War Crimes Trial: Theater or Justice?

Tomorrow morning I'm going to wish with all my heart that the sun doesn't rise. It will have the same effect as that complaint.
 
I thought the US was exempt from the ICC.

I don't mean that in jest, like ha-ha, we're above the law.

I mean that literally - as stupid as it sounds - that the US cannot be prosecuted by the ICC.
 
The U.S. is not a party to the ICC. However, the complaint alleges that violations occurred in ICC-party countries in Europe, therefore the ICC has jurisdiction. I have no idea if this is correct or not.

What I do know is the effect of complaints like this in American politics. Firstly, of course, Bush and his henchmen will not be going to The Hague to stand trial, regardless of whether the ICC does anything as a result. Secondly, things like this will lend credence and support to the viewpoint that the U.S. should continue to remain outside the ICC due to complaints being lodged against our leaders and soldiers. Ironically, what complaints like this do is make it less likely that the U.S. joins the ICC.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I thought the US was exempt from the ICC.

I don't mean that in jest, like ha-ha, we're above the law.

I mean that literally - as stupid as it sounds - that the US cannot be prosecuted by the ICC.[/QUOTE]

I think the US didn't want to join the ICC because people would level accusations of war crimes against US personnel. Abu Ghirab? Hadaitha?

However, claiming the ICC has no jurisdiction over a member of the international community would be similar to a Mexican drug dealer claiming he can't be prosecuted for trafficking drugs while in the USA and living in the USA.

I used to be against the ICC. Of course, that was before the US admitted to spying on its own citizens without warrants, torturing people into false confessions and shipping people other than Smithers to Turkish prisons.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']The U.S. is not a party to the ICC. However, the complaint alleges that violations occurred in ICC-party countries in Europe, therefore the ICC has jurisdiction. I have no idea if this is correct or not.

What I do know is the effect of complaints like this in American politics. Firstly, of course, Bush and his henchmen will not be going to The Hague to stand trial, regardless of whether the ICC does anything as a result. Secondly, things like this will lend credence and support to the viewpoint that the U.S. should continue to remain outside the ICC due to complaints being lodged against our leaders and soldiers. Ironically, what complaints like this do is make it less likely that the U.S. joins the ICC.[/QUOTE]

If our leaders broke the law repeatedly and willingly, should they be prosecuted?
 
[quote name='elprincipe']The U.S. is not a party to the ICC. However, the complaint alleges that violations occurred in ICC-party countries in Europe, therefore the ICC has jurisdiction. I have no idea if this is correct or not.

What I do know is the effect of complaints like this in American politics. Firstly, of course, Bush and his henchmen will not be going to The Hague to stand trial, regardless of whether the ICC does anything as a result. Secondly, things like this will lend credence and support to the viewpoint that the U.S. should continue to remain outside the ICC due to complaints being lodged against our leaders and soldiers. Ironically, what complaints like this do is make it less likely that the U.S. joins the ICC.[/QUOTE]
It basically sends the message that we won't join as long as we are held accountable for our actions.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']I think the US didn't want to join the ICC because people would level accusations of war crimes against US personnel. Abu Ghirab? Hadaitha?

However, claiming the ICC has no jurisdiction over a member of the international community would be similar to a Mexican drug dealer claiming he can't be prosecuted for trafficking drugs while in the USA and living in the USA.[/QUOTE]

I think the problem comes in that Bush and Co. (including every member of Congress that voted to go to war in Iraq for no reason) don't live in a country that's an ICC member.

This would be about as effective as our government deciding that Hugo Chavez is a criminal and asking the Venezuelan government to extradite him to us for trial and punishment.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']If our leaders broke the law repeatedly and willingly, should they be prosecuted?[/QUOTE]

When have our criminals in congress and the white house been charged in the us even?
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']If our leaders broke the law repeatedly and willingly, should they be prosecuted?[/QUOTE]

By all means yes, but I would like that prosecution to take place in American courts with American justice.

[quote name='JolietJake']It basically sends the message that we won't join as long as we are held accountable for our actions.[/QUOTE]

It does send that message. However, given the nature of foreign relations and anti-Americanism around the world, I'm sure you'll agree that there are legitimate fears by American politicians and military leaders that our soldiers would be prosecuted for carrying out orders.
 
Right, despite the fact that the Nuremberg trials were exactly that, prosecuting people for carrying out orders.
 
[quote name='IRHari']Right, despite the fact that the Nuremberg trials were exactly that, prosecuting people for carrying out orders.[/QUOTE]

Apples and oranges. Nobody is suggesting that they fear U.S. soldiers will be put on trial for gassing civilians; rather that they would be put on trial for drone strikes, bombings, defending themselves in densely populated areas, etc.
 
Um, no. The reason I said the soldiers should not is because they're not a party here. That's the very idea of extraordinary rendition - keep your hands clean of human rights violations by handing over people to nations that practice human rights violations.

Rendition is the criminal complaint here, nothing else. What you're doing, elp, is engaging in poor conjecture that's rooted in not reading and responding to the criminal complaint. You're responding to bogeymen that aren't the issue here.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Um, no. The reason I said the soldiers should not is because they're not a party here. That's the very idea of extraordinary rendition - keep your hands clean of human rights violations by handing over people to nations that practice human rights violations.

Rendition is the criminal complaint here, nothing else. What you're doing, elp, is engaging in poor conjecture that's rooted in not reading and responding to the criminal complaint. You're responding to bogeymen that aren't the issue here.[/QUOTE]

I'm responding here to IRHari, who was going off slightly on a tangent. I saw what you wrote, which is much different from what he wrote, which was a suggestion that the ICC would be the same as the Nuremburg trials, an idea I think is rather preposterous when talking about U.S. soldiers.
 
Ok yeah I didn't mean American soldiers, my mistake. I only meant to comment on the part of your post that said 'prosecuted for carrying out orders'. And I thought you were referring to the CIA/waterboarding. Again, clearly I didn't read your post thoroughly. Nor, I admit, did I even read foc's original post. See what happens when you don't read AdultLink?
 
Yeah, yeah, Bush committed war crimes. But life ain't CSI, and charges don't always stick in the real world. There's, to my lament for certain, plenty of room for debate on what was and was not criminal. Except for rendition - that one's clear cut.

We all know the ICC won't execute this complaint - but can anyone defend the criminal charges made here?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Yeah, yeah, Bush committed war crimes. But life ain't CSI, and charges don't always stick in the real world. There's, to my lament for certain, plenty of room for debate on what was and was not criminal. Except for rendition - that one's clear cut.

We all know the ICC won't execute this complaint - but can anyone defend the criminal charges made here?[/QUOTE]

The problem with war crimes is that people like Bush (Patroit Act), Clinton (Selling our weapons to China makes him a traitor), Reagan (Deregulating businesses is like removing police), Carter (For just... being Carter), all have a long history of criminal actions against their own people. If we can't prosecute them, what is the point of worrying about the ICC?
 
That's more of a we *won't* issue, not a we *can't* issue.

Don't forget to add Iran-Contra to your list. File under "Reagan."

But that's a rather fatalistic view, no? Saying "we haven't done it yet, so why start now?" is self-defeating and cynical. It's that attitude that prevents people from starting diets and stopping smoking, y'know.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']That's more of a we *won't* issue, not a we *can't* issue.

Don't forget to add Iran-Contra to your list. File under "Reagan."

But that's a rather fatalistic view, no? Saying "we haven't done it yet, so why start now?" is self-defeating and cynical. It's that attitude that prevents people from starting diets and stopping smoking, y'know.[/QUOTE]

Well the point I was making isn't to just not do anything, the point is, is that we should be wanting our politicians to face us first because world courts.
 
I'd rather see accountability, I'm not particularly interested in who takes credit for it.

(there's another discussion about whether or not a nation prosecuting its own leaders undermines the social structural integrity of the nation, but that's more theoretical than anything else.)
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I'd rather see accountability, I'm not particularly interested in who takes credit for it.

(there's another discussion about whether or not a nation prosecuting its own leaders undermines the social structural integrity of the nation, but that's more theoretical than anything else.)[/QUOTE]

I would argue a nation with a leader capable of imprisoning, killing or brainwashing its people would be incapable of successfully prosecuting a criminal leader. Therefore, outside interference would be necessary.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Yeah, yeah, Bush committed war crimes. But life ain't CSI, and charges don't always stick in the real world. There's, to my lament for certain, plenty of room for debate on what was and was not criminal. Except for rendition - that one's clear cut.

We all know the ICC won't execute this complaint - but can anyone defend the criminal charges made here?[/QUOTE]

No. AFAIK, sending prisoners to countries that we know will torture them is against our laws, even without mentioning international law. Admittedly I'm not an expert in such laws.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top