Quote (ferdia @ 24 Mar 2023 21:16)
I 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.
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 reverse 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".
So TLDR: The ICC is a noble enerprise but deeply flawed noting that it is not recognised by certain countries and it plays favouritism which undermines it as an institution. Yes Putin should be tried for warcrimes, but by who ? The ICC cannot seek an arrest warrent for Bush as the united states did not ratify the ICC and, as I understand, is therefore outside of the remit of the ICC.
so to be controversial, I would say that the ICC should have the ability to call Putin a war criminal, to support sanctions against Russia, but should not have the ability to force another country, or russia, to arrest putin.
Here is my point, if Bush is arrested per say in an ideal world. It doesn't solve the problem.
I agree that he has basic level of understanding in regards to the magnitude of his actions.
But if I am going to arrest " Bush" I will have to arrest all those that voted for him in congress and those enablers from the Military industrial complex etc etc if I deem the war as illegal.
It is a dicey issue.
Most of the nuclear powers are not in it or withdrew. My entire Asean area is not in it and surprise surprise only Cambodia is in it.
I will end it with although it is noble for ICC to make such a statement, whether to arrest " Bush " , " Putin " , Obama " " Xi Jin Ping" and much more.
It doesn't make sense realistically but on a moral standpoint absolutely.
I have to ponder on the deterrent part, because I can sort of get what you mean. But I need some time to think over it , because you have your point on that which I do somehow agree.
Quote (Malopox @ 24 Mar 2023 21:18)
Will never happen.
ICC investigations into US actions can cause a retaliation under American Service-Members' Protection Act if anyone is ever indicted under the ongoing Iraq/Afghanistan invasion investigations.
This is new to me and I don't know about it. I will look more into it. But I am not surprised by it.
This post was edited by Hamsterbaby on Mar 24 2023 07:36am
Guests cannot view or vote in polls. Please register or login.