No stupid questions, but certainly stupid answers.
The USA is not a part of the international criminal court. So even if the ICC said the US committed war crimes, they have no way to enfore those laws in the USA.
ICC is for states that can’t prosecute within their country. USA can do that. So it goes like this:
ICC: Hey, USA, you committed war crimes
USA: We dont recognize your court of law, and we did our own investigation where we found no wrongdoing.
ICC: We disagree
USA: Okay, that’s nice. If you arrest Bush we will invade the Hague
Yeah but if Bush travelled to a country under the ICC jurisdiction he could still be tried. Of course the Hague invasion act (a big fuck you from USA to the ICC) may deter some countries from enforcing the ICC rules on American citizens.
I don’t need to refute your entire argument, this isn’t a Swedish university where peer criticism is required.
The ICJ says it’s a lot of things but it’s only been used as a colonial court against countries that aren’t aligned with western interests. I don’t defend the war criminals that have been prosecuted by the ICJ but how does the ICJ recognize the definition of a national court? For example, if an African country has an indigenous form and interpretation of justice to ensure societal cohesion, who are the western Europeans to say that their form of justice is incorrect and they need to be tried at the “international court”.
The court was only created to try Nazis because they didn’t think that country would treat their heros (at the time) fairly. It’s now used to try leaders the west doesn’t like. There’s lots of people in Iraq, Britain that want to see Tony Blair at the ICJ but the ICJ and the UK would use a rule such as the one you’ve mentioned to say it doesn’t apply, but won’t hesitate to take an Iraqi to the court.
You seem to think the laws you espouse as ideals are not inherently written to protect those already in exploitative power.
You can be dismissive of the reality of people outside of your bubble, however this is the pragmatic reality in the world. I do enjoy people taking the time to write comments that show their worldview is being shattered.
No stupid questions, but certainly stupid answers.
The USA is not a part of the international criminal court. So even if the ICC said the US committed war crimes, they have no way to enfore those laws in the USA.
ICC is for states that can’t prosecute within their country. USA can do that. So it goes like this:
ICC: Hey, USA, you committed war crimes
USA: We dont recognize your court of law, and we did our own investigation where we found no wrongdoing.
ICC: We disagree
USA: Okay, that’s nice. If you arrest Bush we will invade the Hague
Stalemate.
Yeah but if Bush travelled to a country under the ICC jurisdiction he could still be tried. Of course the Hague invasion act (a big fuck you from USA to the ICC) may deter some countries from enforcing the ICC rules on American citizens.
This is false.
I mean how bout a source buddy?
Heres what they say on their website. “As a court of last resort, it seeks to complement, not replace, national Courts.”
https://www.icc-cpi.int/about/the-court
Perhaps we interpret that differently, or I could have described it better.
You just come in here, take one sentence, call it false, and leave? Come on mannnnn.
I don’t need to refute your entire argument, this isn’t a Swedish university where peer criticism is required.
The ICJ says it’s a lot of things but it’s only been used as a colonial court against countries that aren’t aligned with western interests. I don’t defend the war criminals that have been prosecuted by the ICJ but how does the ICJ recognize the definition of a national court? For example, if an African country has an indigenous form and interpretation of justice to ensure societal cohesion, who are the western Europeans to say that their form of justice is incorrect and they need to be tried at the “international court”.
The court was only created to try Nazis because they didn’t think that country would treat their heros (at the time) fairly. It’s now used to try leaders the west doesn’t like. There’s lots of people in Iraq, Britain that want to see Tony Blair at the ICJ but the ICJ and the UK would use a rule such as the one you’ve mentioned to say it doesn’t apply, but won’t hesitate to take an Iraqi to the court.
You seem to think the laws you espouse as ideals are not inherently written to protect those already in exploitative power.
Literally none of this has any relevance to the above statement that you deemed ‘false’ and is little more than a political rant.
You can be dismissive of the reality of people outside of your bubble, however this is the pragmatic reality in the world. I do enjoy people taking the time to write comments that show their worldview is being shattered.
Source?