89-year-old former Auschwitz guard arrested in Philadelphia

[politicus]

This man is obviously awful and should face justice, though it's interesting that the war criminals who have held office for the past 60 years have not and will never get the same.

Milosevic ended up on trial at the Hague, though he died before his trial could be completed.  Karadzic and Mladic are both currently on trial.  Saddam Hussein was convicted of a tiny fraction of the murders he committed, but there's a scale issue there in that your punishment can't go higher than the death penalty.  Charles Taylor is serving a fifty year sentence for warcrimes.  It's true that a depressing amount of people do get away (Pol Pot and Idi Amin are especially glaring examples) and it's problematic in the extreme that someone like Omar al-Bashir might well die in office completely unobstructed by his indictment for war crimes, but war crimes trials can and do happen in the modern world to reasonable success.

I was referring to the murderers who have sat in the Oval Office for decades.

None of whom have even been indicted, let alone convicted, of warcrimes...?  I don't get this definition.

The leaders of great powers tend to be above the law. Only the thugs from little countries (Liberia, former Yugoslavia, Rwanda, etc.) face justice.

Leaders of great powers don't commit war crimes.

That's absurd.

[politicus]

This man is obviously awful and should face justice, though it's interesting that the war criminals who have held office for the past 60 years have not and will never get the same.

Milosevic ended up on trial at the Hague, though he died before his trial could be completed.  Karadzic and Mladic are both currently on trial.  Saddam Hussein was convicted of a tiny fraction of the murders he committed, but there's a scale issue there in that your punishment can't go higher than the death penalty.  Charles Taylor is serving a fifty year sentence for warcrimes.  It's true that a depressing amount of people do get away (Pol Pot and Idi Amin are especially glaring examples) and it's problematic in the extreme that someone like Omar al-Bashir might well die in office completely unobstructed by his indictment for war crimes, but war crimes trials can and do happen in the modern world to reasonable success.

I was referring to the murderers who have sat in the Oval Office for decades.

None of whom have even been indicted, let alone convicted, of warcrimes...?  I don't get this definition.

The leaders of great powers tend to be above the law. Only the thugs from little countries (Liberia, former Yugoslavia, Rwanda, etc.) face justice.

Leaders of great powers don't commit war crimes.

That's absurd.

Name one leader alive today.

Alive today is an additional criteria which is irrelevant for the discussion, but among recently diseased Boris Yeltsin qualifies for the Chechnyan Wars, and Putin is of course fully capable of it. One of the two candidates for the Indonesian presidency is a war criminal (East Timor).

PLEASE DO NOT FEED THE SAGE

If you are talking about Snowstalker he actually has a point here.

[politicus]

Russia and Indonesia are not great powers. Besides that, Chechnya and East Timor were non-state actors so there weren't any real wars there.

Not sure if you are serious or just trolling, but deluge material anyway.

Claiming that Russia is not a great power and that civil wars are not real wars is pretty far out.

EDIT: Okay, I just checked your posting history and troll it is, so you are going on ignore.