How can anyone be "brought to justice"

candidone1 wrote:

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.

A whole lot of people have always believed that justice can be accomplished by war. A whole lot of people. That's brilliant and authoritative.If you think that justice cannot be accomplished this way, but only in court, then it sounds to me like you're condemning war as a practice, which is not far from the way I characterized you.
Adjust your hearing, it was you who has twice made this assertion on my behalf. You have created a false dilemma. To adhere or subscribe to an internationally supported and recognized court of law does not ential a rejection of war. I'm surprised you'd continually play up this conclusion.

candidone1 wrote:

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

This is not what we believe. We merely look out for our own interests, as does everyone - e.g. when attacked, we fight back even if some other country doesn't approve.
No, you will attack or sanction when convenient and self-serving, to hell with the consequences for the others.

candidone1 wrote:

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.

On the contrary, it would be absurd to claim that all countries agree as to what constitutes justice.
Hence the ICC.
The Chief Justices of the USSC seem to be able to determine what constitutes justice within the American framework, it is reasonable to assume that the justices in the ICC can determine what constitutes justice in the international arena.

candidone1 wrote:

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.

Maybe we don't agree with a particular bill as to what does and does not constitute terrorism.

candidone1 wrote:

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

I believe that is called "foriegn policy". The US carries a very large economic club and we have no problem using it to our own benefit.

Quote:

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

Yes, it does.

Quote:

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

So?

Quote:

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.

You will be hard pressed to find another nation as open and judicious as the US is regarding internal examinations of wrongdoings. They are mostly made public and often times embarrassing to the nation. Take as an example the terrorist surveillance program, the various presidential scandals, enron, etc... the list of investigations showing the dignified reputation of the American justice system is far vaster than any examples you can give to the contrary.

Brandon9000 wrote:

candidone1 wrote:

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.

A whole lot of people have always believed that justice can be accomplished by war. A whole lot of people. That's brilliant and authoritative.If you think that justice cannot be accomplished this way, but only in court, then it sounds to me like you're condemning war as a practice, which is not far from the way I characterized you.
Adjust your hearing, it was you who has twice made this assertion on my behalf. You have created a false dilemma. To adhere or subscribe to an internationally supported and recognized court of law does not ential a rejection of war. I'm surprised you'd continually play up this conclusion.

You appear to be denying what you have said. You said:

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.

It certainly seems to me like you were saying that taking someone to court achieves justice, whereas making war on him does not. Although you deny saying this, here are your own words. I disagree with that opinion.

Most of the time though, Candidone1, US intrests are aligned with most other countries. Especially when it comes to spreading democracy and freedom.

You seem to be suggesting that the US is some sort of ultimate power that can sunder every dictatorship and foster democracy across the globe... that just isn't the case. Sometimes, governments have to be worked with diplomatically, sometimes militarily and sometimes simply ignored.

Keep in mind though, that what is best for America, is also best for the world... (that should give you something to yell about... :wink:)

This is not what we believe. We merely look out for our own interests, as does everyone - e.g. when attacked, we fight back even if some other country doesn't approve.

candidone1 wrote:

No, you will attack or sanction when convenient and self-serving, to hell with the consequences for the others.

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.

Brandon9000 wrote:

Maybe we don't agree with a particular bill as to what does and does not constitute terrorism.

Yes, "what they do to us is terrorism and what we do to them is counterterrorism(to quote Chomsky)", or simply anything done to preserve the American way of life or protect American interests.
The United States D o D has a strict definition of terrorism:
"the calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological."

candidone1 wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

candidone1 wrote:

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.

A whole lot of people have always believed that justice can be accomplished by war. A whole lot of people. That's brilliant and authoritative.If you think that justice cannot be accomplished this way, but only in court, then it sounds to me like you're condemning war as a practice, which is not far from the way I characterized you.
Adjust your hearing, it was you who has twice made this assertion on my behalf. You have created a false dilemma. To adhere or subscribe to an internationally supported and recognized court of law does not ential a rejection of war. I'm surprised you'd continually play up this conclusion.

You appear to be denying what you have said. You said:

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.

It certainly seems to me like you were saying that taking someone to court achieves justice, whereas making war on him does not. Although you deny saying this, here are your own words. I disagree with that opinion.

My point was that "justice" has a meaning...and that "bringing someone to justice" would follow from that operative meaning. Bush has used the term "justice" synonymously with "murdered/killed/destroyed". This is not justice by even the most elementry understanding of the word.

McGentrix wrote:

Most of the time though, Candidone1, US intrests are aligned with most other countries. Especially when it comes to spreading democracy and freedom.

It's not arrogance to believe that ones country is more important than someone elses and to expect that ones government is looking out for it's citizens self intrests.

Do you believe Canada does not do the same?

You seem to be suggesting that the US is some sort of ultimate power that can sunder every dictatorship and foster democracy across the globe... that just isn't the case. Sometimes, governments have to be worked with diplomatically, sometimes militarily and sometimes simply ignored.

Brandon9000 wrote:

candidone1 wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

candidone1 wrote:

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.

A whole lot of people have always believed that justice can be accomplished by war. A whole lot of people. That's brilliant and authoritative.If you think that justice cannot be accomplished this way, but only in court, then it sounds to me like you're condemning war as a practice, which is not far from the way I characterized you.
Adjust your hearing, it was you who has twice made this assertion on my behalf. You have created a false dilemma. To adhere or subscribe to an internationally supported and recognized court of law does not ential a rejection of war. I'm surprised you'd continually play up this conclusion.

You appear to be denying what you have said. You said:

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.

It certainly seems to me like you were saying that taking someone to court achieves justice, whereas making war on him does not. Although you deny saying this, here are your own words. I disagree with that opinion.

My point was that "justice" has a meaning...and that "bringing someone to justice" would follow from that operative meaning. Bush has used the term "justice" synonymously with "murdered/killed/destroyed". This is not justice by even the most elementry understanding of the word.

Can you give an example of our president doing this?

We should obey our own laws when making war, but should never give other countries veto power over it.

The United States Department of Defense has a strict definition of terrorism:
"the calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological."

This is an absurd definition for terrorism, since war has traditionally been extra-legal. We should obey our own laws when making war, but should never give other countries veto power over it. I think that terrorism is the deliberate targetting of non-combatants as the primary, intended target of an attack.