U.S. concerns about International Criminal Court being proved justified as Balkans tribunal considers Clinton indictment

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: EngineNr9
The US has had no qualms trying people of other nationalities in our own military courts. Why should we not be subject to the jurisdiction of an International Court?

One has absolutely nothing to do with the other.

 

[PistachioByAzul]

For some reason the whole idea of the ICC reminds me of this scene from Braveheart:

Executioner: William Wallace, you stand intend of High Treason.

William: Against whom?

Executioner: Against your king. Have you anything to say?

William: Never in my whole life did I swear allegiance to him.

Executioner: It matters not. He is your king. Confess, and you may receive a quick death. Deny, and you must be purified by pain. Do you confess? Do you confess?

Well that really opens up a whole can of worms with regard to anarchy.

 

[Moonbeam]

I love it Scipionix, you say it's unconstitutional for an American to be tried internationally and I ask you where in the Constitutions does it say that and you answer in the Constitution. You crack me up especially since you're serious.

DaiShan, I have not addressed that issue. I happen to believe that in comparison to most countries we have a more developed and trustworthy justice system. I don't think it is infallable and I am not so suspicious of the foreign as to distrust everybody else automatically. I believe we need to be involved and influencial in what kind of justice gets done in the world. I believe a just country doesn't have to worry in a just system. Do I think other countries would play games. Yes, but I think we need to negotiate our way into this situation, not avoid our way out of it. I believe that behind the concerns about this issue lurk insane fundamentalist Christian fears of a one world government and all manner of boogie men anti-Christs and such like horse poo. In this area particularly I think religion, our religion, is a detriment to sanity, but that is another can of worms.

Edit: Telepathy there with Engine on can of worms.

 

[flyfish]

Let's just give up all our sovereignty and let the international governments override all our laws. :disgust:
Are some of you saying that our leadership should bow to an entity that we had no say in forming?

 

[PistachioByAzul]

The constitution means nothing outside of the US. Other countries have their own equally valid constitutions.

The premise of this sentiment seeming to be that we are untouchable, only we have the right to pass judgement, means that the extending of our own definition of justice across international boundaries has everything to do with an international court having jurisdiction over us, as it does over everyone else.

 

[UltraQuiet]

Here's aanother site HRW. I can't vouch for the veracity but there seems to be a lot of info. I guess the problem I am coming up with here is that this court can ignore the findings of our justice system and proceed on it's own. I don't like that even a little bit.

 

[Pennstate]

If there is sufficient evidence that Clinton committed war crimes, then he should be tried for war crimes.

 

[glenn1]

DaveSohmer's link provided the pro case for the ICC, in the name of balance, i'm going to provide a link to a Cato Institute report which argues the contra. Read both, develop your own conclusions, and feel free to provide your input here in our humble thread

Cato Institute report on the ICC

 

[Deleted member 4644]

Speaking hypothetically, what if Clinton was actually guilty of committing a war crime? Would he then have the 'right' to life his life in peace? As an INTERNATIONAL citizen, he should be held responsible for any crimes that arose as a result of his commands, irrespective of his nationality. While some people may disagree with me, I think the legal rights and responsibilities of an individual should extend beyond their borders and 'acting in the common interest'.

I agree with you completely. 100%. No one should be above law. However, I dont thin Clinton is a war crminal.


I have sent letters to the Croatian World Congress and their Ambassador using my press account. Lets see how far a member of the press can get and if I actually get a reply. (Hehe, I love "absuing" this new power)

 

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: glenn1
DaveSohmer's link provided the pro case for the ICC, in the name of balance, i'm going to provide a link to a Cato Institute report which argues the contra. Read both, develop your own conclusions, and feel free to provide your input here in our humble thread

Cato Institute report on the ICC

Just to be clear I provided the link for info. not because of any predisposition. The CATO article brings up some interesting points. Evidently there is precedent for not entering into treaties that could deny our citizens there constitutional rights. The HRW site says this is not the case but doesn't the treaty say there will not be trial by jury? I also wonder how long before this court expands its powers? How long before they try to bring the President to trial for executing a federal prisoner? The EU won't extradite anyone to us who is facing the death penalty. How long before they try to stop it via the ICC? Lastly my real concern is that they decide (the court) that justice wasn't served in one of our domestic courts and they want to override it. Any treaty that gives a court other than our Supreme court the last word in our justice system is clearly unconstitutional and completely unacceptable. Our Constitution is clearly the greatest governing document ever written and we should not change it even if we are the only country on the planet to not sign this treaty. JMO


Dave

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: DaveSohmer
[ Our Constitution is clearly the greatest governing document ever written and we should not change it even if we are the only country on the planet to not sign this treaty. JMO

 

[Scipionix]

Originally posted by: Bushwicktrini
That is not always the case. I served in the US Navy for eight years and while I was in I was always told if the local police arrest you for a crime you will have to stay in that country till the charge against you is resolved. While I was in Turkey we had two guys ( in civilian colthes) get arrested for disorderly conduct and damaging public property. They spent the night in Turkish prison and the state dept had to get them out. The ship (USS AUSTIN LPD-4) had to pay for the fine and they had to payback the ship.

Wait a minute, I think I've heard that story before. It wasn't a news item, was it?

EDIT: You're right that they weren't tried by the Navy, but they were off duty.

 

[Moonbeam]

One of the reasons this question is so facinating is because how you view it depends a great deal on what you mean by justice and how what justice is is determined. Is justice what a court says it is. Is there justice of the kind that Plato might consider, a perfect form to which we aspire. Does it come from God. Is it how decent people, people who have transcended the false self, act and judge. What is justice? It would seem that what we call justice evolves overtime even if it is something absolute that we move toward. So, since we all prize justice, how we see the issue depends a great deal on what we place faith in. I think that all people are the same, that we are all reaching for the same rainbow. So I see no reason why an international court cannot approximate or ever surpass our current notion of justice. But men are petty and small everywhere too. So this whole issue will evolve and change and continue to provoke thought all over the world. But if our system is great, then we need to be players and contribute what good we have to offer. Justice will like that, I think.

 

[Scipionix]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I love it Scipionix, you say it's unconstitutional for an American to be tried internationally and I ask you where in the Constitutions does it say that and you answer in the Constitution. You crack me up especially since you're serious.

You shouldn't play the nitpick game with me. That is not what I said. I said that there are rules for extradition and trial of citizens of one country by another country. This has been going on for 500 years. There is NO history for a supranational court with compulsory jurisdiction and no accountability. Are you saying that it is in accord with our principles to hand over our accused to an all-powerful supranational body voluntarily?

 

[PistachioByAzul]

Here's a better question. Would we be against an internation court system if it could be "fair"? How do we go about creating checks and balances within the international community to make such a thing work?

 

[Moonbeam]

I don't mean to nitpick, but you said it was unconstitutional. I'm not saying it is or it isn't, I'm not saying turn over anybody to anybody. That's all stuff you throw up, it seems, to avboid answering the simple question, what part of the constitution says we can't get involved in an international court. Seems to me we already do go to such courts. Now don't change the subject to how that's different. I know all about that. Just read me the part of the Constitution it's a violation of. Simple right? I'm just curious, you see, because you make all kinds of absolute statements but you just try to wiggle away when asked for specifics.

One more time, where in the Constitution are you basing your statement. Enquiring minds want to know. If true it's an interesting point.

 

[Scipionix]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I don't mean to nitpick, but you said it was unconstitutional. I'm not saying it is or it isn't, I'm not saying turn over anybody to anybody. That's all stuff you throw up, it seems, to avboid answering the simple question, what part of the constitution says we can't get involved in an international court. Seems to me we already do go to such courts. Now don't change the subject to how that's different. I know all about that. Just read me the part of the Constitution it's a violation of. Simple right? I'm just curious, you see, because you make all kinds of absolute statements but you just try to wiggle away when asked for specifics.

One more time, where in the Constitution are you basing your statement. Enquiring minds want to know. If true it's an interesting point.

Right to trial by jury. Right to refuse to testify if the testimony will incriminate oneself. Right to protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. etc.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: EngineNr9
Here's a better question. Would we be against an internation court system if it could be "fair"? How do we go about creating checks and balances within the international community to make such a thing work?

Make the rest of the world sign the constitution?

 

[Yossarian451]

Look he should go to court. There is a lot that goes on which we are not privy to. Add the idea that helping our enemy's enemy is ok, is not true sometimes they are just as bad. But the intention of the attack should go under scrutiny. Not say, ok civilians died under your command, death penaly or life in prison. If he intentionally ordered civilans attacked then he should recieve punishment, but if not, he merely did what all leaders did in wartime, made tough decisions. Tough decisions are not easy and sometimes have severe reprecussions for ordinary people.

 

[Balt]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
One of the reasons this question is so facinating is because how you view it depends a great deal on what you mean by justice and how what justice is is determined. Is justice what a court says it is. Is there justice of the kind that Plato might consider, a perfect form to which we aspire. Does it come from God. Is it how decent people, people who have transcended the false self, act and judge. What is justice? It would seem that what we call justice evolves overtime even if it is something absolute that we move toward. So, since we all prize justice, how we see the issue depends a great deal on what we place faith in. I think that all people are the same, that we are all reaching for the same rainbow. So I see no reason why an international court cannot approximate or ever surpass our current notion of justice. But men are petty and small everywhere too. So this whole issue will evolve and change and continue to provoke thought all over the world. But if our system is great, then we need to be players and contribute what good we have to offer. Justice will like that, I think.

Ignoring the rest of your pseudo-philosophical babble for the moment, what makes you think that this international court system will be great? It hasn't proven itself so far to be anything, and as far as I'm concerned calling Clinton a 'war criminal' is a gross misuse (pure sensationalism) of the term and will only remove the importance of its use. People who commit genocide are war criminals.

Granted it hasn't had a chance yet to prove itself, but I don't think I'm prepared to say we should jump in with both feet and let it potentially screw people and THEN say "Oh, sorry, we didn't like the outcome so we are going to ignore your decision." That would cause even more of an uproar. If it wants to prove itself, then it needs to start with something a little less outlandish. Not to mention that it is well known that the US is skeptical, and being one of the first targets will not decrease that skepticism.

Do we really want to turn peace-keeping missions into something that becomes so politicized that the peace-keepers are completely powerless to do anything?

 

[Yossarian451]

Originally posted by: Scipionix

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I don't mean to nitpick, but you said it was unconstitutional. I'm not saying it is or it isn't, I'm not saying turn over anybody to anybody. That's all stuff you throw up, it seems, to avboid answering the simple question, what part of the constitution says we can't get involved in an international court. Seems to me we already do go to such courts. Now don't change the subject to how that's different. I know all about that. Just read me the part of the Constitution it's a violation of. Simple right? I'm just curious, you see, because you make all kinds of absolute statements but you just try to wiggle away when asked for specifics.

One more time, where in the Constitution are you basing your statement. Enquiring minds want to know. If true it's an interesting point.

Right to trial by jury. Right to refuse to testify if the testimony will incriminate oneself. Right to protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. etc.

Ok so if they agreed to extend him some of these rights, would then it be ok, or would you still say , no he is an american. We hold tribunals for war criminals, and bush just recently suspended habeus corpus on an immigrant associated with a terrorist, so where is our constitutionin that???????????????

 

[Scipionix]

Originally posted by: Yossarian451 Ok so if they agreed to extend him some of these rights, would then it be ok, or would you still say , no he is an american. We hold tribunals for war criminals, and bush just recently suspended habeus corpus on an immigrant associated with a terrorist, so where is our constitutionin that???????????????

No, I would still not accept the ICC because it would still be unaccountable. When our government violates the rights of an individual for good cause, the imporant thing that it is OUR government and that the checks and balances of our system are still in effect. When the ICC violates the rights of an individual, his government did not have any say in it, nor does he have any recourse.

 

[Yossarian451]

What if he knowingly did order an attack against civilian targets. That is a war crime. Should he not be held accountable. Just because we do something makes it less evil.

 

[Stark]

Good, lets go to court and see what they got. Justice will eventually have to be international if it's to mean anything. The effort should be to bring the concept of justice to a refined state.

Moonie wins the dumb though of the day award. Congratulations.

 

[Yossarian451]

Also how do we go about saying: "This system by which we justify our action to punish other international criminals, it is not up to our standards"

Should't then we oppose the confinement of actual war criminals if it is not just. We should go free all those little baby killersa because, we can't even go through the trial with one of our leaders, right???