Justice for all - No thankyou, we're American

[pubmanager]

We have always prosecuted our own and I don't see that changing in the future

The limitations to the juristiction of the ICC respect that fact and will only try cases in the event that a nation is unwilling or incapable of doing so itself.

Or in the event that a 'dud' prosecution has been brought by a nation internally to 'protect' the accused from being properly tried in the ICC.

(The case cited above would seem to be an example of the later.)

The ICC is "complementary to national criminal jurisdictions" (Article 1, Rome statute) so America has no reasonable grouds to object to the ICC on these grounds (unless of course it intends to pervert the course of international justice by using 'mock trials' to protect war criminals)

[Mr.Vicchio]

Yawn Chris,

"Morally questionable wars that have killed hundreds of thousands...."

Yes, hundres of thousands killed.... Morally questionable... yeah tell taht to the Sunni, the Shite, the Kurds that just elected their own government... for the first time ever.

We should have followed the french and other "opposition" countries in taking bribes from Saddam and ignored the threat of WMD (which everyone felt was there, from Clinton, to Kerry to the FRENCH) and ignored the millions of people suffering and dying under Saddam. THAT would have been the mroal course right? Bribes, death and murder. All for oil of course like the French, the Russians, the UN officials.

Moral? You have gall trying to lay out some sort of "immoral" case against America for going into Iraq. maybe you should quit getting spoonfed your news and info and look at the reality and the history not the punditry of weak.

[pubmanager]

Yawn Chris,

"Morally questionable wars that have killed hundreds of thousands...."

Yes, hundres of thousands killed.... Morally questionable... yeah tell taht to the Sunni, the Shite, the Kurds that just elected their own government... for the first time ever.

We should have followed the french and other "opposition" countries in taking bribes from Saddam and ignored the threat of WMD (which everyone felt was there, from Clinton, to Kerry to the FRENCH) and ignored the millions of people suffering and dying under Saddam. THAT would have been the mroal course right? Bribes, death and murder. All for oil of course like the French, the Russians, the UN officials.

Moral? You have gall trying to lay out some sort of "immoral" case against America for going into Iraq. maybe you should quit getting spoonfed your news and info and look at the reality and the history not the punditry of weak.

Do you not see the obvious contradiction of selling America as a nation on a moral crusade to help the people of less fornuate nations whilst at the same time condoning the American withdrawal of humanitarian aid from one of the poorest countries in the world in an act of pure selfishness to further it's own foreign policy.

[Rainbow]

Sorry Rainbow, I'm not sure I understand what you're asking for. Help me out.

This is your original post :

May I just re-iterate the point of my confusion.

We are not talking about petty criminals here. They are not two-bit street hustlers.

We are talking about America protecting mass-murderers & genocidal maniacs.

Think Milosovic, Hitler that kind of thing.

The law would only apply if the country in question was unable or unwilling to prosecute the perpetrators itself.

I ask you again, what is the problem with this?

Does America wish to protect baby-murderers, rapists etc etc just because they're American citizens?

My question to you :
- can you post names of those mass-murderers, U.S. is allegedly protecting ? and/or activity they have been involved in/with ?

[Milton Bradley]

Yawn Chris,

"Morally questionable wars that have killed hundreds of thousands...."

Yes, hundres of thousands killed.... Morally questionable... yeah tell taht to the Sunni, the Shite, the Kurds that just elected their own government... for the first time ever.

We should have followed the french and other "opposition" countries in taking bribes from Saddam and ignored the threat of WMD (which everyone felt was there, from Clinton, to Kerry to the FRENCH) and ignored the millions of people suffering and dying under Saddam. THAT would have been the mroal course right? Bribes, death and murder. All for oil of course like the French, the Russians, the UN officials.

Moral? You have gall trying to lay out some sort of "immoral" case against America for going into Iraq. maybe you should quit getting spoonfed your news and info and look at the reality and the history not the punditry of weak.

How about this, how about not propping up dictators in the first place. I'm sure its against the law to do such things, yet we know the U.S. does these type of things, as Noriega was a CIA Agent when he was President of Panama.


So, had Saddam not been "installed" into power in the first place what would heve been the result? Could it have been the self determination of the Iraqi's? Could it have been uninstalled democracy? Truth is, we'll likely never know thanks to U.S. interference.


While it is nice of you to dismiss Saddam's later actions as if they were no responsibility of the U.S.'s, it should be clear that that is not the case, because we all now who propped him up, and armed him in the first place.

[Mr.Vicchio]

Milton, can you please name me a perfect Government? Anywhere?

Can you name a government that does more Good then the USA?

Can you name a single instance of a Government that met all your criteria for the "perfect government" One that never made a mistake, never took the lesser of two evils options at the TIME was the only way to keep probblems from escalating (only to later be bit in the ass by that choice)?

I have looked through history, there is no example I can find. But perhaps you seem to know of a better system/government/country then America...

[Clarence]

Milton, can you please name me a perfect Government? Anywhere?

Can you name a government that does more Good then the USA?

Can you name a single instance of a Government that met all your criteria for the "perfect government" One that never made a mistake, never took the lesser of two evils options at the TIME was the only way to keep probblems from escalating (only to later be bit in the ass by that choice)?

I have looked through history, there is no example I can find. But perhaps you seem to know of a better system/government/country then America...

A bunch of excuses. I've heard you all but proclaim that the Bush administration is perfect. Clearly your war party is on the defensive and getting desparate. The Iraqi elections will be the only bright spot on his resume. That is, if the people of iraq choose democracy instead of some other form of rule. By bringing up the crimes against the constitution, Americans have decided to take the fight to the white house. I am happy to see GWB talking candidly and admitting mistakes. Humility is a good sign. But not good enough if he's broken the law. We'll see.

[Milton Bradley]

Milton, can you please name me a perfect Government? Anywhere?

Can you name a government that does more Good then the USA?

Can you name a single instance of a Government that met all your criteria for the "perfect government" One that never made a mistake, never took the lesser of two evils options at the TIME was the only way to keep probblems from escalating (only to later be bit in the ass by that choice)?

I have looked through history, there is no example I can find. But perhaps you seem to know of a better system/government/country then America...

I don't think those are the most interesting questions on the table right now, and I sort of thought the issues you were dancing around are a little more on topic.


What still seems to elude you, even though we point it over, and over, is where the authority to act in such a manor comes from in the first place.


Who the Hell are you (or, anybody not living in the Middle East) to dictate policy to these people?


Its seems insane to some of us to advocate installng a democracy when you were not in favor of them running things as they saw fit in the first place.


Why should we believe the Bush administration when they say they will honor the Iraqi's will after the instaltion of the new government? I mean, you didn't respect it prior to Saddam, you didn;t respect it during Saddam, and you don't respect it now. Why should we believe anything these people with their less than honorable track record?


I think you know that if you address these little facts, you will have to admit that this really is the reason for the terrorism, and the war.

[pubmanager]

My question to you :
- can you post names of those mass-murderers, U.S. is allegedly protecting ? and/or activity they have been involved in/with ?

Have already answered that one.

[pubmanager]

Can you name a government that does more Good then the USA?

Without wishing to sound rude (as I am aware that I have my own misgivings) exactly what good has the Bush Administration done for the world?

And I mean aside from Iraq and the war on terror (asuming that you think they're doing the world a favour)

[SteveA]

Pub, why not just think of the U.S. as simply the ideal institution to take care of everyone in the world and assure they are "free and democratic"?

Would you support that idea instead?

Why use the ICC, when you can instead just let the U.S. do the same thing and seek justice for everyone?

Now, does the conflict become apparent?

This is exactly why I think a majority of political conflicts needn't even exist if people could instead just mind their own business and not worry too much about ruling over other people. I recognize the ICC is intended to simply stop gross injustices when they occur, and that seems noble, but instead of relying on some 'official' chain of 'authority' to do it which seems to lead to abuse and corruption, instead people should work toward getting rid these institutions, which often are responsible for creating the gross injustices in the first place. Couldn't the ICC instead be replaced by something that simply coordinates the efforts of people that desire to stop these abuses, instead of relying on national governments to enforce this on people? How can we even be certain the ICC wouldn't have started a war in Iraq also? Why rely on global/international institutions to make decisions for you? If people instead relied less on governments and authority figures to tell them how to act, and instead based things upon their personal beliefs, I think the world would be a much more peaceful place. The ICC itself could easily cause more conflict that it resolves, especially if a few bad apples ran the show (that's entirely possible).

[shield772]

Why does the administration of the US have to do anything good for the world?