So the ICC is widely advertised as a "just" court for the prosecution of "war criminals." ICC officials deny that it is a political tool to be used against the United States. Ah well, lets see: http://www.nationalpost.ca/world/story.html?id=ECE98D7D-B287-47A5-90FB-A76063AD1B4E War crimes case planned against U.S. I thought this was a "just" court to allow for the prosecution of war criminals? Ya, isn't it funny that it would be the anti-American crowd that would be bringing these things up? Exactly. Oh give me a break. So they are saying that if a war breaks out and a civilian is killed that automatically constitutes a war crime? I hope Britain has the balls to pull out of the ICC. Now. Who the fuck are all these courts? I've never head of the People's Tribunal in Rome. That sounds suspiciously like some communist thing. "The people's" will. And regular munitions can distinguish between civilians and military targets right? Well isn't that nice. Now on a side note, if they put the U.S. on trial and all those judges from Syria, Iran, Pakistan, France, and Germany find the U.S. guilty of violating International Law or war crimes or something, erm, what exactly do they plan on doing? Pass more resolutions?
What, exactly is your reasoning for the USA not to join the ICC? Is it the fact that the US is guility of the majority of international crimes that take place? Is it the "I'm above the Law syndrome and no one can tell me what to do"? What is the harm in the USA joining the ICC? If the US can invade another country, for any reason, they should and must be held responsible if war crimes are commited. I find it down right sick that the USA could complain about Suddam when the fact that the USA invaded Iraq was a violation of UN mandate itself.
The judges will decide if claims are just... The legal system can only work if you are free to file complaints. Don't worry too much about your American pals... they have made unilateral agreements with many countries to escape prosecution. They also have many means of pressure to avoid that justice will be done. (which could just as easily prove them to be not guilty) Read the Geneva and Hague conventions... I'm sure the judges will do that too. Somewhere it says that attacks must discriminate between civilians and combatants. That excludes the use of poison gas for example. It is possible that this also excludes bombing a town from kilometers up in the sky. The judges will rule if this is the case. Having balls would be: staying in. They know the Conventions. I'm sure they lived by them. It's hard to distinguish with a cluster bomb. Easier with a bullet. See the difference? The santions would be in the ICC Statute... welcome to read them there. I'm sure they don't say: attacking the country that is convicted. Thank God.
Maybe because it wouldn't be fair? Please sir, explain to me how you would want to elect fair and impartial judges. So the U.S. is worse than Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, Saddam, and so on? Almost, not quite. First, there is no such thing as INTERNATIONAL LAW. Law implies a higher authority. There is no higher authority than a nation's sovereignty. No nation has the right to tell another nation what to do. Even if it is the majority of nations. The world isn't a democracy. When conflict happens, diplomacy is tried and then war. That is the game. So, yes, the United States, and the rest of the world, are all above this "international law" thing. No one is subject to it unless they submit to it, and under no circumstance does the United States or any other country have to submit to such a farce. I don't give a fuck for U.N. mandates.
Where is the jury? So what prevents other nations from making deals? Is this what you call a fair court? Where all the judges are bribed by half the nations in the world? You just made an excellent point NOT to join the ICC. Get real. There is no way you can wage war if you can't kill civilians. Tragic, but true. So you're saying all fighting has to be done on the ground with bullets... More deaths will be the result, on the U.S. side. Do you support more deaths? You sure make a nice argument for it. Who is going to apply sanctions on the U.S.? PLEASE, tell me. We're the biggest market. It would hurt us, but it would be suicide for any nation to put sanctions on the United States. Get real.
I thought you didn't like communist people decide stuff? Some of the countries who have signed the Rome treaty on the ICC make deals with the US. Not the judges. The judges are not bribed. The ICC is a 'deal'. The deal to see justice done. 'Collateral damage' must be minimised. Dropping bombs from the heavens might prove not to be cautious enough to comply with international law. But I'm not the judge. Weapons that can discriminate are allowed. Some are ruled out by specific treaties. Like anti personnel mines. There's a clear difference between a flamethrower and a bullet, between a rocket from a ship aimed at the centre of a city and a bombardment of a tank convoy. Individual war criminals can be punished too. That is just not true. There is ius cogens, which is recognized by all countries to be international law. Like not using dum dum bullets. There are treaties, which are signed and thus binding for the countries who sign. One of these is the UN Treaty. It is International Law, without a doubt. The US did. Until the last moment, they tried to get a UN mandate for the war. Then they insisted that the previous resolution PERMITTED war... never did they say that they had an inherent right to war. Cause they don't have it. Only in case of self defence, which only includes reaction to direct violation of sovereignity.
Why defend the guilty against having to defend against their guilt? They're interesting points, Jerrek: And we shall see. A "coalition of lawyers and human rights groups" does not an International Criminal Court make. If twenty people set out to build a case against you as, say, a subversive (you hint that you think of yourself as somewhat anarchic), would you blame the court or the idiots that hauled you there? Well, for all the talk of WMD and sponsoring terrorists, the one group of people who seem determined to never be held accountable for their acts and contributions are Americans. Where, for instance, do you propose we haul Hussein and his regime for prosecution? Let's haul Donald Rumsfeld into the same court for aiding and abetting crimes against humanity. Seems you and the Bush administration have something in common. However, have you ever watched our American prosecutors "build" (manufacture) a case against a suspect? In California, we saw the beginning of the end of "innocent until proven guilty" (e.g. O.J. Simpson), and even when the prosecutors had a map of the defense, they could not manufacture a case to go through, around, or over it. And it's becoming more and more like that: pick a suspect, consider him guilty, and do whatever you have to do to make it look that way, regardless of whether it's right or not. I might point to Utah, and the investigation of the kidnapping of Elizabeth Smart; the wrong suspect died in custody. They wanted so badly for Ricci to be guilty that they never pursued the "Emmanual" lead. All the manufacturing of a war crimes case does is take the facts at hand and looks for a device in the structure that allows them to be used. Bush pulled out of the ICC because, in part, it did not provide the same protections to American citizens that the Constitution did; in other words, it did not provide American soldiers prosecuted under the ICC with the same Constitutional protections that the administration is working so hard to suspend at home, especially against Muslims. No, there are necessary wars, but we haven't had one in ages. If an illegal (in violation of prior international obligations to due process) war breaks out and a civilian dies ... then you've got an issue. When civility is too much of a headache, just withdraw from civility? That's more an American trait than a British one. Well, why don't you go out on the internet and find out? Seems simple enough. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! If I fire a bullet at someone, I can hit him or not. Maybe I'll miss and kill a civilian. But a cluster bomb? If I hit my target, I also hit about thirty others. Did you ever, on the Fourth of July, stand on the terrace, light a belt of 500 Black Cats, and throw it into the crowd below? What's the problem, after all? You're "just setting off some fireworks." Good point. Depending on how many rounds it goes and how far we push it, the result might be that more civilized nations will accept the tragic necessity of another fleet of 757's crashing into our cities. Was WTC an act of terror or an act of war? Of course, when American terrorists shooting civilians call Arabs attacking coalition soldiers "terrorist", I think I understand why people have a hard time distinguishing between WTC as an act of terror and WTC as an act of war. Look, every time the world makes an agreement, the civilized nations are committed to it until the US wants to break it. And then we hear about "necessity" and so forth. One of these days the world will stand up to the US; whether or not we're surprised will tell us much about what the world will need to do at that point. A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away .... Jerrek, would you side with Coruscant? Why is it that the evil things that prior empires have done are noble when we undertake them in the US? The US has built and held WMD in violation of its agreements; the US has used WMD; the US has used WMD against its own people; the US has staged an illegal invasion of a foreign country; the US has thumbed its nose and given the finger to the international community. The US has announced its plan for military and political domination of the Arab world. We pretend that we're noble and wonderful and while the US is a better shot than you'll get pretty much anywhere in the world, that doesn't mean the dream will last forever. I remember one US soldier quoted in the news, speaking of civilian casualties, as saying, "The chick was just in the way." Now, while practice and principle are two different things, I remind everybody that we did not send conscripts to fight this war; all of our soldiers were volunteers, and while it's nice to bring as many home alive as possible, it is their job to kill and die on command; dying randomly is not the job of Iraqi civilians. In principle, the soldiers have an obligation to take fire. Now, similarly, American husbands, in principle, have an obligation to not beat their wives. Practice and principle are two different things. But that's why the world wants courts for war crimes. The US gave better care to the lives of its soldiers than it did to the civilians it claims to liberate. Mere convenience is not an excuse for butchering civilians as we did. If we're the good guys, leave the murdering of women and children to the bad guys. I would be pleased to see Rumsfeld prosecuted for aiding and abetting Hussein's crimes against humanity; I would like to see George W. Bush prosecuted for the damages caused by the US refusal to establish law and order for political reasons. No, I wouldn't like the idea of American soldiers inside a mosque shooting at people, either, but that's one of the things the war dogs should have thought of before going into Iraq. In the long run, the legitimacy of the charges "manufactured" against the Bush administration will speak much; also of importance will be the structures by which the prosecution becomes possible. Consider in the US--many times, if the state courts fail to convict someone the state wants badly, they'll haul the suspect into Federal Court on tax evasion, civil rights, or other federal charges in order to circumvent double jeopardy. Some of these federal cases have merit; others don't. So it will be with any charges against the ICC; it might be that the interested parties have a definitive logical chain that will get them what they want; how reasonable the circumstances are will speak much. Oh, and to revisit: I thought this was a "just" court to allow for the prosecution of war criminals? Would it be just if only some of the guilty were charged with crimes? Justice demands equality; "the son of a bitch had it coming" isn't a defense that works in a US court, so why would we expect the world to buy it? We've broken laws; we're actually hiding from the structure that can most effectively punish the guilty specifically because the administration knew this was coming. If I broke into your house and knocked you cold, would "I needed the Tylenol in his bathroom to alleviate someone's suffering (e.g. "headache")" be a proper defense? Hell, I broke the law, but it was for a good cause, and you happened to get in the way .... Or was there a better way to get the Tylenol? :m:, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I fail to see what a jury has to do with communist people? A trial should be in front of a jury of your peers, where the crime was committed. If the U.S. is accused of warcrimes in Iraq, pull some citizens in Iraq and ask THEM what they think. So the judges are completely immune from bribery and corruption? Justice as in, try the United States but not Saddam? I'm not interested in that "justice." There you go with that "law" thing again. You made absolutely no point that I can see in that paragraph. Like Saddam who has been offered sanctuary in multiple countries? And Idi Amien who is living a rich lifestyle in Saudi Arabia? Nice try. Substantiate that. Treaties does not imply law. If I make a treaty with my neighbor not to walk over his lawn does not mean it is a criminal offense to walk over his lawn. You know why? Bush is bending over backwards to help out Blair. Very honorable from him. Iraq. Let the Iraqi people judge Hussein. I'm not interested in keeping up with Europe's fetish of creating international courts like multiplying rabbits. So you also only support ground forces firing individual shots at people, and thus creating a higher fatality rate among American soldiers? More death is what you want? Well then, let us end AMERICAN IMPERIALISM RIGHT HERE. We should withdraw from the U.N. because of all the treaty violations, and we should also withdraw from the ICC because we don't want to extend our influence in the world. Citations please. Illegal implies some sort of law. I fail to see which law the U.S. has violated. They are merely enforcing resolution 1441. You mean, Britain, Australia, Poland, Denmark, + crap load of other nations? Citations please. And in your next post you will of course ask, "Why do people call me anti-American?" That is borderlining treason. Tell me one thing. If you were drafted, would you obey your Commander-in-Chief or would you disobey him, be court martialed, and stand up against your own people? Equality so that, "Like Saddam who has been offered sanctuary in multiple countries? And Idi Amien who is living a rich lifestyle in Saudi Arabia? Nice try." Hah. Joke.
Ney, just someone exercising their right of speech. Really good point! Let's follow our leaders blindly, where ever they send us! Let's obey their every command, whatever the possible result! Damn, i'd be really a lousy soldier.
Perhaps, but does freedom of speech include you helping the enemy? Suppose you know the location of your own people, but you are against what they're doing. Should you have the right to tell the enemy the location? When you're in the military, that is required from you. You are free to have other opinions, but in the military, you obey the chain of command. I think the majority of Europeans follow your line or reasoning, which is why Europe is always in the shitter.
All Good Points, However If the US does not abide by international law, then no country should. Every country should be able to do what they think is right. If that means building Nuclear Weapons Programs, then so be it. Just because the US is the biggest bully on the block, that should not give it carte blanche to do what it wants while it denies to the rest of the world {or at least 3rd world countries} the same that it does. If we push for international business, we should have an international law. If a US corporation has offices in all parts of the world and the US military can be called in to ensure the rights of "US interest" all over the world - damned the country they may be in - then the US should be held responsible for whatever it does against that countries population. http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a384f2fad5083.htm http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/westn/worldcourt.html This is a very good reason why the US won't join Summaries of the Decisions /Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua/Nicaragua v. USA/Judgment of the Court of June 27,1986
http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/index.html As a member of hte United Nations, the United States has the obligation to uphold the charter. They went into Iraq to take Saddam out, they went in for a regime change. That action violates the sovereignty of hte Iraqi nation, it does not matter if Saddam was "evil" or not. Evil is relative. As for your original whining in this topic, as Tiassa pointed out, a coalition of lawyers and human rights activists is not hte ICC. They most likely will not get anywhere with their case. To your whining about the ICC not prosecuting Saddam, its because THEY HAVE NO WAY OF DOING SO!! Iraq is not a member nation. And even if they could, do you really think there would be an unbiased trial for Saddam? Likely not. So why is it okay for him, and not for the US?? So this is why 'Iraqi war criminals' will be punished under United States law? How can you elect fair an unbiased judges in any legal system? Sounds to me like you have a problem with law itself Jerrek, not just the ICCPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
