Who exactly made Belgium the judge of all the earth?

[Bereta_Eder]

Kissinger is to be tried, ten times more then for example Milosevic, the only thing stopping that is the powergame. Thus no justice (=no peace)

[lightblue]

paiktis you should know by now that the winners write history, and as such decide who to indite and who is a hero for the same actions.

I am in favour of a nuetral world court, but not the Belgian "let's allow all these people to sue whoever they want all over the world, for crimes that weren't committed on belgium territory or against belgian citizens" method of justice.

[Bereta_Eder]

Originally posted by lightblue
paiktis you should know by now that the winners write history, and as such decide who to indite and who is a hero for the same actions.

Where did I say that I don't know this?



Of course this means war!!!

[Urban Ranger]

I am not sure whether the conservatives circle-jerking so apparent in this thread is sad or amusing.

[oedo]

Originally posted by monkspider
Why should the US be immune to war crimes laws while expecting the rest of the world to abide by them. Franks is a war criminal who has waged an aggressive war. People were hanged at Nuremburg for much less.

although I mainly agree in the point that the war on Iraq was (is) illegal, the Nürnberg-trial was a totally different issue. the people you´re talking about were sentenced for crimes which were far more evil than anything US officials of the current administration or the pentagon ever did.
this is simply not comparable.

however, since the overwhelming majority in world considers the Iraq war as an unjustified crime, an independent trial seems to be more than useful. the US shouldn´t just dodge it. their credibility has been damaged more than enough lately.

[Maniac]

Who exactly made Belgium the judge of all the earth?

Who made the USA the judge of the world?

[Dauphin]

I don't think the US has anything to fear in terms of show trials or circuses if it ever did sign up to the ICC. Any crank politically motivated suits would never get to trial if for no other reason than the US not giving up the individual in question if they thought the trial unjust. That said I see no reason for the US to sign up to the court. There is no reason for it to open its military personnel up to politically motivated claims.


I'm not in the least bothered by the US not signing up. If US military personnel ever did commit war crimes I would hope internal review and court martial would be enough to correct the problem - if not, and the US military has an institutionalised belief that war crimes or genocide are acceptable, then there are more things for us to worry about than taking them to court in the Hague.

[Kropotkin]

Ad definition of when a court is out to score political points: When a possible conviction doesn't suite your own desires.

Look, it's quite easy to understand. Any attempt to bring anyone to a court for war crimes is bound to be political. That doesn't mean before hand that the court will make a political decision.

As for the Belgian courts, Spiffor has already explained the difference between this and ICC.

Some of you people are so far up the ass of your own political agenda that you don't have any perspectives whatsoever.

[rah]

Originally posted by GP
I remember people like Rah, who were favorably disposed to the ICC and then turned against it when hearing all the little Polyteenies who wanted to try Kissinger and such. This kind of thing just shows clearly what a joke the ICC would be.

So true. Originally I did think the ICC was a good Idea.
But when a lot of posters I have some respect for, that I believed are smarter than the average person started spouting off, it chilled me considerably. If knowledgable people are willing to make it a political circus, the masses could only make it even worse.

[Traianvs]

As always :

"I think either the U.S. State Department has nothing to hide, in which case it's very important for them to have an independent inquiry -- and why can't it be a Belgian magistrate -- or they have something to hide and that's why they are threatening Belgium," Fermon said.

all you people who think internal courts will deal with war criminals, think again, people won't condemn their own generals.. especially if they have just won a war..
Belgium is neutral

and to all you people who wonder why Belgium should be the judge of earth, well who made the USA judge of the world, simply invading countries because it suits them...

[Dauphin]

The ICC can't try cases when the alleged offence occured before its inception. So Kissinger, at least, is safe.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Big Crunch
The ICC can't try cases when the alleged offence occured before its inception. So Kissinger, at least, is safe.

Good. But it shows the potential for political gamesmanship. I agreed with your earlier post where you said that the US doesn't choose to expose itself to this liability. Maybe if the thing runs for a while and distinguishes itself (and doesn't end up looking like the UN commision on Human Rights) than we will join in later.

[rah]

Agreed. A little history to see how it goes could make a lot of people like myself rethink our newly found objection to it.

[Spiffor]

Does anybody know who can push a case on the ICC ? Can any individual/irganization sue with the ICC, or only national judiciaries/few elected NGOs/etc ?

[VetLegion]

Good. But it shows the potential for political gamesmanship.

Yeah and what does this mean? Judges in Hague and (to be) ICC are supposedly famous profesionals. They would not accept charges if they are not legaly valid.

And any charge whatsoever about gen. Franks is valid. There were crimes that happened under his command and only court can clear it wheather he commanded them, persecuted them or did he do anything at all.