Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dennis O'Bell who wrote (88466)	3/31/2003 10:56:40 PM
From: Jacob Snyder	Respond to of 281500

<The ICC would most likely wind up allowing such a "responsible" world leader as Roberto Mugabe to file motions against US citizens and have them "stick".> I would agree, that there are too many despots whose followers have too much power in the UN bureaucracy, and they waste too much money, and say a lot of stupid things. But the US is not trying to fix the UN or the ICC. Rather, we are bypassing, de-legitimizing, ignoring them. We are destroying, not fixing, the rule of law in international relations. A Darwinian jungle, "red in tooth and claw", is where we are, once all rules are gone. If it's just Mugabe, it won't stick. But if Mugabe and several billions more think the U.S. is committing war crimes (like wars of aggression, which is the crime the Administration seems most worried of being accused of, with good reason), then, yes, maybe it will stick. And maybe it should. Seems to me, a reading of what we hanged men for at the Nurenberg trials, makes "preventive war" equal "war of aggression" equal "war crime". I could agree to trying to change the ICC, perhaps by making it under the control of a committee made up only of nations with a democratic tradition (free elections, free press, for at least the preceding 10 years). But such a committee would still have a solid majority of countries (not including any Mugabes), who quite possibly would take a very dim view of the U.S. doctrine of "preventive war". So the U.S. still wouldn't have the total freedom of action, the total lack of restraints, which it insists on.

To: Dennis O'Bell who wrote (88466)	4/1/2003 4:23:38 AM
From: Bill Ulrich	Respond to of 281500

Libya doesn't hold that position by accident, nor by alphabetical circumstance, such as the disarmament chair recently disowned by Iraq. Its significance, however, is being underplayed/underthought. Africa is a bigger issue, much more soon than credit given. Iraq and NK are already "figured", comparatively. "The ICC would most likely wind up allowing such a "responsible" world leader as Roberto Mugabe to file motions against US citizens and have them "stick". You think I'm joking... this is a world where Libya heads a UN human rights abuse commission (it takes one to know one on that.)"