Quote:
Originally posted by smsmith40
Firstly Nittany you're post makes it sound like there is a vast movement of people out to get poor Tommy Franks. There is a small bunch of crackpots applying to a non-biased ICC.
Any perceived bias might be helped by the US signing up to the ICC rather than bitching about how it will be nasty to Americans.
Question - Assuming Sadaam is captured, how will the US bring him to justice for the 30 years of repression of his own peole and aggressive invasion of Kuwait and Iran without the help of the only international judicial body currently in place? Will it accept him being tried in an Iraqi court (of course no Iraqi court system exists) ?
|
The ICC may be non biased in structure, but the parties to the ICC are biased. The UN, in structure, I would argue is non biased, but obviously when you take into consideration the members, it is obviously anti-US (if you need an example, look at how the US was booted from the UN Human Rights Committee, while Lybia is the chair and Cuba was recently voted back onto the committee). If everything happened just as it had over the last 2+ years, with the exception of GW Bush not pulling us out of the ICC, the ICC would be no less biased towards the US. I think it rediculous to think such a thought, and see no compelling evidence that this would not be the case. The US has traditionally been the largest finanical support of the UN, as well as other numerous world wide organizations, but that has done nothing to earn us favor. I don't see why our mere re-entrance into the ICC would help us any more.
Hopefully Saddam has already met his justice. If not, and if we do find him, I would think the World Court would be a suffient body to deal with him.
If the World Court is not sufficient, or cannot try Saddam as it did Milosevic (if memory serves correctly), why is it our responsibility to bring him to trial? I would say our goal was to topple his regime and bring freedom of governement to the people of Iraq, as well as secure the freedom from Saddam for the people of the US, and the World. We have succeeded in the latter, and are working on the former. If Saddam does need to go to the ICC, why doesn't Kuwait bring him to the ICC? Oh, they aren't a member either. How about the new governement of Iraq? Oh, Iraq isn't a member either, and neither is any other middle east government aside from Jordan. So, as it is, it appears that the ICC wouldn't even have jurisdiction over Saddam, unless the new Iraqi government joins the court, which would be quite extrodinary.