Today's WTF story/controversey

From Yahoo/AP

Whether or not the US did a good thing in Iraq should be immaterial if crimes were committed in the conduct of war. Nobody should be exempt. If the US is to resume the conservative-loathed role of the world's policeman, who will police the police now? If France or Germany were to be "moral" centers of Europe, where the hell were they today?

Actually, I''m going to surprise some people here. I don''t think the U.S. should be held accountable to the U.N. War Crimes Tribunal. I don''t trust it as an apolitcal system, and I don''t think it should be in the role of the United Nations to play judicial arbiter. I think the inclusions of some questionable countries on the Human Rights Council, calls the U.N. into question on this front, and I have serious reservations about how the U.S. would be treated by such a court.

That''s not to say I think war crimes should go unpunished. There are world courts which I would and do support. I also believe that a country should hold its soldiers to a high human rights standard, and should prosecute those who break such laws.

The thing is thought that the US''s main crux for the war was the non-compliance of Iraq to UN regulations. Don''t you see the hypocracy in US getting the Security Council to help get around UN regulations?

Of course I do. I''ve been arguing the point for quite some time now. However, I wouldn''t send those accused of being responsible to a flawed court to be judged, no sooner than I''d have someone accused of murder judged by the families of the victim.

I just don''t think the U.N. has judicial authority.

I do not think we should join the ICC. There is no purpose for it. We would be unfairly targeted and the ICC is flawed. We cannot appeal the ICC and it is heald accountable to no one. I do not trust the UN to be fair. If our troops step out of line we can use our own justice system.

Still, though, there needs to be a fair, impartial, international court system to ensure no one country or bloc of countries can use it as a foreign policy tool. Could you imagine if the Eastern Bloc could''ve dragged the US to court over Vietnam? The Mi-Lei Massacre trial alone would''ve made OJ look like traffic court.

"Rat Boy" wrote:

Still, though, there needs to be a fair, impartial, international court system to ensure no one country or bloc of countries can use it as a foreign policy tool. Could you imagine if the Eastern Bloc could''ve dragged the US to court over Vietnam? The Mi-Lei Massacre trial alone would''ve made OJ look like traffic court.

The whole idea of a ICC is stupid. There will never be a fair and impartial internation court system. If the ICC was fair the governments of Iran and Syria would have been convicted and be war criminals.

"Ulairi" wrote:

There will never be a fair and impartial internation court system.

Oh please. Objection Your Honour! Look at European Court of Human Rights. It is the most unimpressable court in the world IMHO. It is a Law itself, no messy politics, thank you.

My wife was government agent (which means advocate basically) there for two years and let me say this - it is an institution worth the money spent.

If ECHR practice is being held as some sort of template for international war crimes court, U.S. arguments are pure politics. The idea is - it is Legal Institution, which means Lawyers. Which means Rhetorics dont work, Facts do.
Do they get political cases? Hell yes. My country and Russia are engaged into some legal vendetta (and we never start the fire). Do politics matter in cases themselves? Not a tiny bit. Judges are apolitical professionals who simply reject anything that is not based on strictly legal grounds.
Judges are self-organizing ring, which means that if case stinks of politics, judges whos origins are conflicting countries simply step aside and let the judging to uninterested ones.

What U.S. is doing right now is undermining any law which is not theirs. Their argument isnt even that such a court shouldnt exist. They simply want immunity. Very...Orwelish if you ask me.

If U.S. gets immunity, next question is- why not couple of African countries? why not whole Middle East? and so on and so forth.

If they want to keep it fair and avoid ""political cases"", be part of it.

Having said all that, such a court DOES have some problems, but they are legal ones. Many rights and rules havent been crystalized and formulated yet. Mostly because world is moving so fast, tactics and means of destruction evolve very quickly. But sooner or later they have to be categorized and formulated, so start working on it now, dammit.

If U.S. evades international responsibility of its own actions, country as such automatically loses its right to force its laws on others. This is strickly my view and my view only. Its bloody logical though, at least I think so.

"Ulairi" wrote:

I do not think we should join the ICC. There is no purpose for it. We would be unfairly targeted and the ICC is flawed.

Bah, the US are pussies for not joining, I say. If the ICC is flawed, work with it to rectify those flaws. Some frivolous suits are to be expected, sure, but if the court doesn''t dismiss those suits then the US can justly say that the ICC can''t handle its task and pull out of it.

"Alien Love Gardener" wrote:
"Ulairi" wrote:

I do not think we should join the ICC. There is no purpose for it. We would be unfairly targeted and the ICC is flawed.

Bah, the US are pussies for not joining, I say. If the ICC is flawed, work with it to rectify those flaws. Some frivolous suits are to be expected, sure, but if the court doesn''t dismiss those suits then the US can justly say that the ICC can''t handle its task and pull out of it.

explain why we need the ICC and what it can do that we cannot already do.

"Ulairi" wrote:

explain why we need the ICC and what it can do that we cannot already do.

Oversight not dominated by Democrat vs. Republican politics. The actions of this nation must be held accountable to a higher authority if it is to be viewed as a credible and just force for peace. To go around the world and act without any global mandate is...wreckless.

Quite so.

"Rat Boy" wrote:
"Ulairi" wrote:

explain why we need the ICC and what it can do that we cannot already do.

Oversight not dominated by Democrat vs. Republican politics. The actions of this nation must be held accountable to a higher authority if it is to be viewed as a credible and just force for peace. To go around the world and act without any global mandate is...wreckless.

Who should belong to the ICC? Who should hold the ICC accountable? Why do you put faith into global politics and not into local politics?

Why do you think the most powerful nation on Earth should not be held to account for its actions in the global community?

Arrogance?

"Rat Boy" wrote:

Why do you think the most powerful nation on Earth should not be held to account for its actions in the global community?

Most of the global community is ruled by tyrants. We can hold our people responsible when they do something horrible, we do it all the time.

Arrogance?

Yes. The global community is full of arrogance. People want to arrest Tommy Franks, and if we allow this lame ICC to have power over us, it will get worse. I almost want to join so some moron will try to get Bush, and it will show how stupid the whole idea is.

The ICC is a dumb idea. It is not needed.

I think the idea is great in theory but it lacks in a firm legal basis and fair execution. I fail to recognize the need to just deem any attempt at creating an international court as a dumb idea though, it seems very logical to me. Indeed, get rid of the tyrants, but after that, wouldn''t an international court be a logical step forward for the world community?

Would only Liberal Democracies be allowed? What about morons who cause trouble? I want to make sure that those cases are thrown out without costing the person they are bugging money, right to appeal, etc.

I''d be all for it, if it means by working, we wouldn''t have to spend billions helping other countries. If it meant that countries would actually be accountable for their actions towards each other (I include the US in that, as well) and that they would obey the final desicions made within.

Fat chance.

"Ulairi" wrote:

Would only Liberal Democracies be allowed? What about morons who cause trouble? I want to make sure that those cases are thrown out without costing the person they are bugging money, right to appeal, etc.

Thrown out without costing money or the right to appeal? What, you mean just like the US court system? And who are morons that cause trouble causing trouble for? If they cause trouble for us should they be thrown out? What about if they cause trouble for France?

People are always going to do these things, in fact it happens in the US legal system all the time, the trick is to control and discourage such behavior, which an international court could do, but probably won''t. If it does though, it''d be a good idea.

Thrown out without costing money or the right to appeal? What, you mean just like the US court system? And who are morons that cause trouble causing trouble for? If they cause trouble for us should they be thrown out? What about if they cause trouble for France?

If it happens to the French, yes. I don''t think it will happen often to the French.

"Ulairi" wrote:

Thrown out without costing money or the right to appeal? What, you mean just like the US court system? And who are morons that cause trouble causing trouble for? If they cause trouble for us should they be thrown out? What about if they cause trouble for France?

If it happens to the French, yes. I don''t think it will happen often to the French.

Okay, but what consitiutes trouble?

Okay, but what consitiutes trouble?

frivolous lawsuits. Suing Tommy Franks, Bush Sr., Powell, Rice, Bush Jr. etc. If the people who brought the case are fined for it, that would go a long way.

How are those frivolous? If they are accused of a war crime, shouldn''t a legal process take over?

"Rat Boy" wrote:

How are those frivolous? If they are accused of a war crime, shouldn''t a legal process take over?

None of them have comitted any war crime. Anyone can accuse anyone of anything. Saddam is a war criminal, Bush is not.

This is why the ICC will never work.

we are talking religion and atheism here already. Ulairi loves current administration without asking questions. if anyone asks question, it has to be dismissed by default.
ok, lets assume, that no one currently at the wheel has to do anything with war crimes. What if next president or someone in his administration commits war crime? is it forgivable because he is american?

I recall from previous discussions question popping up: ""well, we screwed up in some countries, right, so, should we not try more?""

well, if you do (and have record of screwing up), better stand accountable.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
we are talking religion and atheism here already. Ulairi loves current administration without asking questions. if anyone asks question, it has to be dismissed by default.
ok, lets assume, that no one currently at the wheel has to do anything with war crimes. What if next president or someone in his administration commits war crime? is it forgivable because he is american?

First, I do not love this adminstration. I didn''t vote for this adminstration. Before you try to dismiss me you might want to get your facts straight. I find it funny how simplistic you are, you think this is about Bush. Just like some others who post here, it is about Bush. I do not care about Bush. I care about removing dictatorships and spreading liberal democracy.

We do not need an ICC if one of our Presidents becomes a war criminal. What does the ICC do once they say your a war criminal? Nothing. If one of our Presidents does become a war criminal, we can impeach them.

None of them have comitted any war crime. Anyone can accuse anyone of anything. Saddam is a war criminal, Bush is not.

This is why the ICC will never work.

So if they just dismiss any of those cases against the likes of Bush or Rumsfeld then it would still not work? I would call it a triumph of justice! Well maybe not in the case of Rumsfeld but I guess trying to force certian things upon national media shouldn''t be handled by an international court

I think an ICC in its proper form could really benefit us.

So if they just dismiss any of those cases against the likes of Bush or Rumsfeld then it would still not work? I would call it a triumph of justice! Well maybe not in the case of Rumsfeld but I guess trying to force certian things upon national media shouldn''t be handled by an international court

No. I said if they do, the court would go far in my eyes. The ICC would really benefit the Netherlands, you don''t do anything. That isn''t an insult but it is designed to target the United States by hostile governments such as France.

Too many of you who post here, on any issue, figured out what Bush thinks, then go ""I hate Bush"" and work backwards.

If one of our Presidents does become a war criminal, we can impeach them.

I would think that the last impeachment process would''ve taught you that it doesn''t work, either. A popular president shielded by a Congress with enough supporters in it can escape the impeachment process even if they are guilty as sin.

"Rat Boy" wrote:
If one of our Presidents does become a war criminal, we can impeach them.

I would think that the last impeachment process would''ve taught you that it doesn''t work, either. A popular president shielded by a Congress with enough supporters in it can escape the impeachment process even if they are guilty as sin.

Being a War Criminal is guilty as sin. Being accused as a war criminal by some European weenie isn''t the same.