WHEN THE WORLD COURTS ABUSE

NY Post ^ | June 24, 2002 | NY Post Editorial

[Destro]

The abusive behavior of the U.N.'s Bosnian War Crimes tribunal with regard to an American journalist prefigures what it is to come after the new International Criminal Court comes into being in July, and only confirms the wisdom of America's refusal to sign on to the ICC.

[Destro]

I agree with this editorial in its entirety but I find it laughable and ironic and hypocritical that the NY Post and other media as well as the US State Dept. and the US Congress (under Bush, Clinton and Bush) not only advocated the creation and support of this kangaroo court for all parts of Yugoslavia (both financially and militarily) but they salivated when Slobo was taken to this kangaroo court. I guess Slobo knows what screws to turn to get this reaction.

Meanwhile the USA which rightly is opposed to a permanent World Court to the point of threatening to withdraw from the UN peace keeping missions continues to spend hundreds of millions of US tax payer dollars and provide the military muscle for this precursor to the UN World Court.

With even the media that backed its creation now screaming foul, is the State Depts' policy on the World Court a joke, irony or hypocrisy? Or all of the above?

You decide.

[Destro]

bump

[Joe Brower]

even the media that backed its creation now screaming foul

They aren't called the "useful idiots" for nothing.

[PoppingSmoke]

"Meanwhile the USA which rightly is opposed to a permanent World Court to the point of threatening to withdraw from the UN peace keeping missions continues to spend hundreds of millions of US tax payer dollars and provide the military muscle for this precursor to the UN World Court."

Yeah amd Bush better do something about it, before we are caught up in it by default. Though I admit, using the ICC to keep journalist out of a war zone is somewhat appealing. To bad I am more concerned with Americans being tried by some screw lose world court.

[ABrit]

So who should try perpetrators of crimes against humanity?

[Joe Brower]

So who should try perpetrators of crimes against humanity?

Ah yes, the age-old question, "Who watches the watchers?". Certainly not the puppets of those who allow atrocity to continue and perpetuate the fraud in order to further their own grand visions of power.

Currently, where is the U.N. in Algeria? Or Zimbabwe? Where was the U.N. when the ChiComs killed over a thousand Chinese protesting for freedom in Tiananmen Square in 1989? Why did they allow the slaughter in Rwanda, ordering the Canadian general in charge of the forces there to stand by as 800,000 people were butchered in a matter of months? God knows there are many more places where intervention is so terribly called for, and the world-governors do nothing.

Curious, the targets the U.N. and their lackeys choose. Look up "Hegelian Dialectic". You may learn something.

[ABrit]

You have a lot of questions, but no answer to mine.

[PoppingSmoke]

"So who should try perpetrators of crimes against humanity?"

Each Sovereign Country, when a Country will not, then institute a tribunal. We don't need a world court.

[Joe Brower]

You have a lot of questions, but no answer to mine.

Whatever. I don't see you presenting any ideas. Looks like post #8 has done my work for me; thanks Poppingsmoke.

ABrit, If you personally feel like throwing away your individual rights and rejecting your national sovereignty, go right ahead. But don't try dragging anyone else into that rathole. You can go there alone.

[ABrit]

I was just asking the question to which you didn't appear to have an answer.

Is you objection to a permanent world court, an ad hoc one, one which isn't US, or in fact any court at all?

[Joe Brower]

I am leery of any permanent body set up for the purposes purported by the ICC. Such entities, once established, tend to grow over the years, and look for things to go after when none are readily available. And I am completely opposed to any entity that considers itself superior to a nation's sovereignty. Such arrogance can only bring about further conflict. Temporary tribunals established more along the lines of those used in the Nuremburg Trials would be a better method of truly dispensing justice and avoiding such demagoguery. What do you think is the answer here?

Unlike the self-anointed who inhabit the U.N., I don't pretend to know more than all the rest of humanity, nor do I deem myself justified in forcing my concepts on the rest of the world at gunpoint. They do. Look at the fact that the ICC was "ratified" with the votes of only 60 nations, when there are almost 200 on Earth; that's not even close to a majority, and the U.N. views this as a mandate. Who established those rules? Why, the U.N. of course. Now ask yourself, do you truly deem it wise to allow yourself to be subjected to the will of such people? Please read this article and let me know what you think.

Do not mistake me, nothing would please me more than to for us have people who were noble, statesmanlike and utterly trustworthy in positions of power, whom we could trust to run the world for the benefit of all. Unfortunately, mankind is still light-years away from such an ideal. Seeking shortcuts to "One planet, one nation" will only lead to tyranny.

[Voronin]

So who should try perpetrators of crimes against humanity?

You should obviously. Stalin would have employed you in the 30's.

VRN

[ABrit]

I rather think Stalin would have been on trial if I had anything to do with it.

[Joe Brower]

ABrit,

I just happened upon another article which you may find enlightening, on the Wall Street Journal's op-ed page.

[ABrit]

If you want to know my views, they are as follows

1 There should be an International Criminal Court
2 It should be open to anyone to put forward a case for indictment, not just nations.
3 The court should be independent of the UN, which is a flawed institution.
4 The court should have jurisdiction over certain types of crime, genocide, war crimes etc.

This type of court is necessary because of the type of crime mentioned in the articles you cite; in China, USSR, Burma, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Cambodia, to name but a few, where the existing regime was itself criminal, and unable to try a case fairly.

The argument that a court should not be created because some states may be able to ignore it, is fallacious. There must be a mechanism for people to express disapproval of these types of crime, and to deter criminal leaders, so they know that even if rulings can be disobeyed now, at some futere point when cicumstances change, as they do, the those responsible would have to pay the price. the court would also deter subordinates from following criminal instruction from their leadership.

As regards misuse of the court, I would suggest political control by freely, and democratically elected governments. That would exclude many in the UN.

I don't se a problem for the US or anyone else, as long as they obey the rules. The US, and UK already go to great lengths to make sure they do not commit war crimes. The only grey area seems to me for acts of pre-emptive defence such as that which the US is about to engage in Iraq, and Syria.

However, from the rhetoric of the leadership of Iraq, and Iran, where they say publicly that they mean harm to the US and others, that may well be sufficient grounds for pre-emptive attack. Much as if a private individual were threatened, they would be able to take whatever measures were reasonable to protect themselves from what they had good reason to believe, was an impending attack.

[Joe Brower]

Your opinions are well considered, and I find myself in agreement to a great extent.

The ICC as currently administered, though, is wholly a product of U.N. mechanisms, so any such world court that you describe would have to be something other than what is currently established.

And without military power to back up it's powers, as is currently provided by U.N. (read U.S., British, etc. military power), such a court would quickly be rendered lame by the first dictator who says "I ignore you", and who has his own war forces to resist. Such situations are the norm.

Also be aware that such a body has a great deal of potential for misuse, such as indicting common soldiers of "war crimes" when they are called upon to risk their lives in foreign lands, are thrust into untenable situations, and then put before the ICC simply as a political ploy against their parent nation. That's sure to motivate the boys (and gals) to enlist!