Iraq Policy Is Broken. Fix It.

[STING2]

Klaus,

"And the US were helping a lot and wanted that court a long time ago."
"I guess the military strength brought the idea that they might be better of in world with less laws and less justice"

No, its because certain countries would be able to use the court for political reasons in order to unfairly prosecute US soldiers. The American people would never stand for that.

 

[deep]

No, its because certain countries would be able to use the court for political reasons in order to unfairly prosecute.....

This sounds a lot like what many believe the Bush administation is doing with tribunals.

 

[Klaus]

Sting: You trust Military tribunals more than Courtrooms?

 

[STING2]

For international terrorist who have murdered 3,025 people, YES.

 

[Klaus]

By the way, there would only be a chance to get a US soldier to the International Court if they woud have to expect, that there is no justice in the US. Since the US justice system (not the military tribunals) is one of the best of the world, its hard to think that the US soldiers are the reason to boycot a international coutroom

And to international terroists who have murdered more than 3000 people.
I would have loved to see them in the international coutrroom - so that the whole world can see that justice is what the western world wants, not military revenge.

Klaus

 

[Popmartijn]

By the way, there would only be a chance to get a US soldier to the International Court if they woud have to expect, that there is no justice in the US. Since the US justice system (not the military tribunals) is one of the best of the world, its hard to think that the US soldiers are the reason to boycot a international coutroom

Klaus,

I was also thinking about this today. As yo say, the ICC only accepts cases which the original country does not/cannot handle. For war crimes by US citizens that country would be the USA.

It is indeed a strange situation.

Moreover, what is itching the wrong way for many isn't that the USA does not want to ratify the treaty (since they did sign it). With many of those treaties it can be a long time between signing the treaty and ratifying it. No, what's strange is that the USA is trying to sabotage the treaty with all these bilateral agreements with different countries (in exchange for not stopping funding useful projects), a treaty which from the start made many concessions to the US position.

C ya!

Marty

 

[Klaus]

Popmartijn:

It's even worse than that - the US government puts presure on smaller countries who support the ICC.

 

[verte76]

Popmartijn:

It's even worse than that - the US government puts presure on smaller countries who support the ICC.

This is not cool.