BF2S Forums Should the US participate?

From what I've read on the Milosevic trial in the Hague, it seems like the process isn't much different than ours.  Hell, even the Saddam Hussein trial sounded fair.

Also, I don't think the US has cornered the market on fair trials.  But still, ensuring proper judgments and proper deliberation would be hard.

JG1567JG wrote:

I'm wondering which of our leaders should stand trial on an international tribunal and for what crimes exactly.

Let's not let this thread go into "who should be tried" because it will end up being a typical bush is good/bad thread.

I'd like this thread to stimulate conversation and thinking regarding the US's position on participation, or not.  Shipbuilder has a few great ideas as to why they should..I agree that it would repair alot of the mistrust and hate pointed towards us.  I know I hate our government for thinking it's above the law and unaccountable.  That's probably the greatest criteria for me hating Bush...not his choices as much as him acting untouchable..and frankly, nothing will thrill me more than knowing he's been held accountable.

Pug wrote:

Do we not participate?

When was the last time someone in the US was called to go to be tried and we didn't show up?

Nearly as bad...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaragua_v._United_States

Pug wrote:

Do we not participate?

Found this here

Crimes of War Project wrote:

On May 6 the United States government delivered a letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations giving formal notice that the US has no intention of becoming a party to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. The letter also requested that the US declaration be reflected in the Rome treaty’s official status list – effectively canceling out the US signature to the treaty that was entered by the Clinton administration on December 31, 2001. This measure – popularly referred to as "unsigning" – sets the United States in outright opposition to the court, which will come into existence on July 1 of this year.

The move confirmed that the Bush administration will not submit the Rome treaty establishing the court to the Senate for ratification, and that it will refuse to cooperate with the court once it is up and running. The administration also announced that it would attempt to negotiate bilateral agreements with as many other countries as possible to prevent them from surrendering US agents to the court.

Found this here

Project on International Courts and Tribunals wrote:

The United States has been central to the creation and development of international courts and tribunals since the early 1900's. Currently, there is a perception that the US is unwilling to particpate in, or comply with, such courts and tribunals.

Found this here

Last edited by The_Shipbuilder (2006-11-13 11:59:12)

Well, let's take Rumsfeld for example.  If our country was participating, and we had integrity, Rumsfeld would be extradited to Germany or to the Hague where the german prosecuter could bring forth his claims and present evidence supporting those claims.  The rest would be as a normal trial and sentencing if found guilty.  I'm guessing Gonzales wouldn't represent him because he doesn't know jack shit about law, and Johnny Cochrane is dead..so  Rummy would be cell mates with Milosevic.  Wait, I think Milosevic died.  Then he'd be alone.

The PROS of partcipating...  read shipbuilders post up a few posts.  Also, along with better international relations and regained trust, it would make diplomacy more likely from us.  We wouldn't be making shit up to bomb countries or force freedom down their throats.  Some would think this is bad, to remove the pre-emptive doctrine Bush has used, but I say it wouldn't.  If something blatant happens like 9/11, and if we've regained our status as a trustworthy, good neighbor by abiding the international court...people would trust our option to retaliate and hopefully we'd conduct ourselves nicely.  If stray cluster bombs go killing children, then we need to be there doing our best to reconcile so that some uppity lawyer in France doesn't go bringing our military commanders to court.

CONS -- In a perfect world, there would be no cons because we'd behave properly when conducting international affairs and warfare.  But in reality, the cons would be that wrongful death cases would be filed like mad...requiring more better defined and executed ROE from our forces.

I'm not that well versed on how this works to give you further information, but I bet you could google and wiki the things you are looking for.  I will too.

Last edited by IRONCHEF (2006-11-13 12:59:25)

Yep. http://www.thewest.com.au/default.aspx? … ntID=12874

He would get destroyed (him Gonzo, and Tenet) too, especially since retired General Karpinsky would testify against him.  She was the General in charge of Abu Graib prior to the torture being done.  General Miller, who was doing a "hekuva job" at Gitmo was put in charge of Abu Graib causing Karpinsky to be "retired" and the dude even brought his own dogs to help implement "club gitmo" in abu graib. 

I saw this on the MSM last night and I'm finding many sordid articles about it via google too.  Germans would have to decide to pursue it, and if they do..Rummy would not be able to visit Germany...and that's about the extent of what would happen.

Last edited by IRONCHEF (2006-11-13 13:19:16)

Good luck Rummy.

BTW you guys are too early.  We'll have to rehash this again when it's official.

Stingray24 wrote:

No American should be tried in an international court.  Our men and women in the military do not deserve to be subjected to foreign prosecution.  It is better taken care of by our military when a soldier breaks the law.

Would you apply this to every country in the world or is it just for the USA?
Should there even be any international courts?

American should be tried in an international court, indeed, but the problem is. The current government has plans ready to invade the Netherlands and free soldiers that are on trial at the IC.

Hello! Invade allies?

Chef, what exactly do you mean by this?

IRONCHEF wrote:

I used to believe our country should stray from "Internationalization" or getting too comfortable with a single body of government.  And I still believe we should be removed from the influence of the rest of the world with regards to governance and hopefully we will.

Can you name a country you consider (more) "internationalized" than the US?

just more inane "bring down the king of the hill" talk, they have a bunch of people who spent their childhood getting pantsed and ridiculed on the playground growing up spraying accusations everywhere. and of course people are too caught up with the seriousness of the charge rather than how substantial the evidence is. i don't believe the us should have to entertain a kangaroo court like this anymore than the UK, SU, or any other nation that provided pre-war intel, it would do nothing other than degrade the effectiveness of the intel community even further. How about we look into the coincidence between germany's stalling the rollout and being directly implicated in the oil-for-food scandal by evidence in saddam's own briefcase. germany should be careful, they may get what they wish for.