US Opts Out of World Court

[Imran Siddiqui]

Attacks on civilian structures in Iraq causing untold civilian deaths
Funding of terrorist groups in Nicaragua
Funding of the Khmer Rouge even after it proved its insane nature
Extrajudicial executions in Viet Nam
Funding of terrorist attacks in Cuba

All of this is handled under the ICJ, since this was done by the government as a whole and not simply one individual. And some things like hitting civilian targets in Iraq is not prosecutable.

[Ramo]

Issues on which the US has been indictable in the past:

[...]
Funding of terrorist groups in Nicaragua

Indicted.

[KrazyHorse]

x-post number 3

Not necessarily. US as whole has plausible deniability when it comes to most of those. Can cut loose individuals (Ollie North, etc.)

[Imran Siddiqui]

In some of them, perhaps.

But the terrorist attacks on Cuba can't. The bombing of Iraq can't. The Nicaragua thing, the government was indicted by the ICJ.

Funding of the Khmer Rouge even after it proved its insane nature

That isn't a crime at all unless prpof can be shown that we knew about it's massacres, and just didn't care (ie, even if we knew about the massacres, if we say the funding was humanitarian, you can't prosecute).

[KrazyHorse]

Ummm...most US funding took place after the Viet Namese kicked the Khmer's ass out of power and back into the bush. The Killing Fields were winning Pulitzers for some reporters by that point. Funding was to a terrorist organisation that had already proven its murderousness and was attempting to destabilise government of Cambodia.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Funding was to a terrorist organisation that had already proven its murderousness and was attempting to destabilise government of Cambodia.

Terrorist organization or freedom fighters . You'd have to make the distinction, and I don't think you can.

--

Also the rulings shouldn't be (if they are) applied retroactively.

[David Floyd]

Also the rulings shouldn't be (if they are) applied retroactively.

So basically, ex post facto laws are out?

Thanks for making my Nuremburg point

[Imran Siddiqui]

So basically, ex post facto laws are out?

They should be.

Thanks for making my Nuremburg point

IIRC, the League of Nations approved anti-war crimes legislation. That was replaced by the tougher Geneva Convention standards.

[Ramo]

Yep, we knew perfectly well what we were dealing with when we assisted the Khmer Rouge. The same with many terrorists we've dealt with.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Funding was to a terrorist organisation that had already proven its murderousness and was attempting to destabilise government of Cambodia.

Terrorist organization or freedom fighters . You'd have to make the distinction, and I don't think you can.

--

Also the rulings shouldn't be (if they are) applied retroactively.

Khmer was composed of "freedom fighters" that were terrorists. It's quite possible to be both, you know.

Here's he difference: I blow up an Army post for a cause: I'm a guerrilla. I blow up an elementary school for a cause: I'm a terrorist. Both cases I'm a "freedom fighter".

Second, I'm not asking court to be retroactive, I'm demonstrating that ROW has legitimate concerns with behaviour of US.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I'm demonstrating that ROW has legitimate concerns with behaviour of US.

I'm not debating that. I'm debating if it would be illegal.

Who is in charge of Cambodia now? They would have to bring the charge (and probably in the ICJ, not ICC), because they are the only ones that have standing.

Khmer was composed of "freedom fighters" that were terrorists. It's quite possible to be both, you know.

Yes, but except for Israel, no one is calling for Arafat to be tried for war crimes (or the countries that supported Hamas... like Syria).

[KrazyHorse]

If they wanted to try him for war crimes, then they should be able to. He could share a cell with Sharon.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Who is in charge of Cambodia now? They would have to bring the charge (and probably in the ICJ, not ICC), because they are the only ones that have standing

Don't know. Might be royal familiy? Khmer were finally wiped out 2-3 years ago.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Well, if they don't want to file charges nothing happens . Maybe they'll accept a big settlement .

[TCO]

Re: Yet another x-post

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Ummm...

Issues on which the US has been indictable in the past:

Attacks on civilian structures in Iraq causing untold civilian deaths
Funding of terrorist groups in Nicaragua
Funding of the Khmer Rouge even after it proved its insane nature
Extrajudicial executions in Viet Nam
Funding of terrorist attacks in Cuba
etc.?

If hamstringing the Gulliver is accomplished by asking you to adhere to the usual rules of war, then Gulliver has some very serious problems with the way it operates.

At least do me the courtesy of following my argument. I think this is more about pride and about creating a web of entanglements than about legitimate concerns.

We are the good guys. If you want to look for problems there are more rich opportunities elsewhere.

New issue: If you are planning on constraining our actions as a state, than you should think of a different mechanism than a court for individuals.