Can the U.S. Trump International Law re: WAR CRIMES?

[The Cleaner]

Yesterday I posted a thread on the House Judiciary Committee's having passed a vote to retroactively shield Bush and his cronies of war crimes:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2182041

I realize this hasn't gone to the House floor yet, BUT...

Are there any International Law scholars out there who can tell me whether U.S. Law in this case can trump International Law? It seems to me, how can any one country presume to buck international law, especially by passing legislation to retroactively shield its leaders from war crimes so blatantly committed?

[Warpy]

1. Nope, and when a powerful nation threatens the rest of the world

through thinking the laws of civilized people no longer apply, the world has a nasty habit of uniting against them.

We're growing more isolated by the day, thanks to the insanity of the neocons. If we don't get rid of them soon, we'll be in a world war we have no hope of winning.

And most of us will be dead on the first day of it.

[gratuitous]

2. Ask Gen. Pinochet how that worked out for him

After his little stint as dictator of Chile and Senator for Life, Pinochet and his cronies passed a whole bunch of laws to give themselves immunity for their crimes against humanity. Those laws protected him as long as he stayed put in Chile.

Due to health problems, Pinochet finally had to go abroad to seek medical help, and it was during one of those forays that he was finally served with an indictment for his crimes. Henry Kissinger is in much the same situation, and has to be very careful which countries he visits.

While I don't think too many of the corrupt Bush administration folks are globe-trotters, after their term is up and their damage is done, their safe places to go will be heavily circumscribed by international law. A plane diverted due to bad weather could put him in hostile territory with a government agent just waiting to take him into custody.

[Tyler Durden]

5. Let us pray:

Oh LORD, Don't let George CRASH the next time he flies from South America to the US or vice versa, just let his plane develope a teeny tiny bit of engine trouble.

Over CUBA.

AMEN.

[bowens43]

3. Any treaty ratified by the US is the Supreme Law of the Land

on par with the Constitution. It can not be legislated away.

[Tyler Durden]

6. They seem to keep forgetting that...don't they?

[geek tragedy]

9. Treaty obligations (under US law) can be legislated away.

"Supreme law of the land" accords it equal status with legislation, but not superior status.

In essence, it's the "King of the Hill"--whichever happened last trumps. A ratified treaty can effectively repeal legislation, and vice versa.

Of course, if Congress repeals a treaty, then the US could be found in violation of its treaty obligations.

[Hosnon]

12. That is correct. Treaties are 2/3 Senate + President. Legislation is

50%+1 House + 50%+1 Senate + President.

The last in time rule is what applies.

The real question concerns liability under either U.S. law OR International law.

[gratuitous]

11. Not as a routine matter

If the U.S. is going to withdraw from a treaty, it has to go through the same legislative, executive and judicial rigamarole that amending the constitution requires. They don't have the votes or the political capital to pull the U.S. out of the Geneva Conventions, and they know it. What they're hoping is that the American people don't know it.

It's the same sort of political ledgerdemain that goes into the rhetoric about "making the tax cuts permanent." The tax code will always be fiddled with; there's no way anything about it is "permanent" in any real sense of the word. But it makes the GOP sound fiscally responsible to mouth those words, and the media are largely content to play along. I don't know why.

[Totallybushed]

4. The question is,

who enforces national law? How do they do it if the country where the war criminal resides refuses to turn him over? Do they go to war, killing many innocent people to capture him? Do they act lawlessly themselves, like the Israelis with the despicable Adolf Eichmann? Do they boycott the country? Who's going to boycott the biggest economy in the world? France?

Does the Hague have the stones required to capture and try an American president? What are they going to do about the Marines stomping on their carpets?

What does 'trump' mean to you? Morally, legally, or practically? If the later, then I would says, "yes, US law trumps International Law". Unless, of course, the SC weighs in differently. Otherwise, probably not.

[geek tragedy]

7. US law trumps international law inside the borders of the US.

Set foot in Europe, however, and all bets are off.

[endarkenment]

8. No, but who will bring us to justice?

By legalizing their crimes within the US the criminal bush cabal will shield themselves from domestic prosecution. They act on the world stage without regard to international law as they know that no other nation will stand in their way.

[ContraBass Black]

10. Yes, but this is also against US law that hasn't been repealed.

[Hosnon]

13. U.S. law can trump International Law in the U.S. judicial system. U.S. law

cannot trump International Law in the "International Law Judicial System."

Congress has the authority to release Bush from liability in U.S. courts but not under International Law.