I'm seeking to learn a bit here, as well as propose an idea. Here's the idea: We've recently had the prisoner abuse scandal. My thought was that rather than trying them, a grand jury indicts them to go to Brussels. This punishes people, and might score points by showing that we're willing to abide my international law. Writing this out has helped me sort the issue out in my mind, and while I'm not sure this is the best idea, I thought I'd get some opinions.
I am leery of surrendering any of United States authority to the world court and establishing the precedent that they have the final authority in case like this.
actually, someone told me that Rumsfeld said that if any GIs were arrested by the World Court, he'd send commando teams to rescue the GIs. considering the World Court is corrupt and bias, that's actually a very good idea Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! during the Hague hearings about the Israeli wall/fence, one judge (Egyptian) gave an interview to a newspaper openly claiming that he will vote against the wall/fence... that was before the hearings even started! how impartial is that? yep, lots of credibility and fairness there. World Court is sort of like communism. it's a nice romantic idea but it's impractical and will not work. someone always has an interest, therefore there's absolutely no chance for the court to be impartial and fair.
Maybe if they heard the arguements without any names being presented. It would just be Country A did this Country B did that. I pipe dream im sure.
About as impartial as one saying (before trial) Hitler would get a death sentence if he was captured in 1945. As opposed to any court being able to judge without predjudice? As in i will side with this person because their white, male or of certain religous belief? Americans dont want a world court because they'd be held accountable for their crimes against humanity, which are too numerous to mention.
