This is great.
-
KaЯl wrote: You can't have Justice without a court. No, you can have justice without a court. It's just that it will be more suspect without one. It's one of the foundations of our beliefs in the democracy. Why would it be different at a wider scale? I already mentioned why the ICC is NOT simply an extension of a national court system. This can easily become a means by which countries can drag hated foreign leaders into court (I mentioned Arafat and Sharron, didn't I?) The end result is that the killers of the premodern world (Osama Bin Ladin, Saddam) won't be dragged into court, the criminals of the modern world will be dragged into court - but only against the will of their host country, because if the host country regarded them as criminals they would prosecute them themselves. I don't really like some of the things that, say, Reagan did, but to drag him into court and not drag in people like Osama Bin Laden (because they can't catch him) shifts the entire balance of power against the developed world. I can't seriously believe that any real justice is being carried out when it is handled in such an unbalanced way. Let me ask you this: if you could setup a court system in France to prosecute terrorism, but it was, for one reason or another, unable to try a single white person - and it was heavily skewed towards prosecuting, say, Algerians, would you agree with it? Its not a question of whether they are guilty or not, it a bias determined by who you can get into court. KaЯl wrote: Answer: only military power can get them into court (e.g. Milosevic) Nutnut. The serbian government sent Milosevitch in the Hague I may have been wrong about that fact. But, that fact becomes irrelavant in the larger discussion because it shows that the international criminal court functioned because the government was willing to turn him over. The other mechanism is a huge military intervention to capture him. Those are the only two mechanisms. ------------------------------------------ "What happened in that Rhode Island club is shocking. To think that over a hundred people would attend a Great White concert." - The Onion
Brit wrote: This can easily become a means by which countries can drag hated foreign leaders into court The ICC has some rules to protect from exessive prosecutions. However, I gre, I could be, as it happens in "national" courts. But I'm fed up to see the villains ending sweetly their life in their beds, without facing the consequences of their actions. Remember Pinochet? Spain and UK are both member of the EU, but UK refused to expulse Pinochet to Spain, where he was charged by the judge Garzon (a european celebrity, he also charged Kissinger, for example) for the murder of european citizens in Chile in the 70's. And now Pinochet won't be prosecuted, because the political situation in Chile doesn't allow it. Fùck. Brit wrote: if you could setup a court system in France to prosecute terrorism, but it was, for one reason or another, unable to try a single white person - and it was heavily skewed towards prosecuting, say, Algerians, would you agree with it? We have special anti-terrorist courts since the 70's, I think. We faced some waves of bloody terrorist attacks in the 70's, 80's and the 90's, mostly coming from inside (indenpendantist movements and far-left), and also from Iran, Lybia and Algeria. Some of the terrorists were killed, others trialed, others are still running, for the moment. I wish we will finally get them. Whatever their origin or their skin color. Brit wrote: Those are the only two mechanism It's better than nothing. And imagine a national leader comdemned by contumacy by the rest of the World, represented by the ICC. We could even imagine it could automatically authorize an action from the Security Council members.
Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop