But, that seems unlikely. The fancy international organizations are simply tools of world-power governments for their means. Whenever it favors then, they will act on it. When not, they can manipulate them… and/or ignore their judgements altogether.
Does Beijing care or act upon the Permanent Court of Arbitration (P. C. A.)'s ruling against (& for Manila) in the South China Sea/West Philippine Sea issue? https://pca-cpa.org/en/cases/7/ lol 🤣 F— no!
How about Washington on the ruling of the U. N.'s own International Court of Justice (I. C. J.) against them with their paramilitary abuses against Nicaragua? https://www.icj-cij.org/en/case/70
In the world of Geopolitics, might makes right, whether we like it or not. It's the powerfuls' decrees on who are heroes and/or criminals that are enforced.
1
2 Reply
Asker
+1 y
The US even sanctioned the last prosecutor of the ICC Fatou Bensouda for her decision to open a war crimes probe in the Palestinian Occupied Territory. John Bolton even threatened to arrest ICC judges... It's clear that the US government behaves like a mafia.
True. Washington has been sued successfully by the World Trade Organization for abusive practices against a South American nation (Argentina, IF I remember correctly from Agricultural Policy class), but could it be enforced? lol Nope.
The powerful do what they want and cite "international law" whenever it suits them. When it counters them, "national sovereignty" suddenly becomes the priority. How convenient!
Bush can't be tried by the ICC since the US isn't a member. There should be a proper investigation in the US though, assuming the politics have dissipated enough to make one possible.
You have made an assumption about Assange. Now please cite the section of the Federal Criminal Code that prescribes a life sentence for "denouncing war crimes". If you cannot, then it is not possible to charge Assange with what you claim he'll get a life sentence for.
In addition to a lack of jurisdiction (Iraq and Afghanistan weren't ICC signatories either), trial by absentia is not permitted under ICC jurisdiction.
The Kenyatta case opened a possibility for trials in absentia by the ICC. Anyway, the real problems here are the lack of political will to punish the architects of the Iraq War and the double standards that the West uses to absolve itself from its crimes.
The ICC‘s charter clearly states a defendant must be present. And Bush and Blair didn’t come up with idea of going to war on their own, which is why there needs to be a proper investigation at the national level. Trying to short-circuit defendants‘ rights isn’t the way to go about getting to the bottom of what happened. You’ve already convicted them and want the ICC to illegally rubber-stamp it.
Have you ever heard of the Abilio Soares case? A person who committed crimes that violate the IHL and IHRL can't benefit from the protection against an ex post facto law/procedure. That decision was based on the legality of the rulings of the Nuremberg and Tokyo Tribunals, which is considered as examples of the application of law ex post facto.
If sentenced, Bush and other Americans who were responsibles for the Iraq War could be arrested if they stand their feet in the territory of a country which is signatory of the Rome Statute.
The British ones, like Tony Blair, could be arrested in the UK itself since the country is signatory of the RS.
No, the ICC doesn’t have jurisdiction, and a trial in absentia would not be legally binding. Such an arrest of either of them would therefore be illegal. I’ve already said how it should be handled.
Remember that national law would come into play to determine whether anyone could be extradited, even for a citizen of an ICC member state.
As for Soares, he was tried in an ad hoc tribunal in Indonesia for command responsibility in East Timor, so the jurisdiction was a national one. Bringing him up undermines your case.
We came back to the first points. There's precedent in international law, the problem is that there's no political will to investigate and punish the architects and executors of the Iraq War. That measure, although symbolic, could be at least a hindrance for Bush, Blair et al since they could actually be arrested. Blair and his fellows in the UK since the country is signatory of the RS, and Bush and his fellows couldn't leave the US territory for the one of a country which is signatory of the RS.
What you cite as a precedent is not since it required UNSC approval rather than ICC jurisdiction, which doesn’t exist for the US citizens regarding anything that happened in Iraq and Afghanistan, so any other country arresting them would be illegally detaining them and would provoke US retaliation or perhaps even an invasion. You’re Forum Shopping, and even that isn’t possible.
As for the UK citizens, Blair has traveled internationally quite a bit since leaving office, so I don’t think he’s worried about it. And the UK would Notverkäufe kindly to it’s sovereignty being violated by another country or the ICC.
@suckmynuts369 Don't expect a reply if you continue to be so ridiculously hysterical.
ffs, get some therapy or something.
I'm referring to the coercion to take an experimental medical product, that is probably rather dangerous, the media hysteria, the mask mandates, the general insanity and all the other bullshit that went along with it.
This is good stuff to share! Good to know. If we americans don't know about these things. I mean what happened in bucha, you go in, show it all. You say.. the russians did this. the americans did that. So now, with everything at same time on table, what should we do, about it ALL.
I think that is fair! It's fair right?
I didn't know these things, I just get bucha news. It's nice to put it all on the table from all countries, then go in and resolve them all same time?
Yep. Obama, too. It's damned hypocritical of us to be condemned Putin for HIS war crimes committed in a stupid war waged only for political reasons and ignore those of OUR leaders.
Since you're starting with a lie: "Julian Assange got a life sentence for denouncing such #WarCrimes.", I guess you're trying to distract from the crimes against humanity that Putin is committing right now.
0
3 Reply
Asker
+1 y
Isn't Julian Assange going to get a sentence like that by a kangaroo court since he's going to be extradited to the US? C'mon, even a pathological liar and probably a paid troll like you knows that, I'm not sure you actually believe your own lies and the ones you might be paid to regurgitate.
I was talking about results. The result is that Julian Assange can be considered a life prisoner already for the reason that he faces a possible penalty of up to 175 years in jail and he's extremely unlikely to get acquitted of any charges by the kangaroo court which will subject him to trial.
In theory, yes. In practice International Law can only be enforced through consensus. So unless the US and UK hold their hands up and surrender their citizens to the ICC nothing will happen.
Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
Most Helpful Opinions