"allowed" for it? Let's put you in an Iraqi's shoes 2 months ago. You see your friend be taken away by the secret police or feyadeen, you, knowing he might be killed still do nothing. Is your inaction a blanket approval or merely a self defense mechanism?
I will say that the person who has the intent to kill is far more guilty. However once they (Saddam) have committed so many atrocious acts, those that HAVE the power have a moral duty to do something.
I think he was referring to me bringing up the fact that Sharon was indicted by the Belgian court.
Originally posted by: Corn
So, essentially what you are saying is that even though Sharon had no direct control over the murderers and that they acted on their own accord, simply because he didn't prevent the murders from happening, the murderers are not responsible, but Sharon is, right?
I expect the chief of police in say, Detroit, to be tried and held responsible for murder. It is a known fact that murder is going to happen, possibly even this very second, but since it is not being prevented, he is responsible and should be tried as a murderer, and the real murderer is not responsible.
Israeli Troops Kill Six Palestinians in Gaza Raid
I don't agree with suicide bombers. They are dispicable because the target civilians indiscriminately. They are terrorists. So if that is the basis for terrorism, then I would argue that Sharon is one too. When the US has a military operation, you cannot argue that it tries its best to avoid civilian casualties. The Israeli's feel no need to abide by that principle. They want to take out someone, they will not think twice about firing a rocket into a crowd of civilians if it meens getting their guy. If someone is throwing stones at them, they have no problem with answering with bullets. In this latest raid a 13 year old boy and a todler were killed. In others, one "terrorist" might be killed but so will 20 civilians minding their business. How many of the 2000+ Palestininas killed so far were terrorists? The thing that really puts the icing on the cake is that Israel is occupying these lands. They spend enormous amounts of money protecting illegal settlements, and Sharon is a champion for the cause. If Shabra and Shatila are not enough, then his performance during the intifada is IMHO.
I wasn't referring to Iraq, but to the conversation about Sharon. The difference in your arguement is that the observer had no power to do anything to stop it, whereas Sharon did.
Andy
Sharon will never be put on trial. If he was, Arafat should be as well and we all know that that'll never happen. IMO though, they both should on there.
I'm not completely sure on this - so feel free to correct me, but is the ICC not some way of indicting/prosecuting citizens of one country by a set of laws possibly other than their own?
For instance - if a citizen of country A committed a serious crime against a citizen(s) of country B and then fled to coutry A, country B could indict them at the ICC regardless of whether country A had a cordial relationship with B (and so would consider extradition) or not. Let us consider the examples of the US and Iran for instance. IMHO the US would probably never consider sending someone the Iranians considered a war criminal (for instance) to Iran - regardless of whether this allegation may be true or not. But, if Iran indicted him at the ICC he could be given a fair trial rather than possibly escape justice because of international emnity.
Is this the case? If so I can only see the reason the US would not want to participate as either:
They don't trust the court system
or
They don't want to allow potential criminals to be tried by people/countries they do not pick themselves.
I would have thought that was the real motiviation. For it to work the ICC should behave like any other court - the standard of admissable evidence and fairness of rulings and sentencing should reflect this.
Cheers,
Andy
For instance - if a citizen of country A committed a serious crime against a citizen(s) of country B and then fled to coutry A, country B could indict them at the ICC regardless of whether country A had a cordial relationship with B (and so would consider extradition) or not. Let us consider the examples of the US and Iran for instance. IMHO the US would probably never consider sending someone the Iranians considered a war criminal (for instance) to Iran - regardless of whether this allegation may be true or not. But, if Iran indicted him at the ICC he could be given a fair trial rather than possibly escape justice because of international emnity.
Is this the case? If so I can only see the reason the US would not want to participate as either:
They don't trust the court system
or
They don't want to allow potential criminals to be tried by people/countries they do not pick themselves.
I would have thought that was the real motiviation. For it to work the ICC should behave like any other court - the standard of admissable evidence and fairness of rulings and sentencing should reflect this.
Cheers,
Andy
I think the US is afraid of peole frivolously making claims against Americans. I still think that we should be a part of the system, its benefits outweigh the risks. Besides, if we have nothing to hide, what's the problem? A fair trial would absolve you. Take for instance this guy accused of executing two Iraqi soldiers, clearly a violation of the rules of war, as you cannot execute soldiers arbitrarily. If he's tried in the US, there is the risk of bias. In theory an international, third party court would be more objective. If the trials of Milosevic and others are an example, the system seems quite fair IMO.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter