How can anyone be "brought to justice"

The pre-war determination of the Bush administration to "bring the perpetrators of 9/11 to justice" seems contradictory to the administrations' failure to support international conventions that would effectively allow criminals to be tried, and hence, be "brought to justice".
Is "brought to justice", then, neoconservative Bushspeak for "exterminated".

Quote:

The United States of America was one of only 7 nations (joining China, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Qatar and Israel) to vote against the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court in 1998

Source

The US stands in splendid company in their refusal to adhere to what the international community largely supports, but is again implying that they are entitled to a separate set of rules--if they supported the ICC, then they could be found guilty of many of the offenses they accuse others of.

Do you, then, believe that the perpetrators of 9/11 should not have been/be brought to justice?

U.S.: End Bully Tactics against Court Letter to Colin Powell
* U.S. Ambassador Richard Blankenship publicly warned the Bahamas that if it did not support the U.S. position on the ICC, a significant amount of U.S. aid would be withheld, including funds for paving and lighting an airport runway.

* An Assistant Secretary of State informed foreign ministers of Caribbean states that they would lose the benefits for hurricane relief and rural dentistry and veterinary programs if their governments did not sign.

"U.S. officials are engaged in a worldwide campaign pressing small, vulnerable and often fragile democratic governments," said the Human Rights Watch letter, signed by executive director Kenneth Roth. "Because most ICC member states are democracies with a relatively strong commitment to the rule of law, the threatened aid cutoffs represent a sanction primarily targeting states that abide by democratic values."

candidone1 wrote:

The pre-war determination of the Bush administration to "bring the perpetrators of 9/11 to justice" seems contradictory to the administrations' failure to support international conventions that would effectively allow criminals to be tried, and hence, be "brought to justice".
Is "brought to justice", then, neoconservative Bushspeak for "exterminated".

Quote:

The United States of America was one of only 7 nations (joining China, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Qatar and Israel) to vote against the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court in 1998

Source

The US stands in splendid company in their refusal to adhere to what the international community largely supports, but is again implying that they are entitled to a separate set of rules--if they supported the ICC, then they could be found guilty of many of the offenses they accuse others of.

Apparently, the US Administration at that time felt it was in our best interest to not support that measure.

Brandon9000 wrote:

Do you, then, believe that the perpetrators of 9/11 should not have been/be brought to justice?

This response does not follow from my original post so your attempt to derail the thread can stop here.
...and I don't believe I either said or inferred such a thing.

The pre-war determination of the Bush administration to "bring the perpetrators of 9/11 to justice" seems contradictory to the administrations' failure...

Unlike the old justice of impunity that allowed the likes of Augusto Pinochet and Pol Pot to go unpunished, the new justice of the international court, known as the ICC, reflects a growing global determination to bring the worst human rights criminals to justice. Yet the Bush administration continues its campaign against the court, although it is increasingly isolated in its opposition.

Meanwhile, U.S. envoys have been circling the globe threatening to cut off military aid and other benefits to any government that won't agree by July 1 never to send a U.S. suspect to the ICC. The European Union and its associated states have stood up to this strong-arming, but weaker and more vulnerable governments are having a harder time resisting.

The Bush administration tries to justify its quest for such agreements by saying that it doesn't want to be held to a treaty it hasn't ratified. But that falsely characterizes the issue. No one suggests that, without ratification, the ICC should bind the United States. Rather, the question is whether other governments have a right to choose how to address crimes committed on their own territory, even if by U.S. citizens. Under long-accepted legal principles, the British government, say, is entitled to prosecute an American for committing murder on the streets of London. Similarly, in the case of atrocities committed on its territory, Britain can choose to delegate prosecuting power to the ICC. That the United States hasn't ratified the ICC treaty is irrelevant. All that matters is that the government on whose territory an American might commit such crimes has ratified the treaty and granted prosecuting power to the court.

The provision must be read in light of the ICC's purpose, however. Ruthless regimes have long committed atrocities with impunity. Dictators occasionally promised prosecutions, but with no international justice system to hold them accountable, the pledges were usually empty. The ICC's ability to override national prosecuting efforts that are not conducted in good faith reflects the determination of ICC member states to move beyond unverified pledges. The agreements sought by the Bush administration would undermine this core ICC principle.
The stakes are high in the struggle to resist the Bush administration's vision of old justice. If Washington prevails, other governments will inevitably try to evade ICC oversight. That will advance impunity.

...In the words offered by the Shrub immediately prior to the invasion of Iraq, "you are either with us, or you are with the terrorists."
In this case, it is a fair estimate that "you are either with us, or with the mass murders".
I see where the US stands on this issue, as the international schoolyard bully, who dictates what rules everyone ought to play by.

I have never tried to derail any thread (although A2K liberals frequently pepper threads I start with observations about my character)

unless you count expressing my political opinion as trying to derail it. You said:

candidone1 wrote:

The pre-war determination of the Bush administration to "bring the perpetrators of 9/11 to justice" seems contradictory to the administrations' failure...

I wasn't aware that a relatively unrelated question constituted an opinion Brandon.

Brandon9000 wrote:

I may have been wrong in believing that you were criticizing this statement by Bush, although it seems like you were.

I was not only criticizing the bully-Bush administration, but also his predecessors who have also assumed the familiar rejectionist position.
Surely you can agree that if one is to be "brought to justice", they need to be tried in front of an unbiased and neutral court.
If one wants to escalate the level of violence, as opposed to seeking justice in the common sense of the term, they will use war and murder as a synonym for "justice", and they will reject the formation or implementation of any institution that wishes to adhere to the rule of law above self-interest.

Surely you can agree that if one is to be "brought to justice", they need to be tried in front of an unbiased and neutral court.If one wants to escalate the level of violence, as opposed to seeking justice in the common sense of the term, they will use war and murder as a synonym for "justice", and they will reject the formation or implementation of any institution that wishes to adhere to the rule of law above self-interest.

American courts have a well dignified reputation of being both unbiased and neutral

McGentrix wrote:

American courts have a well dignified reputation of being both unbiased and neutral

Yes - pity, thus, that the US administration has been so hellbent to keep the alleged terrorists it arrests from ever facing them (eg, the Guantanamo inmates).

woiyo wrote:

candidone1 wrote:

The pre-war determination of the Bush administration to "bring the perpetrators of 9/11 to justice" seems contradictory to the administrations' failure to support international conventions that would effectively allow criminals to be tried, and hence, be "brought to justice".
Is "brought to justice", then, neoconservative Bushspeak for "exterminated".

Quote:

The United States of America was one of only 7 nations (joining China, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Qatar and Israel) to vote against the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court in 1998

Source

The US stands in splendid company in their refusal to adhere to what the international community largely supports, but is again implying that they are entitled to a separate set of rules--if they supported the ICC, then they could be found guilty of many of the offenses they accuse others of.

Apparently, the US Administration at that time felt it was in our best interest to not support that measure.

Supporting "justice" and supporting the rule of international law should be in the interest of any democracy...regardless of "the time".

candidone1 wrote:

Surely you can agree that if one is to be "brought to justice", they need to be tried in front of an unbiased and neutral court.If one wants to escalate the level of violence, as opposed to seeking justice in the common sense of the term, they will use war and murder as a synonym for "justice", and they will reject the formation or implementation of any institution that wishes to adhere to the rule of law above self-interest.

You appear to be stating that there is no right to make war, no matter what the provocation. That a country should, rather, submit to a trial of its enemies by a foreign court that may not even have its interests at heart.

I disagree strongly, and would point out that grievances like we have in connection with 9/11 have been settled by making war for the entire history of our species.

Everyone supports "justice", but justice has a definition, and war is by no means a part of that definition.
So, your willingness to state on my behalf that there is no right to make war "no matter what the provocation" is patently false.

What you seem to be glossing over is the fact that American interests trump all others.

The desire for peace, IMO, is a truism. It would be absurd to claim that the international community (those supporting the ICC for example)has a different, or even conflicting notion of what constitutes peace.

What has becomes obvious when discussing American foreign policy, is that the international consensus should always play second fiddle to the wills and interestes of the US. The US is dodging the ICC becasue it doesn't want to be held to the same standard as other nations are.
In similar fashion, the US vetoed a Security Council resolutions both condemning terrorism (re: Israel), and one acknowledging that states must follow international law (re: Nicaragua's victory in the World Court), this has gone on even recently in a judgement passed down with respect to the softwood lumber dispute.

Supporting the ICC is not in the best interests of the US considering the global reach our country exerts.

It's hardly a "rejectionist position" to consider the intrests of ones own country. American courts have a well dignified reputation of being both unbiased and neutral, do you consider them otherwise, or to be somehow less than what the ICC would be or is?

What has becomes obvious when discussing American foreign policy, is that the international consensus should always play second fiddle to the wills and interestes of the US. The US is dodging the ICC becasue it doesn't want to be held to the same standard as other nations are.

In similar fashion, the US vetoed a Security Council resolutions both condemning terrorism (re: Israel),

and one acknowledging that states must follow international law (re: Nicaragua's victory in the World Court), this has gone on even recently in a judgement passed down with respect to the softwood lumber dispute.

So what about the tactless American bullying campaign to "convince" smaller countries who wish to sign on to the ICC.

Clearly, under your argument of self-interest, the US is again showing that their interests trupm those of anyone else.

...again, this polarized worldview where "you are either with us or.....against us."

To take an example of the dignified reputation of the American system has in investigating it's own crimes, take for example the bombing of Iran Air 665 in 1988. In spite of the fact that the US Vincennes was, without question, demonstrably at fault, heroic achievement medals were handed out to those responsible and GHW Bush, again in spite of damning evidence of both negligence and aggression, stated "I will never apologize for the United States of America, ever. I don't care what it has done. I don't care what the facts are."
This is but one example of how dignified the US is in investigating their own crimes.