Global War Crimes Court

[KillerMuffin]

The Facts about the court:

The first permanent global war crimes court starts work on Monday, decades after World War Two prompted calls for a tribunal to try heinous crimes, but faces stiff opposition from the United States, Russia and China.

The Dutch-based International Criminal Court will have the power to tackle genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes as of July 1, 2002.

Anyone -- from a head of state to an ordinary citizen -- will be liable to ICC prosecution for human rights violations, including systematic murder, torture, rape and sexual slavery.

The ICC will not supersede national courts and will intercede only when those courts are unable to investigate or prosecute serious crimes. The ICC, set up under a 1998 Rome Treaty, will not probe crimes committed before its inception.

Cases can be referred by states that have ratified the Rome Treaty, the U.N. Security Council or the tribunal's prosecutor after approval from three judges.

The Security Council also has the power to suspend an ICC investigation or prosecution if it believes it could obstruct its efforts to maintain international peace and security.

The Pros:

It will stop heinous crimes against human rights, children, and in general innocents.

It will give nations a nonviolent recourse to deal with "war criminals."

It will give individual people recourse against nations and armies.

It will provide solidarity among nations to deal with "war crimes."

The Cons:

It will allow frivolous lawsuits against peacekeepers or other occupational forces.

It will undermine sovereignty by superceding national law in favor of international law.

It will allow politically motivated lawsuits, rather "war crime" suits, so that national governments, commanders, or diplomats could be undermined.

What do you think?

 

[REDWAVE]

Ambivalent

Interesting that the U.S., Russia, and China are united in opposition to this one. It's rare those three countries all agree. Stiff opposition? I guess. The U.S. is demanding it be exempted from the International Criminal Court. I can understand why. The biggest war criminals in the world right now are Bush and Sharon. The recent U.S. bombing of a wedding party in Afghanistan was only the latest in a string of U.S. atrocities there.

But the U.N. itself is a corrupt bourgeois institution, which is not qualified to administer justice to the AmeriKKKan Empire. That can be done only by the oppressed masses after they rise up and take power.

 

[Harbinger]

I think it's about time we least tried to set a standard of not accepting mass murder of non-combatants, government-sanctioned rape and sexual slavery, and torture by any government or any group anywhere. The actual implementation may be complicated and difficult, but I think there is not a lot of moral gray area with these issues. I would be cautious about expanding the Court's powers to other types of crimes, though. The national sovereignty issue could undermine the court's legitimacy if it tries to extend into other areas. Any nation or group in power that does not respect these basic human rights has no legitimacy anyway.

 

[LovetoGiveRoses]

Con:

There is no higher court to appeal to.

There's no accountability for frivolous lawsuits

_____________________________________________

I heard that an earlier version (sort of a trial run) of the court held Henry Kissinger for questioning about his responsibilities in Viet Nam. I understood that this event was one of the catalysts in the US position in regards to the court. I usually don't make statements like this without footnotes so let me say ....THERE'S NO FOOTNOTE..THIS IS HEARSAY...I CAN'T ATTEST TO THE ACCURACY OR VERACITY OF THIS STATEMENT. Has anyone heard anything else about this purported event?

 

[android1966]

In your facts about the court you state,

"The ICC will not supercede national courts"

Then in the cons

"It will undermine sovereignty by superceding national law"

 

[RhumbRunner13]

Really?

It will stop heinous crimes against human rights, children, and in general innocents.

When was the last time you saw a law stop ANY crime? Laws are and should be made for providing punishment or sanctions against those who commit wrongs against others. This so called court is simply idiotic! Let's just pass a law that "We all have to get along!"

Rhumb

 

[Harbinger]

Re: Really?

When was the last time you saw a law stop ANY crime?

Well, I don't know for sure, but I think probably about 5 minutes ago, and about 5,000 times a day. Do you really think that if there where no laws, and no enforcement, the level of crime would be the same? Maybe you need to rent Road Warrior one more time.

Laws are and should be made for providing punishment or sanctions against those who commit wrongs against others.

Laws are also intended to be a deterrent,as well as a way to stop people from continuing to commit the crime. Doesn't that count for anything?

 

[RhumbRunner13]

Re: Re: Really?

Well, I don't know for sure, but I think probably about 5 minutes ago, and about 5,000 times a day. Do you really think that if there where no laws, and no enforcement, the level of crime would be the same? Maybe you need to rent Road Warrior one more time.



Laws are also intended to be a deterrent,as well as a way to stop people from continuing to commit the crime. Doesn't that count for anything?

You seem to be saying that we would all be out raping and pillaging unless some politician told us what is "right and wrong"! I think that is "horse pucky"! For every crime you can point out that wasn't comitted, I'll point out a thousand that were.

Laws do not reduce crime!

Rhumb

 

[Harbinger]

I'm not saying that at all. History and experience show us all too well that only a very small percentage of bloodthirsty ruthless maniacs are necessary to overrun the entire community if not stopped. And as far as your tally goes, I'll bet I can think up more crimes that weren't committed than you can cite from the record.

 

[RhumbRunner13]

I'm not saying that at all. History and experience show us all too well that only a very small percentage of bloodthirsty ruthless maniacs are necessary to overrun the entire community if not stopped. And as far as your tally goes, I'll bet I can think up more crimes that weren't committed than you can cite from the record.

I can think up more flying saucers that are painted green than you can think up crimes that weren't committed! As far as history goes, all the good intentions and laws in the world never stopped any of those blood thirsty, ruthless maniacs. That's the point!

Rhumb

 

[Harbinger]

I'm just going to say that you obviously haven't met some of the people that I have, and leave it at that.

 

[floridaguy64]

Re: Ambivalent

Interesting that the U.S., Russia, and China are united in opposition to this one. It's rare those three countries all agree. Stiff opposition? I guess. The U.S. is demanding it be exempted from the International Criminal Court. I can understand why. The biggest war criminals in the world right now are Bush and Sharon. The recent U.S. bombing of a wedding party in Afghanistan was only the latest in a string of U.S. atrocities there.

But the U.N. itself is a corrupt bourgeois institution, which is not qualified to administer justice to the AmeriKKKan Empire. That can be done only by the oppressed masses after they rise up and take power.

Please........ If nothing else............ REMEMBER THE DAY WHEN THE TWIN TOWERS CAME TUMBLING DOWN........... PEOPLE OF EVERY NATIONALITY IMMAGINABLE LOST THIER LIVES......... THE WORLD SUFFERED A HORRENDOUS BLOW BEYOND BELIEF!

NOW........... WHY WOULD YOU call the president of the US of A and the PM of Isreal the biggest war criminals on our mother Earth? Mother Gaia herself would slap that thought from your mouth! Also.......... Why would you put a KKK in the middleof your spelling of America? Sure, this country has had it's period of zeolot biggotry.............. so has every other country on the face of the earth. Blacks die in Africa for nothing! Catholics die in Ireland for nothing! Jews the world over die because they are jews............


PEOPLE...................... WHEN WILL IT F**/CVKING END????????????????????????????????????????????????


A "World Court" is not the answer.................. search back to the Nurmberg trials........... hundreds of mass murdering NAZIS escaped, thousands of innocent lives were destroyed............... is that your intention??????????

Destroy the masses in order to prosecute the few?

Call me on the facts ANYTIME YOU WANT!

jcann21@yahoo.com
20th year now in medical retirement USMC
3rd Generation USMC
GreatGrandafather hung from a tree by the Pinkertons for being Irish.
2nd Grand Nephew to JFK................ Womanizer?, YES!............ Humanitarian?............ you and I are still here.......... YES??????

 

[Sillyman]

No laws just force people to do secretly what they would normally do out in public. It makes things more tidy.

Now we can have genocide like it's supposed to be, systematic and secretive, with good plausable deniability.

 

[floridaguy64]

EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!!

No laws just force people to do secretly what they would normally do out in public. It makes things more tidy.

Now we can have genocide like it's supposed to be, systematic and secretive, with good plausable deniability.

Remember USAMA BIN LADEN of Saudi Arabia?......... Supposedly Saudi Arabia are friends to the free world?

Remember 09/11/2001?............. people of almost every civilized nationality lost their lives............... children lost parents, parents lost children, husbands lost wives, wives lost husbands...............

Humanity suffered an irreversible blow!

Now picture this................... the new World court takes up the matter for the next 20 YEARS................AND DECIDES THAT THE WESTERN WORLD IS AT FAULT FOR BEING PROSPEROUS......... FOR NOT STARVING........... FOR BEING TOO INNOVATIVE FOR THE REST OF THE WORLD TO KEEP UP THE PACE WITH..................

PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!! This is exactly what is happining with this whole World Court BS/..............

WAKE THE F**K UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Sixth]

Re: Really?

When was the last time you saw a law stop ANY crime?

Okay. I would like to walk into the local shop and help myself to a handful of candy. I don't because it's illegal. It's against the law. The law stops me from committing this crime.

If your troops are not likely to engage in murder, rape, torture or pillage then how on earth could you be against a court which is set up to convict people of these war crimes and try and close some (hopefully all) of the legal loop holes which these criminals use to evade justice?

China is opposed to this Court because of their dodgy handling of Tibet, the way things are unfolding in Hong Kong and, of course, the Tiawan problem.

Russia worries about the break away republics.

America, well, I dare not speculate without invoking the wrath of the board

 

[Sixth]

Re: Re: Ambivalent

WHY WOULD YOU call the president of the US of A and the PM of Isreal the biggest war criminals on our mother Earth?

I'm not saying I agree with this myself but some people are angry that the US sells Israel tanks and sends money but doesn't support the Palestinians in the same way. Previous this was done, supporting one side but not another, while the US tried to mediate as a "neutral". At least with Bush's latest speach he's come down in favour of Sharron.

Many people disagree with the use of the Israel army against Palestinian towns - even many Israelis. Some people strong disagree with the Israeli practise of "targeted killing". It's illegal, in the US, for the US President to order the assassination of another political leader in a different country. (Which is why the US Special Forces are only allowed to use deadly force against Saddam if their life is in danger (which some people claim would be true by just being in Iraq)).

These are just some points. They're not my views. I can't get my own views clear but I do hear these points.

Remember USAMA BIN LADEN of Saudi Arabia?.........
Who was trained by another country's covert forces as a "special freedom fighter" against the Commie occupation of Afghanistan. Perhaps it should be made illegal to train fighters like this or International law changed so countries who offer such training can be held accountable.

 

[LovetoGiveRoses]

Re: EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!!

Now picture this................... the new World court takes up the matter for the next 20 YEARS................AND DECIDES THAT THE WESTERN WORLD IS AT FAULT FOR BEING PROSPEROUS......... FOR NOT STARVING........... FOR BEING TOO INNOVATIVE FOR THE REST OF THE WORLD TO KEEP UP THE PACE WITH..................

Yes, and then they make a judgement against us and we have no recourse (other than ignore them completely).

 

[p_p_man]

Re: Ambivalent

Interesting that the U.S., Russia, and China are united in opposition to this one. It's rare those three countries all agree.

Interesting but not unexpected.

All three countries have the same particular reason for not allowing international criminals be tried in an international court.

The USA, because of Bush's 'war' against terrorism will have to surrender the 'alledged' al Qaida and Taleban prisoners she is holding and subject them to a proper trial with all the correct procedures that such trials bring to courts of law. Bush won't want that. It will take his 'revenge' factor away from him.

The same for the Russians and their terrorists in Chechnya. Russia will want to retain the right to treat them in any way she feels appropriate. And likewise for China with her 'dissidents' who, at the moment can be accused of trumped up charges involving international criminality.

All three countries want to retain the right to change, twist or amend any present laws they have governing international criminals, because all three countries are notorious in bending the law any way they feel like bending it, paying only lip service to correct procedural matters.

The formation of the ICC has created yet another rift between America and Europe with Tony Blair trying to act as peacemaker between the two. As the only assurance he can give the USA is that the ICC will not supercede national law he's not likely to gain much headway with Bush.

To me that can only be a good thing. The more America goes head to head with Europe over various issues the more he will be forced to come to terms with the fact that it is the European Union he should be concentrating on and not Bush.

ppman