Quote (Hamsterbaby @ Mar 24 2023 11:48am)
^djunior ^ferdia
Hey bros
I have to vote no for this .
Reason.
If I have to use a moral stance on this I would have voted yes.
But realistically speaking he wasn't the root of the problem for the war.
he was merely a " puppet " . The problem lies deeper within which cannot be solved unless we start having a multi polar world ( but there are pros and cons).
Furthermore , ICC is utter trash and a mere political tool, so it is kinda useless when it comes to " Superpowers " .
This is the root of the problem from my point of view.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cyZoUfNsUl8I disagree with your assertion that having a deterrent, or, the ultimately deterrent, is the root problem.
On this planet we have countries. each country has its own interests. We have the United Nations, but the more powerful countries have a Veto. This Veto is both the root problem and the final defence against all out war. The Veto is a mechanism for a country to secure its own global interests above those of another country, no matter how big or small. So, for all of the flaws that exist with the veto, it must remain, noting in the absense of same some countries are going to lose out, and they wil not stand for that.
It is my view that it is not for an external country or body to issue an arrest for Bush, as ultimately no country would want to hand over their leader to an external body. Regardless of what type of rule exists in a country, having a branch that prevents, or intercedes to prevent such things as warcrimes is obviously a no brainer. However this is of course all a pipedream noting that not all governments, or countries, are stable, and, even those that are deemed to be stable, will simply do their own thing, irrespectively of national or international law, BECAUSE THEY CAN.
Now I accept that this topic was made to highlight a perceived or true double standards relating to the war in Ukraine. but to my mind Bush should be arrested, for war crimes, as he knew on a basic level that what he was doing was wrong. This also applies to Putin. The flip side of this is, of course, that Saddam was not a nice person and there were a variety of things that in the normal course of events should have seen him behind bars (or dead) years prior. I accept that Biden also has his flaws but they pale in comparision by an order of magnitude. To be nuanced its safer to say that Biden's, or rather, US foreign policy in certain aspects is highly questionable from a moral and legal standpoint, regardless of whether they do a palpatine or not "I will make it legal". But who will arrest Bush? ICC ? No. and who will arrest Putin? ICC ? No. Ultimately for a global superpower the only credible method is for the respective nations to repudiate their leader. This was not done with Bush and if Putin does go, from an internal body, it is more likely to be for different reasons, such as : you did not achieve victory, so we got rid of you, and now we will go do it. Thats not sanction against a crime, its the removal of someone for not commiting the crime well enough.
So TLDR: The concept of an International Criminal Court is a noble enterprise but deeply flawed noting that what we have is a body not recognised by the big three (US, China and Russia) and even then it plays favouritism which undermines it as an institution. Yes Bush should be tried for warcrimes but by who ? The ICC has no juristiction for US citizens. And Putin? Yes he should be tried for warcrimes, but by who ? again, not the ICC. The only alternative is for the ICC to make recommendations to bring to the UN.
so to be controversial, I would say that the ICC should have the ability to call Putin a war criminal, to recommend sanctions of some type against Putin, but should not have the ability to force another country, or russia, to arrest putin. The same goes for Bush and co.
all of that is my opinion.
This post was edited by ferdia on Mar 24 2023 07:27am
Guests cannot view or vote in polls. Please register or login.