If the court handled Bosnia, Rwanda, South Africa and some Israeli atrocities...why can't they handle the theft of New York or Oklahoma or Florida?
A balanced review of the facts of the USA and its actions should be welcome news and would stop all the carping about how the USA is a pseudo-Christian thug nation of arrogant morons. Unless all the rumors of a buffoon nation of lemmings is true. Then that is a different story.
2007-03-02 17:32:31 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Government
UN is not the world court...war crimes are handled out of a separate insitute that treats all criminals accused as the same.
Whether Monaco or Russia, Myanmar, Japon, Saudi or Iraq, all nations have equal treatment. UN is of course rigged to give the biggest and richest nations clout. Lilliputians try to gang up on Gullivers to avoid being trampled there. The world court in theory treats all accused criminals innocent until proven based on evidence, facts, actions and context.
2007-03-02 18:35:06 · update #1
arrogance. the same that are against it must feel the nuremburg trials were a bad thing.
2007-03-02 17:58:58 · answer #1 · answered by J Q Public 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Right... the ICC is handled in the Netherlands, the Hague.
I agree with you. I examined the exact procedure of being charged with war crimes last year. You would be amazed at how difficult it actually is to charge a country or person with a war crime. The International Criminal Court, ICC, gives about 1 zillion chances for the nation in question's government to 'fix' the problem and behavior... also to persecute the persons themselves.
That's why last summer there was the Supreme Court trial about Bush's handling of the G. Bay prisoners where he was told to go back and work it out with Congress... he was flat told he was doing wrong and to fix it.
All that was just a ploy to comply with the ICC.
2007-03-03 13:49:01 · answer #2 · answered by BeachBum 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Huh?
By submitting to the United Nations World Court we would be binding ourselves to abide by the United Nations on international trade, relations, wars, et al.
We might as well quit electing our own leaders at that point, since we would instead be ruled by the will of United Nations member states.
Are you a voting member of The United Nations? regardless of whether you are a Dem, Rep, or whatever, you MUST believe in democracy? You want to trade off our ability to elect our own leaders? That's the effect of submitting our actions to the United Nations World Court.
We'll never do it. And the day we do, we cease to be an independent nation. I for one would fight to the death before trading off our ability to lead ourselves through a representative government of the people. OUR people.
2007-03-02 17:41:17 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Why should the United States give up its sovereignty? The UN and the World Court are mechanism to destroy the sovereignty of all the nations of the world.
2007-03-02 19:59:29 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
We simply don't have to. Generally, only the defeated side answers to courts. If the Axis Powers had won WWII, it would have been our generals going for a swing on the gallows. Justice is in the eye of the victor.
2007-03-02 19:44:35 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
USA is the major financial contributor of the UN. Thus, USA is a privileged member that is never tried for its violations of International Law.
2007-03-02 19:27:47 · answer #6 · answered by FRAGINAL, JTM 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Because wimpy countries like to gang up on the biggest and best to make a political statement.
2007-03-02 17:36:19 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
The US does not recognize the ICC. It follows the traditional European system of juris prudence where the accused has the preseumption of guilt.
2007-03-03 15:56:34 · answer #8 · answered by ? 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋