[QUOTE=ewmayer;509364]Nixon and Kissinger didn't *personally* drop any bombs or napalm in Vietnam or across the border in Cambodia, either, dude. Nor did they personally convey the monies needed to fund such operations. Talk about willfully obtuse![/QUOTE]
Nice job of changing the subject (though not the topic). We [i]were[/i] talking about Central and South America, and calling Elliott Abrams a "war criminal." IMO a much better argument can be made for US officials' responsibility for actions in Vietnam, since it was the US military doing the deeds, so the issue of command authority is pertinent -- just as was the case with Little Slobo. But [i]unlike[/i] any case in Central or South America of Reagan Admin or more recent vintage.

The CIA-organized coup in Guatemala would seem to offer the best case for prosecuting US officials directly for bad acts, since our people were directly involved. Unfortunately, most of the officials and participants are probably dead by now, and Guatemala does not, AFAIK, have a regime likely to bring a case. Justice too long delayed...

WRT more recent "death squad" operations etc., the accused would be soldiers and officials of the countries in which the deeds were done; but again, the current regimes would be unlikely to bring such a case. I do however recall an international arrest warrant being issued for Augusto Pinochet by a Spanish judge, but I also seem to recall him being kicked loose and dying of old age. Still, this does at least offer the possibility of a war crimes or crimes against humanity case being lodged in the ICC against those directly responsible for atrocities in Central and South America. And if that were done, it might become possible to bring charges against US officials like Abrams for impeding prosecution of those cases. It might not be all that you or I might like to see folks like him in the dock (or in a cell or on the gallows) for, but at least it seems to be legally plausible.

[b]EDIT:[/b] It occurs to me that the ICC might not have jurisdiction, since the cases would seem to predate the Rome Statute. It might be possible to use an earlier international statute, but this is a procedural issue I'm not qualified to address.

[QUOTE=Dr Sardonicus;509339]Dude! If you insist on using legal terms, you had better use them properly.[/QUOTE]

Dude! Law is interpreted software, written by humans for humans. Sometimes debugging is needed. Ever heard of appeals?

[QUOTE=kladner;509343]Bugger off, 'Sir'.[/QUOTE]

I know this got a little heated, but I've also interacted with you both for quite a while.

You both seem to be, generally, on the same page.

And disagreements are healthy! :bow:

[QUOTE=chalsall;509435]Dude! Law is interpreted software, written by humans for humans. Sometimes debugging is needed. Ever heard of appeals?[/QUOTE]
Of course! As in the joke (whose punch line I used previously on this Forum) in which a man who has not been in court for his trial is however represented by counsel, who gains an acquittal. The lawyer immediately sends his client the good news, saying "Justice has prevailed!" The client sends a reply: "Appeal immediately!"

Unfortunately, in some countries, this is actually done, such as in a recent case in China in which a Canadian already convicted of drug trafficking and sentenced to 15 years, had his sentence appealed by the prosecution, and was resentenced -- to death.

Here, however, we were discussing "war crimes," "war criminals," and closely-related terms, which, unlike such terms as "treason," do not have any commonly-accepted meaning or usage [i]except[/i] their legal definitions and usages.

Declaring someone a "war criminal" when the charge cannot even plausibly be brought, let alone prosecuted, would not seem to be a verdict eligible for appeal.

[QUOTE=Dr Sardonicus;509444]Unfortunately, in some countries, this is actually done, such as in a recent case in China in which a Canadian already convicted of drug trafficking and sentenced to 15 years, had his sentence appealed by the prosecution, and was resentenced -- to death.[/QUOTE]

Collateral damage.

[QUOTE=Dr Sardonicus;509444]Declaring someone a "war criminal" when the charge cannot even plausibly be brought, let alone prosecuted, would not seem to be a verdict eligible for appeal.[/QUOTE]

I understand, and agree, with what you are arguing here.

Language is important....

[QUOTE=Dr Sardonicus;509444]Of course! As in the joke (whose punch line I used previously on this Forum) in which a man who has not been in court for his trial is however represented by counsel, who gains an acquittal. The lawyer immediately sends his client the good news, saying "Justice has prevailed!" The client sends a reply: "Appeal immediately!"

Unfortunately, in some countries, this is actually done, such as in a recent case in China in which a Canadian already convicted of drug trafficking and sentenced to 15 years, had his sentence appealed by the prosecution, and was resentenced -- to death.

Here, however, we were discussing "war crimes," "war criminals," and closely-related terms, which, unlike such terms as "treason," do not have any commonly-accepted meaning or usage [I]except[/I] their legal definitions and usages.

Declaring someone a "war criminal" when the charge cannot even plausibly be brought, let alone prosecuted, would not seem to be a verdict eligible for appeal.[/QUOTE]
I yield the field. You are incontrovertibly correct in all you pronouncements. You not only define words, but you solely determine the terms under which they will be defined.

The abusive personal insults and arrogant phrasing prove that you should have your way in all discussions.

Have at it. This place is your sole territory from now on, at least as far as I am concerned.

[QUOTE=chalsall;509445]I understand, and agree, with what you are arguing here.

Language is important....[/QUOTE]Thanks for your encouraging words!

Yes, language and the meaning of words are important -- themes in such literary works as [u]Nineteen Eighty-Four[/u] and [u]Through the Looking-Glass[/u]. And, of course, in [u]Alice's Adventures in Wonderland[/u] we have, [quote]'Let the jury consider their verdict,' the King said, for about the twentieth time that day.

'No, no!' said the Queen. 'Sentence first—verdict afterwards.'[/quote]

[QUOTE=Dr Sardonicus;509454]Yes, language and the meaning of words are important...[/QUOTE]

Without meaning to blow sunshine up my own ass, I wrote the following on a white board during a meeting recently:[QUOTE]George Orwell would be terrified.

Joseph Stalin would be thrilled.[/QUOTE]

Meanwhile, in Venezuela, the Humanitarian Aid Show goes on. "Saint" Nicolas Maduro's troops have managed to kill at least one civilian and burn a couple of the trucks, but apparently a couple others got through. Maduro has closed Venezuela's borders with Colombia and Brazil, and has severed diplomatic ties with Colombia.

To me, the purely theatrical nature of the whole operation is apparent. I mean, if folks were actually intent on getting food and medicine in to Venezuela, there is a tried-and-true method of getting border guards to turn a blind eye. It is called [i]bribery[/i]. And the smuggling would be done [i]quietly[/i]. The burning of the trucks must have been doubly heartbreaking -- on the one hand, for civilians who are hard-up for food and medical care, and on the other for soldiers who didn't get to steal any of it.

Perhaps most farcical of all is, calls for and by Russia and China to uphold the "sovereignty" of Venezuela against the big, bad [i]Cheeto Bandito Yanqui[/i]. Pardon my incredulity, but would this be the same kind of "sovereignty" enjoyed by the nations of Eastern Europe for the 45 years following WWII? The kind being reprised in Ukraine (especially Crimea) today? The kind being enjoyed by Tibet for the last 70 years?

The February 27, 2019 performance of Mark Meadows, (R-NC 11th District) in [strike]trying to discredit[/strike] questioning Michael Cohen has IMO outdone Rep. Omar's abusive tactics in "questioning" Elliott Abrams.

For starters (or perhaps I should say [i]non[/i]starters), Meadows tried to prevent Cohen from testifying at all by trying (unsuccessfully) to postpone the hearings. Once he got the chance to question the witness, he used the tactic of asking questions, then by repeated interruption not allowing the witness to answer. At one point Cohen, being interrupted one time too many in the middle of an answer, said, "Let me finish!" and Meadows said, "No!"

One of the times Meadows was using the "ask and interrupt" tactic, he was asking Cohen about the number of times he had talked to Novartis officials, repeatedly interrupting Cohen's responses with "How many times, how many times," at one point even saying, "How any times, yes or... That's a question."

Even more fun was when Meadows used Lynne Patton (a black woman, formerly a Trump Org. employee, now at HUD) as a prop while he tried to pretend that [i]Il Duce[/i] isn't a racist.

MEADOWS: You made some very demeaning comments about the president that Ms. Patton doesn't agree with. She says that as the daughter of a man born in Birmingham, Alabama, that there is no way that she would work for an individual who is racist. How do you reconcile the two of those?

COHEN: Neither should I, as the son of a Holocaust survivor.

[QUOTE=Dr Sardonicus;509496]Meanwhile, in Venezuela, the Humanitarian Aid Show goes on. "Saint" Nicolas Maduro's troops have managed to kill at least one civilian and burn a couple of the trucks, but apparently a couple others got through. Maduro has closed Venezuela's borders with Colombia and Brazil, and has severed diplomatic ties with Colombia.

To me, the purely theatrical nature of the whole operation is apparent. I mean, if folks were actually intent on getting food and medicine in to Venezuela, there is a tried-and-true method of getting border guards to turn a blind eye. It is called [I]bribery[/I]. And the smuggling would be done [I]quietly[/I]. The burning of the trucks must have been doubly heartbreaking -- on the one hand, for civilians who are hard-up for food and medical care, and on the other for soldiers who didn't get to steal any of it.

Perhaps most farcical of all is, calls for and by Russia and China to uphold the "sovereignty" of Venezuela against the big, bad [I]Cheeto Bandito Yanqui[/I]. Pardon my incredulity, but would this be the same kind of "sovereignty" enjoyed by the nations of Eastern Europe for the 45 years following WWII? The kind being reprised in Ukraine (especially Crimea) today? The kind being enjoyed by Tibet for the last 70 years?[/QUOTE]
Saint is a legally defined term under [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canonization"]canon law[/URL]. You are really being sloppy and misusing the word. Remember, "language and the meaning of words are important."
Some august sage said that. I guess sages ignore their own dictates when distorting words suits their immediate purposes.

Have a care Sir. Language can avenge itself in many mysterious ways. Since no other law defines "saint," we must perforce honor that definition alone.

[QUOTE=kladner;509642]Saint is a legally defined term under [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canonization"]canon law[/URL]. You are really being sloppy and misusing the word. Remember, "language and the meaning of words are important."
Some august sage said that. I guess sages ignore their own dictates when distorting words suits their immediate purposes.

Have a care Sir. Language can avenge itself in many mysterious ways. Since no other law defines "saint," we must perforce honor that definition alone.[/QUOTE]
I [i]did[/i] have a care: I put the word in quotes. That is generally accepted as an indication that the usage isn't entirely serious.

I was trying, however feebly, to live up to my moniker. In point of fact, I do not consider Mr. Maduro to be saintly. I also thought the similarity to the name Saint Nicholas, the dispenser of free gifts, might be apropos. [Also, AFAIK, except in the figurative laudatory usage ("you're a saint," or "living saint"), saints all share the property of being dead, so Mr. Maduro does not qualify.]

I am unable to conceive of anyone considering the appellation "Saint" to be pejorative (at least, if taken seriously), so I am unconcerned about a defamation suit.

If you can find someone who actually took my usage seriously, I suggest you refrain from taking any advice from them.