Is being held accountable in a World Court a bad thing?

[EnfantTerrible]

Slap me for this, but I actually tried to follow the logic of that argument by shrub (I know, I know).

It's a good thing that our soldiers and diplomats be held to a world standard and be open to prosecution for violations. Perhaps Abu-Ghraib could have been avoided... or an Invasion of a sovereign nation without provocation, for that matter.

It seemed to me that chim was saying "can you believe that Kerry wants to make us accountable to the world!"

Any thoughts?

[Still_Notafraid]

1. PNAC

Has plans to do a lot of things that will get our leaders in trouble in world courts,so of corse chimp doesnt want this.

[EnfantTerrible]

8. Iran, anyone?

n/t

[mopinko]

2. just amazing

i loved all the stupid things that he dredged up, all on his own. and this one was the icing on that cake. whoa. yup, ducking the world court. that was a real accomplishment.

[EnfantTerrible]

4. I can't recall if Kerry was allowed a rebuttle?

If memory serves the cameras were on him asking for one, but he didn't get it. I wish he would have answered that statement.

[Eye and Monkey]

10. No rebuttal.

I didn't see the cameras-thing, was listening on radio. But no rebuttal. I was waiting for one.

[Poiuyt]

3. It's a bad thing if you're a war criminal

[auburngrad82]

16. Exactly

If you play by international rules, then you won't be tried for war crimes. Bush made the comment that he didn't want Americans to be tried by Judges and trial lawyers (a jab at Edwards) who couldn't be held accountable. How are they not accountable for their actions? I guess Milosovic's trial is just those nasty trial lawyers picking on the little guy.

[carpetbagger]

5. Yeah, it is.

There are a lot of people in the world who hate us just because we are Americans. You should see the crp that shows up on Arab TV, even pre-Bush. We would be the proverbial black man trying to get a fair trial in Kenner, Louisiana.

That having been said, once upon a time we had enough standing with enough nations in the world that we were able to make the thing work and simultaneously get some special perks that kept the "Death to America" crowd from rustling up innocent American soldiers.

That was before Abu Ghraib. Now our allies aren't too keen on giving us our traditional (albeit a new tradition) pass from the ICC for acts committed during UN and NATO actions.

[EnfantTerrible]

7. I think that being held to the same standards

as the rest of the world would go a long way to cooling some of that anti-Americanism. Being seen as above the law tends to ruffle feathers. IMHO

<edit> fixed a mixed metaphore

[Zorra]

6. A lot of Nazis thought so at Nuremberg. n/t

[Eye and Monkey]

9. original question was about pre-emptive war - Bush associated ICC

I believe the original question was about the "doctrine of pre-emptive war". Kerry answered it well, then Chimpie started babbling about the ICC and protecting our people from prosecution.

I found that telling. He associated pre-emptive war with trials at the Hague.

[jwirr]

55. Kerry had been talking about

world treaties that bushie refused to sign such as the environmental and nuke treaties. Rather than answer straight bushie brought up the one treaty that he thought it was safe to talk about. Chalmers Johnson talks about our relationship to the world court in his book "Blowback". We refuse to allow anyone in the military to face charges in foreign courts. Chalmers uses soldiers who rape someone in the country they are stationed in. bushie was playing to the military.

[K-W]

11. The corporate struggle to globalize before government does.

There has been a slow trend in the overall global community to really start to organize something resembling a global government. We dont hear about it much in the US, because we are so isolated. Sharing a continent with basically 2 other countries. The existance of a global government is a threat to the power of national governments. And since the corporations have alot of control over our national government and use our government to help them globalize thier economic control, and they do not have much control over global organizations, they want to keep the national government in charge.

Its about nationalism versus internationalism. Are we all just global citizens who happen to reside in a certain nation state, or are we Americans, always pitting ourselves against outsiders.

[EnfantTerrible]

13. That's very interesting

I hadn't made that connection. I always get the impression, and this may be slightly off topic, that the EU is painted as Europe trying in some way to emulate the US. I've always suspected that the purpose was something larger than that. A response by the rest of the western world to the wealth, power and influence that the US lauds over the rest of the world. I believe that globalization is inevitable and we can fight it by holding onto Nationalism which will only prolong the process or we can embrace it and lead the world toward that end.

[soothsayer]

14. I still don't like the new world order n/t

[EnfantTerrible]

18. What bothers you about this?

I'm really curious to know where people stand and why.

[soothsayer]

21. I already hate across the EU how they are outlawing herbal supplements

and stuff----across ALL EU countries! Gads. Lowest common denominator will end up being the rule of law. Too much control by one govt body is dangerous, imho.

[EnfantTerrible]

22. I didn't know that

Infact I'll admit that I don't know very much about the hard facts of the EU. I suppose it's the Utopian ideal of a united world that appeals to me. That may sound naive, but I do find it worth striving for.

Thanks for responding.

[K-W]

37. I dont follow, what is the problem with regulating herbal medicine?

How is that the lowest common denominator?

[Xithras]

47. This world isn't ready for a global government

Sorry, but unless we're ready to wage an unprovoked war to unseat every dictator and one party government in the world, the idea of a global government is unworkable.

If we're going to have a global government, it needs to be DEMOCRATIC. The PEOPLE need to elect their leaders, and not have them be political appointments for the buddies and tennis partners of the various national leaders. But how can we do this? How will we get nations like Iran, China, and North Korea to allow democratic elections for their UN leaders, while still maintaining a stranglehold on their own positions? The answer is that we can't.

Without a multi-house democratic intergovernmental system you have a few problems. Will each nation get only one vote? If so, why should tiny Tuvalu with 11,000 citizens get a say equal to China with 1.3 billion? That makes the opinions of the citizens of Tuvalu 118,000 times more powerful than those of Chinese citizens. Would you call that democratic? Perhaps then we can assign votes based on population? That would certainly be fairer, but would allow China and India one third of the vote, and would essentially give the combined East Asian interests the ability to dictate law to the rest of the world.

The idea of a world government with any kind of real power isn't practical, reasonable, or desireable right now. Mankind isn't ready for it.

[K-W]

49. You just dont understand the situation.

Nobody is talking about creating a one nation state world. So most of your post is just a non-sequitor.

"The idea of a world government with any kind of real power isn't practical, reasonable, or desireable right now. Mankind isn't ready for it."

That is just wrong. It is practical, reasonable, and desireable, and it is mankind's only hope for peace and justice.

You have created a strawman, or more accurately strawconcept. You dont understand that the international community isnt going to be a nation state.

All we are talking about here is a structure by which nations cooperate and compromise and can be held to the standards of peace and justice.

Whether you like it or not globalization is happening, and nobody is pushing it harder than the US, the US however wants a very different global community. It wants the US government to be the top power in the world. I dont think anybody benefits from that.

[EnfantTerrible]

52. Mankind isn't ready for it yet?

World government isn't desirable right now? Not practical or reasonable?

IMO those arguments are what will perpetuate the devisivness in the world.


Also I think it's a mistake to assume that the model of a world government should be what we have here in the US. World Government is a radical idea and if/when it becomes a viable undertaking it's going to require thought outside of the systems we now know.

[TahitiNut]

12. He totally avoids pointing out that it's a court of last resort.

The International Criminal Court at the Hague accepts jurisdiction only if the nation itself fails to accommodate a due legal process. What this means is that anyone accused of a warcrime or crime against humanity would be immune from prosecution at the Hague if the judicial system in the US permitted charges to be filed and a trial to be conducted.

It's nothing but a Kissinger-to-Rumsfeld protection act.

[highnooner]

15. Abu Gahrib and Gitmo

are the reasons for not wanting to be a part of the world court. They wouldn't be hauling in a corporal, but Rummy, him and others.

[EnfantTerrible]

17. kick

n/t

[GreenPartyVoter]

19. I understand *'s position

but I think that overall signing onto it would be a good thing. We will just have to be vigilant that Americans aren't put on trial on a whim.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hop aboard the Thought Express http://www.livejournal.com/community/thought_express/

"Critically examine everything. Hold on to the Good." 1 Thessalonians 5:21

[AngryOldDem]

23. I think that is what we're afraid of

>>>We will just have to be vigilant that Americans aren't put on trial on a whim.>>>

That the World Court would be the equivalent of "nuisance" lawsuits for the U.S. -- I remember reading about this during the Clinton administration, and the main concern was that any U.S. official at any level could be called before the court at any time for anything.

[EnfantTerrible]

25. I don't understand

why accountability is viewed as a bad thing... (not saying you feel that way, but that's the argument I see being made by those opposed to the ICC).

[AngryOldDem]

27. A short answer....

and my own uneducated opinion, based on what I read of this a long time ago...I think we still have the mindset as a nation that we are "above" everyone else in terms of accountability, and that our power in the world would make us an easy target for "harrassment," if you will.

During the mid-'90s, these arguments were kind of compelling to me. But now, I think that yes, you are right in that we should not see accountability as a bad thing, and in fact we DO need to be held accountable before the world for our actions, especially if they violate recognized international law.

Our nationalism, egotism, and arrogance are getting in the way of international protocol.

Just my take on it.

[EnfantTerrible]

30. I am in agreement with you

It's my view that the US would have been much more thoughtful about it's current actions if there were some body that it had to answer to. Being the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world shouldn't make us autonomous... just the opposite IMHO

[K-W]

36. They cant put people on trial for a whim.

Think about it, no country wants that. There are strict rules about what and who they can call, and the fact remains that they have no power of enforcement. If the US wants to reneg later, they cant stop the US, so there really is no harm in signging onto it and giving it a chance.

The US is afraid of anyone reviewing thier foriegn policy, not to avoid harassment, but because the US does lots of illegal things.

[oneighty]

20. If you are not guilty

If you are not guilty you have nothing to worry about. So my wingnut friends say when presented with the idea of a federal ID card (And matching tattoo) and DNA on file and so on.

180

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

24. Outlaws generally don't like courts. Same for outlaw nations.

Methinks the likes of Lt. Calley would have put in a little prison time instead of 6 mos of house arrest, if there had been an ICC in those days.

The current crop of war criminals are a tad nervous about having to do their speechmaking in front of judges.

[info being]

26. To me, that statement was the headline from last night

He's scared of being prosecuted for war crimes? He distrusts the same court that is trying Milosovic? Kind of makes you think.

[EnfantTerrible]

50. I was surprised that no pundit panel I saw

even commented on it. Like it was said in a vacuum! My jaw was on the floor when shrub said that (as much for his playground-bully tone as for the content of the statement) and I thought for sure there would be some commentary. Instead: crickets

[Jose Diablo]

28. It is the natural next step in humanities struggle

to make a better world.

The only government power that would be able to force corporations to obey a standard for proper behavior would be a world government.

The big problem would be how to structure and organize this world power to be responsible to the needs of all 'people'. And of course fund this government power.

Taking all the moneys spent to protect one nation from aggressions of another, when combined together would provide more than enough money. Fact is, we could probably afford to do things mankind has never been able to spend the energy or resources on previously. Money would not be the problem.

The big problem would be convincing the powers within each of the nations that have vested interests in maintaining the status quo. Also, designing the world power to be responsive to peoples needs, not the economic needs of a few powerful men.

I think it is inevitable that eventually we must move to a extra national form of organization if we are to maintain the environment and stop the scourges that have given us problems for practically forever; war, famine and disease.

[EnfantTerrible]

33. I too see it as the next logical step

It's the only way humanity will be able to flourish. I believe that until we can stop seeing ourselves as defined by lines on a map and recognize that we are a species (all humans) in danger of destroying ourselves, we walk a dangerous line with the future of civilization.

[Lars39]

29. His aim was to put the words *criminal & Kerry*

in the same sentence. And to be able to repeat that sentence was Rove's goal. Very slick, very simplistic. Secondary was to outrage his base that anyone in the military could be prosecuted for anything criminal.

[Southpaw Bookworm]

31. When you're committing war crimes

Yeah, I could see where he'd think the ICC is a bad thing.

[nickinSTL]

32. He doesn't want our people accountable to the courts

for the crimes he's sending them out there to commit.

[theboss]

34. Accountability is fine; it's who is making the decision

My concern with a global court generally has to do with my fear of most international organizations - who is making the decisions.

The idea behind an international court would be that individual nations cannot be trusted to deal with wrongs committed outside the scope of federal law or existing treaties. I disagree that there is such a pressing issue that we need to sacrifice any sovereignty on this issue. I think the US is set up to deal with the crimes that this court would cover or it has policies with most nations that we would trust to try our citizens fairly.

My biggest two issues with these types of organizations are a) the members and b) the enforcement mechanism. Under a, who is going to be enforcing the law and would they have a bias against the US? Under b, how do they plan on getting a US citizen to trial. In theory, the police are the enforcement wing of the judicial system. They arrest you and hand you over to the DA who prosecutes you. Who is this court's police?

[K-W]

39. Your argument reeks of nationalism.

The american people lose absolutely nothing here, the only people who lose something is the US government. And really only those people in the government who want the US to rule to world. If you want the US to be above the law and rule the world by whatever means neccessary, then by all means oppose the world court. But why would you be any more scared of the world court than you are of the US courts? The US courts that have become something of a sham.

And even as far as the government is concerned, we wouldnt be sacrificing any soveriegnty. The US would be free to exit at any time.

The issue is that the US isnt being isolationist, we want globalization, we just want it with our government in charge. That is simply unjust and horribly dangerous. These international bodies are the right way to globalize.

[theboss]

41. If we are free to exit anytime, why bother?

Any court that does not have an enforcement provision is worthless. And any enforcement provision of an International Court would have to involve the US in some way.

My arguement is not nationalistic. It's actually mechanical at its core. A judicial system should not be an entity unto itself. It's part of a larger system of government. The ICC is largely free of an executive branch to enforce its provisions and a legislative branch to set its criteria.

On top of that - as I have pointed out - it's redundant. There are mechanisms in every Western country to deal with the situations that would come up in the ICC. I know. Bush, Rumsfeld and Co. are war criminals and not being tried, etc. Well, even if our system does not work 100 percent of the time, I don't see how handing power over to the Hague corrects those problems. Especially since if the ICC doesn't have the power to bring them to trial either.

So those are my arguments against it: it's redundant, far too free of checks and balances, and relatively powerless unless it creates an enforcement mechanism, in which case it becomes scary.

[K-W]

48. Your argument just doesnt make sense.

Any court that does not have enforcement power is not worthless. The enforcement comes from the international community. The point of the court is to have a mechanism to get rulings on things, because you need someone to apply the laws and regulations to actual situations. And yes, it would be more powerful if it had enforcing power, but you already explained why it doesnt have enforcing power, then it would take away soveriengty from nation states.

Do you expect me to believe that all these people and countries would be investing time and resources into this court if it wasnt needed? I mean seriously, I dont claim to be an expert on international law, but I think it is safe to say that there is a purpose for the court why else would it be an issue?

Your argument is ot mechanical because you, like I, clearly dont understand the mechanics. We are not experts in international law and we probably never will be. But It is silly to argue that this is wrong because it is useless, or because it is redundent. Obviously it isnt or they wouldnt have created it.


It just strikes me as odd that you think you know international law and politics better than the people who practice international law and politics who clearly disagree with you... so I have two choices here, either they are all wrong, or you are pretending to know things you dont know.

I dont know why you continue to claim that national courts can handle these things, we are talking about things where nations DONT AGREE, you need a non-national court to decide them. The US is NEVER going to find itself guilty of war crimes. The US is NEVER going to hear cases that are disputes between the US and another country. The US judicial system enforces our laws and constitution. It has nothing to do with this court. Do you really believe the proper way to have internation justice is to say, well just use our courts? Yah im sure the rest of the world wants the US deciding things for them.

I mean do you really believe your own argument? Do you actually think that this was setup for no reason? Do you really believe that with your limited information, sitting in a country that is largely uninvolved you know more about international law than the lawyers and diplomats who practice it?

And if it is so useless and pointless, what harm is there in the US giving it a shot in hopes it at the very least encourages cooperation.

[EnfantTerrible]

42. too true

I don't buy the assertion that because there are countries in the world who hate us we should avoid being accountable to the world. I would instead ask why is it that these countries dislike us so and what can we do to mend our relations. This would require taking a long hard look at US foreign policies and... dare I say it... admit that we have been wrong in some of those policies and we should work to make ammends.

[EnfantTerrible]

40. I disagree that the US is set up to deal with the crimes that this court

would cover. If there truly was any fear by our government that they might face criminal prosecution for their actions, then the US would have proceeded much differently in regards to Iraq, IMO.
Do you believe that, for example, the investigation into Abu-Ghraib, which was conducted by the very branch that committed the offences, was adequate and that their conclusions were viable? I don't believe in the effecacy of internal investigations... too much protecting of our own and not enough objectivity. Would Rummy have gotten off with an accusation of neglegence to pay attention in a World Court? I have my doubts.

As far as the members/enforcement goes... I don't have any answers. I imagine answers could be arrived at if the US would engage the debate seriously.

Do you think there is any difference between Sadaam saying he doesn't recognize the court that has been set up to try him and the US saying they don't recognize the ICC?
I don't... it's just a matter of which side of the dock your on, I guess.

[Kanary]

35. It's "a bad thing" if you want to break laws and get away with it!

One only has to take into account the source....... one who has been bailed out his whole life, and never had to take the consequences of bad decisions, and irresponsible behavior.

I will rejoice to see him in Gitmo!

Kanary

[Tight_rope]

38. If we can judge the world...the World should judge us too!

[EnfantTerrible]

43. Yes Yes Yes

Enough of the hypocracy already... and then people wonder why we are not liked... feared maybe... but not liked or respected.

[democratreformed]

44. Only if you've done something to be held accountable for.

That's my opinion. It was like he was saying that we are above everyone else.

[AntiFascist]

45. Bush seems genuinely worried, maybe he let this out for a reason?

Maybe the fact that Kerry is calling the Iraq war a mistake is putting him in a really bad position and Bush wants to make it look like it will tarnish U.S. reputation as well.

Also, wasn't Putin really upset about CIA meeting with Chechyn rebels after the school bombing, or something like that? He seemed really angry at the Bush administration.

[EnfantTerrible]

46. I haven't heard about the CIA meeting

or Putin's stance.

As far as Bush feeling the heat of Kerry's statements I would agree with you, however ,cautiously. I have serious doubts as to whether or not chim possesses enough self awareness or conscience to feel much of anything, but his handlers can certainly suss the situation and see the implications.

[burythehatchet]

51. only if you're guilty

53. Well, isn't THIS the crime of the century--

[EnfantTerrible]

54. Help??

Could you lay it out in lay terms?

I actually used to work in the now defunct open-outcry Bond Market in Chicago, but that was several years ago and we mostly made fun of the options guys... "sheet-monkeys" we used to call them because they always had there nose buried in their spread sheets.