THE US, UN AND IRAQ V

Walter,

Then evidently you also disagree with Steve concerning the brief TV clips of Saddam. We, of course did not parade him through a throng of angry, hostile victims of his abuse.

Of course I don't claim the U.S. will "... invade and militarily intervene everywhere where people are suffering under the misrule of its government". Just as do the European powers, we do so only in select cases where our own vital interests are also affected.

Certainly France claims and still exercises the right to militarily intervene in the African states that once lived under her colonial rule. In every case they claim only humanitarian motives, but there are evident commercial motives as well. I am bemused to note that they also do this without UN authorization, and that their actions are therefore as "illegitimate" as were ours in Iraq, by their definition.

The hypocrisy of many Europeans is truly astounding.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Certainly France claims and still exercises the right to militarily intervene in the African states that once lived under her colonial rule. In every case they claim only humanitarian motives, but there are evident commercial motives as well. I am bemused to note that they also do this without UN authorization, and that their actions are therefore as "illegitimate" as were ours in Iraq, by their definition.

The hypocrisy of many Europeans is truly astounding.

Hmh. You certainly know about the 'CFA-Afrique' and the 'Communion of French speaking countries' (can't remember the proper name momentarily).

0 Replies

Quote:

Off Target:
The Conduct of the War and Civilian Casualties in Iraq

Human Rights Watch Report
http://www.hrw.org/reports/2003/usa1203/

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

except perhaps to squash absurd notions coming chiefly from Europe that perhaps one of their special international tribunals should handle the matter

Funny how its suddenly Europe and "their" tribunals.

The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) was of course established by a Security Council resolution (#827). It was adopted by a unanimous vote. The US was in fact one of its sponsors, along with Russia, the UK, New Zealand, France and Spain. In fact, the US - that is, the Bush government - was among those pushing Djindjic's Serbia hardest on the matter, refusing - unlike the EC - to confirm its participation in the 2001 donor conference that was to pull the country back from the brink of bankrupcy, until the government agreed to extradite Milosevic to the ICTY.

You may not have agreed with your government, george, but the ICTY still represents all the world community, including your country - not just Europe. You may disapprove, but no reason to start rewriting history.

georgeob1 wrote:

Evidently some believe the spectacle of Milosevec's self-serving abuse of the UN tribunal was somehow a model that should be repeated.

Exactly how has the Milosevic trial been such a spectacle? Yes, he got to speak - and he's politician enough to reap whatever benefits from it he could. Personally, I dont think it made him look any better to much anyone - even in his homecountry his stature didnt suddenly take any leap when he did. More to the point, however - speak though he may - if he hasnt got any legal evidence that seves his case, none of his rhetorics wont change anything about the trial. It wont change the evidence that was brought, and it wont change the judgement that will be spoken.

Do defendants and their lawyers in US courts speak up and use the media when they can - especially the famous ones? Of course. Does it make the US justice system into a "spectacle", that somehow should preferably not be "repeated" elsewhere in the world? Of course not. An independent and fair justice system is one of those values that you are righthly aiming to export.

(Duh.)

0 Replies

I have every confidence that France stands no more chance of participating in the trial of Saddam than they do being awarded a contract at the expense of Halliburton.

I love Dave too, Gel.

Halliburton is charging American occupation authorities (that's you and me folks) $2.64 a gallon -- about twice the price today in Houston, and that may be a low estimate - to bring in gasoline from Kuwait.

Any company that can get away with a scam like that in the oil-rich Middle East doesn't need to worry about foreign competition for taxpayers' dollars.

0 Replies

Steve

I agree with george here regarding the footage published after Saddam's capture. There were compelling reasons to provide clear evidence he had been found and captured. Also, the footage contained none of the elements of maltreatment or cruelty or dehumanization which the GC hoped to prevent. Whereas the Americans captured were clearly fearful, and their situation under the capturers uncertain, that wasn't the case with Saddam.

On the subject of the trial, the voices urging an international presence (at least) in the prosecution of Saddam are coming out of America, and not just Europe. For example http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec03/iraq_12-16.html but there is much else of the same view. For george to suggest this is merely a European position is logically irrelevant and false.

0 Replies

Nimh,

In fact I am not a fan of international criminal courts of any kind. The rationale for the Milosevec matter perhaps had to do with the disintegration of the Yugoslavia which he also led, and the ensuing questions regarding just what state might rightly claim jurisdiction. I suspect that and a desire to avoid anything like the ICC were behind our government's support for the Milosevec tribunal - something which I grudgingly support, only because in that particular case there was no better alternative. However I do not believe it is an apt model for other situations in which an appropriate national jurisdiction can be found. Moreover I do not believe that the 'specticle' of Milosevec's trial was particularly edifying, and I am not particularly impressed with the judicial procedures of international courts, dominated as they are by European models of procedure.

(The"duh" bit from the Simpsons has more offensive and disagreeable overtones to our ears than perhaps it is possible for you to know. It goes aqainst the grain of your otherwise reasonable, agreeable and cultivated style. I would find another way.)

0 Replies

nimh

Just a quick agreement here with george on the duh thing.

0 Replies

Ditto on duh (nimh, not george).

edit: for clarification

0 Replies

OK about the "duh" thing! Will watch it, and my apologies!

0 Replies

Actually, it's "D'oh!" with exclamation, that Homer says.

0 Replies

Does a double duh without a clue beat two duhs?

Dejavu alll over again ...

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

However I do not believe it is an apt model for other situations in which an appropriate national jurisdiction can be found.

Oh I agree that it is preferable to rely on "appropriate national jurisdiction" if such is available.

In fact, the ICC operates on the bottom line that it can only pursue cases for which there is no appropriate national jurisdiction - i.e., if there is no national jurisdiction, whatsoever, or if the national jurisdiction refuses to apply even a proper procedure to establish whether the party whose possible guilt was raised should be charged or not.

The question here is whether Iraq does have an appropriate national jurisdiction. I veer towards thinking it does, but I'm not entirely sure. So on the actual issue - barbs about "the Europeans and their Tribunals" aside - we probably don't differ of opinion too much.

0 Replies

Meanwhile, hundreds of Kurdish youths celebrated in Amsterdam the other night, and their Kurdish Youth Association (or the like) had this request: Saddam should be tried in Iraq and imprisoned, and his prison should be made into a museum, so people can go look at him.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

georgeob1 wrote:
However I do not believe it is an apt model for other situations in which an appropriate national jurisdiction can be found.

Oh I agree that it is preferable to rely on "appropriate national jurisdiction" if such is available.

In fact, the ICC operates on the bottom line that it can only pursue cases for which there is no appropriate national jurisdiction - i.e., if there is no national jurisdiction, whatsoever, or if the national jurisdiction refuses to apply even a proper procedure to establish whether the party whose possible guilt was raised should be charged or not.

The question here is whether Iraq does have an appropriate national jurisdiction. I veer towards thinking it does, but I'm not entirely sure. So on the actual issue - barbs about "the Europeans and their Tribunals" aside - we probably don't differ of opinion too much.

I would think George would have to install himself as 'GrandPooPah' for it to work.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Meanwhile, hundreds of Kurdish youths celebrated in Amsterdam the other night, and their Kurdish Youth Association (or the like) had this request: Saddam should be tried in Iraq and imprisoned, and his prison should be made into a museum, so people can go look at him.

His final resting place should be that hole they found him in.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

... In fact, the ICC operates on the bottom line that it can only pursue cases for which there is no appropriate national jurisdiction - i.e., if there is no national jurisdiction, whatsoever, or if the national jurisdiction refuses to apply even a proper procedure to establish whether the party whose possible guilt was raised should be charged or not.

The question here is whether Iraq does have an appropriate national jurisdiction. I veer towards thinking it does, but I'm not entirely sure. So on the actual issue - barbs about "the Europeans and their Tribunals" aside - we probably don't differ of opinion too much.

I agree, not too much difference. However I am not willing to confer on any international body the right to decide whather or not the national jurisdiction of my country is either appropriate or appropriately applied to citizens of my country. Nations are sovereign, and international bodies have authority over them only when the nations in question specifically agree to it.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

However I am not willing to confer on any international body the right to decide whather or not the national jurisdiction of my country is either appropriate or appropriately applied to citizens of my country. Nations are sovereign, and international bodies have authority over them only when the nations in question specifically agree to it.

Or when one nations blows the hell out of another, then the winner gets to pump their oil and convict (and expect to execute) their sovereigns before trial and occupy their nation with soldiers for a few decades.

Hey, that's natural law...

0 Replies

PDiddie,

You are correct. That's how it worked for Charles V, Carlos II, Elizabeth I, Frederich II, Louis XIV, Napoleon, Alexander III, Victorian England, the various French republics (and Napoleon III), and all of these countries throughout the 20th century.

Do you believe we have reached the end of history?

0 Replies

Well, george, we could derive two lessons from the past. One, that humans don't evolve very quickly, and two, that our institutions can.

All of our institutions exist as a remedy or bulwark against the worst parts of our natures, individually and collectively.

To argue that present injustices are redeemed and justified by the models of prior arrangements is to forgo the real means to progress.

0 Replies

THE US, UN AND IRAQ V

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know