US pulls out of international criminal court treaty
- Thread starter soulrebel
- Start date
dilute micro
esse quam videri
Jo, do you really think the Saddams are going to start giving a damn? Why would he? He's not going to get caught.
Everyone in my town is subject to the law. In some cases the ICC would try to go after someone that won't be subject to anything the ICC can draw up. For that reason I'm rolling my eyes with Saddam on this one:
= me and Saddam.... and oh, anyone else with a brain too.
Adam, the ICC is in no position to make the laws in the first place if you ask me. What exactly is a "war crime", the intentional killing of civilians, the bombing of an area where civilians might be near, too near, or what about civilians that shoot at you first, or children with bombs strapped to themselves?
I ask who is to judge whether the ICC will be used "responsibly"?
Everyone in my town is subject to the law. In some cases the ICC would try to go after someone that won't be subject to anything the ICC can draw up. For that reason I'm rolling my eyes with Saddam on this one:
= me and Saddam.... and oh, anyone else with a brain too.Adam, the ICC is in no position to make the laws in the first place if you ask me. What exactly is a "war crime", the intentional killing of civilians, the bombing of an area where civilians might be near, too near, or what about civilians that shoot at you first, or children with bombs strapped to themselves?
I ask who is to judge whether the ICC will be used "responsibly"?
TinyCrendon
New Member
your arguements, as with all ideologues, make no sense.
saying that it is possible for a criminal to escape prosecution - which it is under any system of law - is not extendable to say that there should be no laws because of that.
and war crimes are of course laid down in the Geneva Convention which was part created by the USA and of course in many other global treaties like the Rights of the Child and so forth, although it did take the USA forty years to sign that one.
what you seem to be saying is a paraphrase of what George Bush Snr said (and probably Sadaam/The Taliban etc etc) "when you realise your country is ordained by god there is nothing you can't do."
Unfortunately I think the desire for laws and legal systems is overwhelming and an essential underpinning for global democracy, one nation one vote at the UN and a system of laws allowed to evolve as in any other system.
your opposition seems to be underpinned by a nationalist desire for domination in any sphere the US government sees fit. which of course isn't democratic.
saying that it is possible for a criminal to escape prosecution - which it is under any system of law - is not extendable to say that there should be no laws because of that.
and war crimes are of course laid down in the Geneva Convention which was part created by the USA and of course in many other global treaties like the Rights of the Child and so forth, although it did take the USA forty years to sign that one.
what you seem to be saying is a paraphrase of what George Bush Snr said (and probably Sadaam/The Taliban etc etc) "when you realise your country is ordained by god there is nothing you can't do."
Unfortunately I think the desire for laws and legal systems is overwhelming and an essential underpinning for global democracy, one nation one vote at the UN and a system of laws allowed to evolve as in any other system.
your opposition seems to be underpinned by a nationalist desire for domination in any sphere the US government sees fit. which of course isn't democratic.
dilute micro
esse quam videri
What I'm saying makes perfect sense, just ask those leaders that will never see an ICC court. There's more than just Saddam. You failed to answer the questions about the nitty gritty of what exactly a "war crime" is. You see it as well but won't say so.
I'm wary of any group that wants to act as if it represents the moral authority of the "world" when it's mostly made up of ...how should I say...select nations. So after the ICC gets going, and there's some trouble in Africa with some warlord killing civilians by the thousands, and some other warlord takes revenge by killing some of the first warlord's tribe, what does the ICC do? How do we iron out what was a crime and what wasn't? Again, how do we get the warlords to surrender? See, the problem is the ICC wants to look out for it's own kind. It knows it can't get the African warlords or the Saddams. But dammit, if any bad guy messes with Europe and other white nations, then he's a war criminal and easier to get.
What keeps the ICC in check? Is there nothing with authority over the ICC while it dictates war laws to the "world" which isn't nearly going to be fairly represented.
The ICC is wasted money, wasted time, wasted energy. It is made to protect a few people from themselves. It is a way to prevent them from having to confront a problem before it happens or while it is happening. It waits till afterwards and says "you are a war criminal". It is more of the same out of europe - sit on thy hands and be a judge and don't lift a finger to help or it may involve fighting.
I'm wary of any group that wants to act as if it represents the moral authority of the "world" when it's mostly made up of ...how should I say...select nations. So after the ICC gets going, and there's some trouble in Africa with some warlord killing civilians by the thousands, and some other warlord takes revenge by killing some of the first warlord's tribe, what does the ICC do? How do we iron out what was a crime and what wasn't? Again, how do we get the warlords to surrender? See, the problem is the ICC wants to look out for it's own kind. It knows it can't get the African warlords or the Saddams. But dammit, if any bad guy messes with Europe and other white nations, then he's a war criminal and easier to get.
What keeps the ICC in check? Is there nothing with authority over the ICC while it dictates war laws to the "world" which isn't nearly going to be fairly represented.
The ICC is wasted money, wasted time, wasted energy. It is made to protect a few people from themselves. It is a way to prevent them from having to confront a problem before it happens or while it is happening. It waits till afterwards and says "you are a war criminal". It is more of the same out of europe - sit on thy hands and be a judge and don't lift a finger to help or it may involve fighting.
TinyCrendon
New Member
that isnt a serious response by any means.
1. `nitty grittys` of war crimes see the geneva convention (as aobve) also see the evolutionary nature of all legal systems. so please dont bring that up again.
2.you defeat your own argument (a desire for an absense of any international courts) by then going on to say "I'm wary of any group that wants to act as if it represents the moral authority of the "world" when it's mostly made up of ...how should I say...select nations." when you appear to support American or American/NATO/British intervention in various conflicts. These are of course `select nations`. Epecially NATO.
3. how do the warlords surender ? well, how are the Rwandans in court. Because they were tracked down and apprehended by force. they weren't sent a letter asking them to come to court, they were found and arrested. however they went through the United Nations rather than through NATO. so its always possible to apprehend criminals. also see nazi war criminals who are still being brought to justice today. would you rather they were not brought to justice because that justice might be construed as selective (for example by nazis). you may note none of the `top targets` of the Afghan campaign have been captured, instead women are still stoned to death, (but with smaller stones), Opium production has rocketed, warlords are fighting daily across the country killing many, the notion of war crimes such as mass execution has been passed over, major heroin dealers like Rachid Dotsum are government members (deputy foreign minister) and various former US oil company employees like Hamid Kharzi and Zalmay Khalilzad (both Unocal employees) run the country.
4. the ICC would be `kept in check` by the UN of which it is efectively an arm.
5. as for the idea that the best way forward is by `fighting` i think europe has a lot more experience of war fighting than the USA. its why we like to avoid it because we have seen it at first hand and it solves very little (see Vietnam, Korea, Eritrea, Kashmir, World War One for a few examples). If you think `fighting` is better than a court of law then we have to stop there and agree to disagree. would you implement this policy domestically ? no laws only force?
so, none of your arguments stand up to any kind of scrutiny and your desire for a short term fix for long term solutions seems merely to be a cover for allowing your government carte blanche to do as it sees fit anywhere on the planet. which frightens a lot of people.
1. `nitty grittys` of war crimes see the geneva convention (as aobve) also see the evolutionary nature of all legal systems. so please dont bring that up again.
2.you defeat your own argument (a desire for an absense of any international courts) by then going on to say "I'm wary of any group that wants to act as if it represents the moral authority of the "world" when it's mostly made up of ...how should I say...select nations." when you appear to support American or American/NATO/British intervention in various conflicts. These are of course `select nations`. Epecially NATO.
3. how do the warlords surender ? well, how are the Rwandans in court. Because they were tracked down and apprehended by force. they weren't sent a letter asking them to come to court, they were found and arrested. however they went through the United Nations rather than through NATO. so its always possible to apprehend criminals. also see nazi war criminals who are still being brought to justice today. would you rather they were not brought to justice because that justice might be construed as selective (for example by nazis). you may note none of the `top targets` of the Afghan campaign have been captured, instead women are still stoned to death, (but with smaller stones), Opium production has rocketed, warlords are fighting daily across the country killing many, the notion of war crimes such as mass execution has been passed over, major heroin dealers like Rachid Dotsum are government members (deputy foreign minister) and various former US oil company employees like Hamid Kharzi and Zalmay Khalilzad (both Unocal employees) run the country.
4. the ICC would be `kept in check` by the UN of which it is efectively an arm.
5. as for the idea that the best way forward is by `fighting` i think europe has a lot more experience of war fighting than the USA. its why we like to avoid it because we have seen it at first hand and it solves very little (see Vietnam, Korea, Eritrea, Kashmir, World War One for a few examples). If you think `fighting` is better than a court of law then we have to stop there and agree to disagree. would you implement this policy domestically ? no laws only force?
so, none of your arguments stand up to any kind of scrutiny and your desire for a short term fix for long term solutions seems merely to be a cover for allowing your government carte blanche to do as it sees fit anywhere on the planet. which frightens a lot of people.
dilute micro
esse quam videri
1. wrong, what is a "war crime"? is a perfectly good question. One you can't answer because it is so subjective.
2. Wrong. those nations are able to act on their own to defend themselves without a thumbs up from the others if need be.
3. you miss the point. And you're crazy if you think the United Clowns are going to be able to bring in everyone. Tell me how to get Saddam whose withstood 6 coup attempts since the Gulf War.
4. right. The UN can't blow it's own nose.
5. No you miss the point again. Who ever said fighting is enough? Psssst, it's winning that counts.
2. Wrong. those nations are able to act on their own to defend themselves without a thumbs up from the others if need be.
3.
you miss the point. And you're crazy if you think the United Clowns are going to be able to bring in everyone. Tell me how to get Saddam whose withstood 6 coup attempts since the Gulf War. 4.
right. The UN can't blow it's own nose.5. No you miss the point again. Who ever said fighting is enough? Psssst, it's winning that counts.
au_finger007
Shaken, not stirred.
It will be kept in check because it has the same power as the UN - NONE.
Only the losers of wars and those who piss off the powers of the world will ever end up in this court. No country who signed up will turn over a military commander to that court if they feel the commander was doing their job. Charges or no charges.
007
The point of the ICC and, I suspect, the reason the US (or at least the Republican Party) is against it is precisely that it will seek to avoid victor's justice.
This is a process that was initiated at Nurenburg by the Americans among others. That was a flawed proceeding but the intention was to overcome the traditional expiation at the end of a conflict (such as WW I) which merely perpetuates the cycle of resentment. (At the risk of invoking Godwin's law) one of the reasons Hitler came to power was the effect on Germany of the terms of the Treaty of Versailles. The US, France and Britain must have felt as if they has every right to squeeze Germany "until the pips squeaked" but this merely stoked up trouble for the future.
By instituting an independent body to oversee the application of international norms, the charge of applying victor's justice is much harder to make. When the US rounds up every non-Afghani they can find on the side of the Taliban and holds them as "battlefield detainees" under no known law, it is applying victor's justice. It exposes itself to the world to be arrogant and bullish. This may seem like a feeble and ineffective world before the US's predominant military might but the US and the West in general has a great deal to lose by being seen to abandon its claims to uphold human rights. (it's a bit difficult to take that certain truths are held to be self-evident exept when applied to foreigners.)
Saddam is the latest bogey man in a vary long list that will no doubt stretch far into the future. If he is one day defeated and brought to Washington in chains that will satisfy those who are keen for him to be brought down (I among them) but it will also intensify the impression that the US is the modern day incarnation of imperial Rome. Saddam has few friends in the world but one certain way to buy him popularity is to parade him before a baying American public.
Ultimately it may not be entirely possible to avoid victor's justice but it must be eliminated as far as it can be and we can do a good deal better than we are doing right now.
This is a process that was initiated at Nurenburg by the Americans among others. That was a flawed proceeding but the intention was to overcome the traditional expiation at the end of a conflict (such as WW I) which merely perpetuates the cycle of resentment. (At the risk of invoking Godwin's law) one of the reasons Hitler came to power was the effect on Germany of the terms of the Treaty of Versailles. The US, France and Britain must have felt as if they has every right to squeeze Germany "until the pips squeaked" but this merely stoked up trouble for the future.
By instituting an independent body to oversee the application of international norms, the charge of applying victor's justice is much harder to make. When the US rounds up every non-Afghani they can find on the side of the Taliban and holds them as "battlefield detainees" under no known law, it is applying victor's justice. It exposes itself to the world to be arrogant and bullish. This may seem like a feeble and ineffective world before the US's predominant military might but the US and the West in general has a great deal to lose by being seen to abandon its claims to uphold human rights. (it's a bit difficult to take that certain truths are held to be self-evident exept when applied to foreigners.)
Saddam is the latest bogey man in a vary long list that will no doubt stretch far into the future. If he is one day defeated and brought to Washington in chains that will satisfy those who are keen for him to be brought down (I among them) but it will also intensify the impression that the US is the modern day incarnation of imperial Rome. Saddam has few friends in the world but one certain way to buy him popularity is to parade him before a baying American public.
Ultimately it may not be entirely possible to avoid victor's justice but it must be eliminated as far as it can be and we can do a good deal better than we are doing right now.
We very nearly saw Pinochet go to trial in Spain after his arrest in London. It would be nice to see Henry Kissinger in the dock too. Oh hang on, what you describe is exactly what happens now. Of course, this is why the US won't sign. If they had nothing to fear from such a court there'd be no problem.
Dilute, not all criminal suspects do get caught, some get killed, even in your town
. It is irrelevant whether Saddam actually gets taken to court or not. The fact is it is available and is a framework in which to resolve such matters.
The fact is the US govt does not want to face up to its responsibilities or be held account for its actions. The arguments the Bush administration put forward are bullshit. They are an imperial power and, as such, have no interest working cooperatively. Sure, you can repeat the 'US interests' line ad nauseum, but if anything is inevitable change is, and the US will one day not be in a position to isolate itself from its global neighbours.
. It is irrelevant whether Saddam actually gets taken to court or not. The fact is it is available and is a framework in which to resolve such matters.
The fact is the US govt does not want to face up to its responsibilities or be held account for its actions. The arguments the Bush administration put forward are bullshit. They are an imperial power and, as such, have no interest working cooperatively. Sure, you can repeat the 'US interests' line ad nauseum, but if anything is inevitable change is, and the US will one day not be in a position to isolate itself from its global neighbours.
Yes, you have a point there
Fuck off arsehole