US Opts Out of World Court

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Sorry, it doesn't work that way. They can't be blamed for taking the easy way out of adverse, even deadly consequences. But to turn around and imprison them or execute them for what they did is bull****, because it effectively says "You're ****ed no matter what you do". How is that OK?

Suggested Reading: Franz Stangl's story in "Into That Darkness"

Besides, this doesn't relate to Nuremburg. The men tried at Nuremburg weren't damned if they didn't. We're talking about Goering, Goebbels, Von Ribbentrop...these were the ARCHITECHTS of the Holocaust. They weren't acting under orders, they were GIVING them. The damned-damned argument holds no water for these men. And many, I'd wager most of those who participated in the Holocaust (and they represented many nationalities), down to the camp guards, did their duty willingly.

At any rate, the notion of national sovereignity are arbitrary human artifices that are coming down all the time, so why should something as fictitious as nationality prevent one from being charged for a very real and horrible crime?

[reds4ever]

david f.
so by your reasoning,there's no difference inbetween the 'crimes' of Himmler and Dontitz?

Boris, don't forget Donitz was sentenced at Nuremburg

[David Floyd]

Besides, this doesn't relate to Nuremburg. The men tried at Nuremburg weren't damned if they didn't. We're talking about Goering, Goebbels, Von Ribbentrop...these were the ARCHITECHTS of the Holocaust. They weren't acting under orders, they were GIVING them.

Yes, and Hitler DIDN'T have a history of executing those who opposed him or could become threats, even his friends and/or advisors. Ernst Roehm, for example, CERTAINLY wasn't killed by Hitler, nor was Erwin Rommel.

Also, Gustav Krupp was charged, as were Wilhelm Keitel and Erich Raeder. The first was an industrialist and the latter two a field marshall and grand admiral, respectively.

Other examples of people convicted who were in no position to give initial orders included Martin Bormann, Karl Doenitz, Walther Funk, Alfred Jodl, Fritz Sauckel, Baldur von Shirach, and Julius Strecher.

Further, in 12 cases following Nuremburg, a further 185 individuals were indicted, none of whom were major politicians who gave orders, only 35 of whom were acquitted.

And many, I'd wager most of those who participated in the Holocaust (and they represented many nationalities), down to the camp guards, did their duty willingly.

How's that relevant? Willing or not, refusal would have been, shall we say, not good for them.

[David Floyd]

so by your reasoning,there's no difference inbetween the 'crimes' of Himmler and Dontitz?

Neither committed legal crimes, and only Himmler committed moral crimes, which frankly should not be judged or punished, especially when what he did was legal.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Law is morality, David.

[MrFun]

David, David, David --- what to do about David??

Your position about Nazis and their crimes is the looniest I have seen yet.


As for the International Criminal Court, I would be in favor of the United States becoming part of this. This would be one step forward in undoing United State's reputation of international hypocrisy and double standards.

Is the United States the only one guilty of international hypocrisy and double standards? No -- that is not what I said, so don't go ahead and say that I thought that.

But since the United States is the world power, it needs to set a more powerful example by beginning to undo its hypocrisy and double standards.

[David Floyd]

Imran,

Law is morality, David.

So a law saying you can walk up and shoot me would be moral?

MF,

Your position about Nazis and their crimes is the looniest I have seen yet.

I love how people call me a loon but don't address my points. At least Imran is doing that much.

[DinoDoc]

I may not agree with DF's opinions on the matter but I can certainly agree with his conclusion on this matter. The US is better of being rid of the World Court.

[Imran Siddiqui]

So a law saying you can walk up and shoot me would be moral?

To someone it is. All law is morality which is written down for others to follow.

I love how people call me a loon but don't address my points.

People call Nazis loons and don't address their points. Sometimes it just isn't worth it to debate delusional people... but I have nothing else to do.

[reds4ever]

in a nutshell, either the American government has something to hide, or it knows it will have something to hide soon!!

give it 12 months(for the **** to hit the fan), and then see how the American goverment would have fared in Nuremburg? (Hypothetically,like)

[Imran Siddiqui]

I may not agree with DF's opinions on the matter but I can certainly agree with his conclusion on this matter. The US is better of being rid of the World Court.

I disagree totally. A permanent Court set up to deal with genocide, mass murder, war crimes, etc., is much more efficient and cost effective that setting up random tribunals when we feel we must. After all, one of our complaints against the UN is the inefficiency... well let's put our money where our mouth is.

[David Floyd]

To someone it is. All law is morality which is written down for others to follow.

Just because someone thinks an unjustified killing is moral doesn't make it so - I daresay YOU'RE loony if you disagree

People call Nazis loons and don't address their points.

Maybe they should. I wouldn't call a Nazi a loon, I'd just debate their arguments and positions.

I disagree totally. A permanent Court set up to deal with genocide, mass murder, war crimes, etc., is much more efficient and cost effective that setting up random tribunals when we feel we must. After all, one of our complaints against the UN is the inefficiency... well let's put our money where our mouth is.

I disagree that we should ever set up international tribunals period.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Just because someone thinks an unjustified killing is moral doesn't make it so

Unjustified to who?

I disagree that we should ever set up international tribunals period.

Wonderful, now join the 20th 21st Century

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
A permanent Court set up to deal with genocide, mass murder, war crimes, etc., is much more efficient and cost effective that setting up random tribunals when we feel we must. After all, one of our complaints against the UN is the inefficiency... well let's put our money where our mouth is.

Cost effective? Efficent? Such high praise for something that doesn't even exist in any meaningful for as of yet especially given the fact that very few UN agencies every reach such a lofty status. On what do you base the claim? Ad hoc tribunals don't count for this comparison, so you can forget mentioning the Milosevic trial.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Cost effective? Efficent? Such high praise for something that doesn't even exist in any meaningful for as of yet especially given the fact that very few UN agencies every reach such a lofty status.

More UN agencies should reach this lofty status. Better to have something permanently in place rather than just making up tribunals whenever you feel that need. Much better to have a permanent Supreme Court of the US, rather than making up tribunals of Appeals Court Justices whenever a federal question came up where different Appeals Courts or State Courts disagreed.