Posted by panch from pool0314.cvx25-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net (188.8.131.52) on Tuesday, July 02, 2002 at 2:10PM :
In Reply to: Re: New war crimes tribunal posted by Julia from host194.crp.org (184.108.40.206) on Tuesday, July 02, 2002 at 10:31AM :
: >>if the us has a reason to believe its military has committed war crimes..it has jurisdiction to try its own people through due process of the law, under their laws. same thing if a greek committed a war crime...the legal body that gets first dibs on trying the greek person is a greek court.
+++Oh come ON! Greece doesn't block most of the UN measures that have been passed...it also doesn't rule the UN and provide its budget. We're talking about those times when the Americans WONT prosecute...as they let all sorts of cops and FBI agents get off...get real.
in some cases (rwanda, and i think sri lanka) the legal body with jursidiction doesn't have the capacity to do it - $$, lawyers, etc are not in the plenty, and so they defer to international organizations to help them along in the process and get the trials done.
+++These cases are hardly equivalent...we're talking about the United States...about State sponsored Terrorism against other nations...not a Rawanda fer chrissakes. Who's going to try the American soldiers who illegally flew into Panama...kidnapped their duly elected thug, OUR friend...and killed several civillians in the process...who took the US to trial for killing mental patients in Grenada!!! Grenada fer chrissakes!!!
that is what ad hoc is; improvised given that the country with jursidiction of the crime has not the resources/capacity to do the trials.
++++That may be...but your designating the Nuremberg Trials as ad hoc is silly. It was an international Tribunal with the winning side setting it up to set a precedent for ALL PEOPLE...that's why they are called crimes against HUMANITY.
: the point that you missed was because we don't have a one world government, how can we have one world legal jurisdiction over war crimes. because a government creates the laws, it enforces them and it has jurisdiction over when the laws are violated....
++++Go back to picking your nose...stop picking obscure points. The net effect was supposed to be to set a standard to be used for all of Humanity...that these kinds of things are wrong and that saying you followed orders will no longer be a valid excuse. We have to wait for a WORLD government before we take that tiny step?
+++In this very country itself laws are disregarded all the time...the death penalty is batted around and special prosecutors and grand juries and commissions are set up to police the police.
+++The Nuremburg Trials were set up with that in mind...a standard civilized people could at least disregard...because it was THERE to be ignored. Yes...in this world, that IS progress.
: even with the ICC, there is no guarantee that when a greek commits a war crime he'll be tried by the ICC. Rather, his country would have first dibs on trying him.
++++We're not just talking about people with countries...but even people from countries, like Serbia or Germany should be held to an international standard...like we insist with toothpaste that enters this country...we don't accept the argument that the toothpaste is just fine in its country of origin. The ICC is supposed to cover those instances when a rogue nation, like the United States can be held accountable somewhere because the rest of the world is getting nervous at the level of stupidity coupled with inhumanity and way too many ways to make money off way too many weapons that wont be as profitable as they can be if they aren't used and replaced, over and over.
+++It's a great country...eating raw meat in a cave was a great improvement once upon a time...and if back then we tried to change things by agitating round the mouth of the cave...you'd squat down and say things were pretty good in Washington...why so angry?
-- signature .
Post a Followup