[Vision2020] Spanish Court Considering Arrest Warrants for

[bear at moscow.com]

I have to jump in on this one!

Number one, IF they were indicted, tried and convicted, they wouldn't be handed over to 
anyone but the US Bureau of Prisons to serve out their sentences.  And as far as being
tried 
twice for the same crime, it happens defacto every day in the US. IF you commit a crime
that is 
both a violation of state and federal law, you can and often are tried by BOTH, one after
the 
other! 

Number two, the US cannot violate international law in order to protect its national
interests, 
ESPECIALLY international laws that WE have signed on to and have made US law through the
US 
Constitution. 

Number three, I DO want to see a US General that, in 2009 would use a bomb that was banned

in 2007, and killed an "old woman crossing  the street".  The bomb was banned by
international 
law, period.  Or do you think banned weapons should be used because we feel like using
them? 
It works both ways and IF we can use banned weapons, so can everyone else.  And I would
also 
like to see that same General have to answer for killing the "old woman crossing the
street" no 
matter HIOW she was killed. OR are you advocating that collateral damage that results in
the 
killing of innocent civilians is just part of war? Or is she not an innocent civilian
because she 
happened to be  crossing  the street where we were planning to bomb - IN HER OWN COUNTRY!
If you are, that puts the people killed in the World Trade Center in an entirely different

position. 

Number four,  what national secrets would be protected? A "national secret" that  violates
the 
US Constitution and US law is STILL a violation! Too often the "national secret" cross is
dragged 
out to protect  illegal and embarrassing  acts of our governments, not because they have
any 
real benefit, but because they are illegal, immoral, or embarrassing! 

Number five,no one is talking about giving or not giving aid to a country, we are talking
about  
war crimes.

Number six, what have you got against lawyers? You don't want to hear and see both sides
of 
an argument openly  debated in courts? Just because a lawyer zealously advocates a
position 
for a client, does mean that the lawyer is a "true believer" of the cause being debated
one way 
or the other. Lawyer bashing, while popular, serves no purpose at all in a reasonable
discussion 
of war crimes.

Number seven, If you don't think a world court should determine territorial boundaries,
who do 
you think should do it? Are you aware that the boundary between the United States and
Canada 
was settled by  Kaiser Wilhelm of Germany? 

Number eight, Do you really think that a bullet in the back of the head is a solution to
any 
problem?  If it is, I'm glad we have the Second Amendment so I can defend myself  from
those 
that believe as you do.



---------------------------------------------
This message was sent by First Step Internet.
           http://www.fsr.com/