The International Criminal Court - the facts

Okay, I don't know if I'm getting this across right. I'm saying that as a matter of principle, no one should be able to judge someone by standards that they haven't agreed to be judged by.

Agree or disagree?

Does anyone else think that relates to soldiers committing rape? If so, could that be a reason the US kept out of it, as GI's have been known to perpetrate that crime in Turkey, South Korea, Japan etc?

It's possible (I'm sure it's been thought about), but there are so many other legitimate objections that the US has to the ICC that such a nefarious reason is probably very low on "the list", if it's on there at all.

 

I'm saying that as a matter of principle, no one should be able to judge someone by standards that they haven't agreed to be judged by.

But they don't get to make that choice, it's made by the state at an international level. I get your point, it's just not consistent with the system. The person is tried for their actions in the capacity of "commander of whatever group perpetrated these crimes". And that is decided by the ICJ, when they decreed these crimes to be jus cogens, and all states surrender authority to the ICJ when they recognise it.

By your logic, Usama bin Laden cannot be held accountable for 9/11 as, under pure shari'a, his actions were justified by the 1998 fatwa, urging jihad against America and he is merely carrying out Allah's will. By your logic, Adolf Hitler, Slobodan Milosovic or any other maniacal dictator can be seen as justified because they never consented to be judged by these standards.

My question to you, StarFire, is this: Under what standard should genocide, the crime of aggression, war crimes and crimes against humanity be judged, and why would one with intent of committing one consent to these standards?

E_S

 

With a defence budget of $394bn and a military estimated at 70,000,000 people

Minor unimportant quibble on the number of people , as of July 2002 the totals are:

Link

"Total Personnel (Active Duty): 1,417,558
Army: 487,062
Navy: 385,955
Marine Corps: 174,088
Air Force: 370,453"

I think you mixed up the actual number of the US armed forces with how many males are in the 15-49 range:
CIA on the US

"Military manpower - availability:
males age 15-49: 70,819,436 (2001 est.)"

Meaning of course there are potentially 70 million males that could be called upon to serve. I can't imagine what would provoke that (AT-AT's on the fields of Kansas? ).

 

But they don't get to make that choice, it's made by the state at an international level.

I'm talking about if a state refuses to recognize that authority. I keep jumping back and forth from persons to states to make my point, but I guess it's confusing

By your logic, Usama bin Laden cannot be held accountable for 9/11 as, under pure shari'a, his actions were justified by the 1998 fatwa, urging jihad against America and he is merely carrying out Allah's will. By your logic, Adolf Hitler, Slobodan Milosovic or any other maniacal dictator can be seen as justified because they never consented to be judged by these standards.

They can be punished, and whether their actions are justified is a moral matter, not a legal one--they cannot be judged by a standard they did not agree to be held accountable to. Should the US throw Osama bin Laden and his cronies in jail, or maybe just execute them? Yes. But not because they broke a law that doesn't apply to them--because they attacked the United States, which gives us the right to retaliate in kind.

My question to you, StarFire, is this: Under what standard should genocide, the crime of aggression, war crimes and crimes against humanity be judged, and why would one with intent of committing one consent to these standards?

These kinds of crimes don't need to be judged. They speak for themselves. The criminals, however, should be dealt with. And here's my dilemma.

I believe that no one has the right to interfere in another's life without that person's consent. However, I refuse to stand by while others commit crimes against my fellow man. This is honorable, but how is it justified? How can I justify my unrequested intervention in another's affairs?

That's what I'm working on now, and I think I'm on the brink of figuring it out, but ah just don't knows yet

I apologize in advance for any gross grammatical errors. My brain doesn't recognize them when I'm tired like this

 

I'm talking about if a state refuses to recognize that authority. I keep jumping back and forth from persons to states to make my point, but I guess it's confusing

If the state doesn't, like the US, then US citizens cannot fall under ICC jurisidiction whilst on US soil, nor in any of the friendly countries that signed the exemption the US insisted on. Unless, the USA for PR reasons applies to have a US soldier tried, under the aforementioned context.

They can be punished, and whether their actions are justified is a moral matter, not a legal one--they cannot be judged by a standard they did not agree to be held accountable to.

But you're saying they can't be judged by standards they never consented to.

Yes. But not because they broke a law that doesn't apply to them--because they attacked the United States, which gives us the right to retaliate in kind.

Actually it doesn't really and self-defence as a reprisal has been widely condemned. I mean if you want I can give you a legal arguement justifying those attacks, and do it well. Just because we supported the attacks on al-Qaeda and the Taliban doesn't necessarily mean it was legal in the same sense vigilantism is illegal, though in some cases accepted.
The US can respond to an armed attack, under Article 51, by another Member of the United Nations, or, under Resolution 1373 (2001), consitent with the purposes of the United Nations Charter. Head over to ASIL, check out the article "the Myth of Self-Defence" my Mary Ellen O'Connell in the Counter-Terrorism Taskforce, it'll clear some of that up. If it's still there!

These kinds of crimes don't need to be judged.

I meant it in the jurisprudence sense; judged by a court.

The criminals, however, should be dealt with. And here's my dilemma.

I believe that no one has the right to interfere in another's life without that person's consent. However, I refuse to stand by while others commit crimes against my fellow man. This is honorable, but how is it justified? How can I justify my unrequested intervention in another's affairs?

Humanitarian intervention, the common good. This Court, the ICC, is a good, regardless of American participation. It takes the slime of humanity and deals with them accordingly. It'd be nice if America was in though...

E_S

 

But you're saying they can't be judged by standards they never consented to.

I'm not exactly sure how this counters or responds to the point I made, so I'll just say, "Sure, yeah!"

Actually it doesn't really and self-defence as a reprisal has been widely condemned.

If someone attacks me, I'm within my rights to attack them to defend myself.
I'm amused by how you constantly use "rights" and "UN law" interchangeably, as if they were the same thing.

Humanitarian intervention, the common good.

That doesn't cut it. I can't regulate people's lives for their own good. It's the very heart of what's wrong with America's government today.

 

A permanent court would be a bad idea. I could see the court looking for things to do if nothing is on their agenda.

Who would this International Court be accountable to? Who would they report to? Who would have oversight over their activities?