Besides his consistent votes against Pentagon spending (go ahead, check the record), Rusty doesn't really like US military superiority. And besides that, he doesn't give a rip what you think, but thanks for asking, anyway...
Introduced by Democratic Senators Durbin, Cardin, Feingold, Feinstein, and Leahy in June ‘09 and considered by the Senate Judiciary Committee May 6th, the Crimes Against Humanity Act would more than just ”[open] the door to demands of reciprocity from other nations that seek to prosecute US military personnel and government officials for alleged criminal acts committed anywhere in the world” by establishing “universal jurisdiction,” ...
This piece of legislation would also:
- domesticate all crimes against humanity as defined by the UN – including terrorism on American soil — making these crimes punishable by federal prosecutors and judges
- afford reciprocity in other countries, subjecting our military and elected officials to – not just The Hague — but to the ”Crimes Against Humanity” laws of other countries
- tie the hands of our elected officials and military, as every plan of action to defend our country must comply “with all of the foreign nation’s applicable laws“
- limit any foreseeable way for America to ever utilize its nuclear arsenal in retaliation to strikes against our homeland
- exacerbate instability in the Middle East by signaling the non-existant threat of US retaliation in defending allies (such as Great Britain or Israel)
Not only would we not retaliate, we could not. Our nuclear posture would be eliminated by institutionalizing international law.I am NOT a fan of using nukes, period. But that doesn't mean that the US' strategy should not include using them--even if no President would order such usage.
IOW, in the words of Street-Organizer-in-Chief Barry: "If they bring a knife, we'll bring a gun." Barry gets it.
What does Feinie have against the US Armed Forces?