist threats to the United States, the Bush administration knew this, and yet violated international law on preventitive war anyways. Foolishness.[/QUOTE]

The world holds us as citizens accountable because of our Democracy. In some ways they are right to do so. We as citizens MUST hold our government to a higher standard if we want the world to look at us any better. WE should, as American citizens take the Bush administration to task for the crimes they have committed. Then perhaps the world would take a different view of us. Then we would have earned it!

Not in Spain and Germany!

only because they chose otherwise.