Howard Berkowitz wrote in message ...
In article ,
(Fred the Red Shirt) wrote:

Howard Berkowitz wrote in message
...
In article , "Pierre-Henri
Baras" wrote:

"OXMORON1" a écrit dans le message de news:
...
Last night while doing my weekly drive through the Ozarks, I heard
a
comment on
a radio program along the lines of "There is no statute of
limitations
on
war
crimes"
Not being a legal expert, is this true?

Yep, along with crimes against humanity. Since a 1968 UN treaty.

There might be a fairly strong defense against extradition. Wouldn't
trying someone under a 1968 treaty, for acts in the sixties or
seventies, violate the prohibition against ex post facto laws?

An ex post facto law is a law that criminalizes past acts. Thus a
change to or elimination of a statute of limititations, even a
retroactive one, cannot be an ex post facto law because it would
not criminalize past acts, it would only remove a barrier to
prosecution of past acts that were already, at the time, illegal.

As I said, ex post facto. The Constitution and US Code did not have
provisions about trial for war crimes. Civil murder, yes. Provisions in
the UCMJ, yes.

I fail to see your point. Is it not all but certain that any American
charged with a war crime will be charged with something that was
already a crime under the US code prior to 1968?


People often confuse the concepts of ex post facto and retroactive.

Also note that some of the 'sixties' and all of the 'seventies'
post-date 1968.

Point to either;
1. A section of US code that criminalizes the presidential actions
being criticized,

First, please explain what presidential actions are being criticized.


I repeat. Ex post facto, because the acts in question are not criminal
in US code.

The question as it appeard in rec.aviation.military was a general one,
not related to any specific acts by any specific person.

Even were a president impeached and convicted, that still
doesn't make the treaty the superior document.

So I dunno where you're coming from here.

--

FF