3 ms·

Doesn't the UN have a duty to pursue the allegations and the evidence? What we're talking about here is war crimes is it not?

• mpyne 13y ago
  The commission came to its conclusion using publically accessible information, so if the UN has a duty now, it also had it before. But even if the UN does investigate it, they would need to tread very carefully. Whatever else you might think about President Obama, he's not an idiot, and what /that/ means is that he cannot under any circumstances allow UN anybody to arrest any Americans on U.S. soil unless he can get the Congress to buy off on that. Anything other than that would be political suicide. And needless to say, but Congress will be in no hurry to turn over anyone to be tried by some other tribunal. If it's really decided to be that bad they will want to prosecute in a U.S. court, but under almost no circumstance would they allow some other court to take a hack at it. With that in mind it would be foolish for the UN to attempt an arrest only to be forcefully rebuffed as that would make them appear impotent. ("Never give an order you expect won't be carried out"). Mind, they might actually be impotent, but it still is better for the UN that they don't appear so.
  • darxius 13y ago
    So, basically, people in positions of power can get away with almost anything. Even murder and torture. What the fuck is wrong with society?