Sofia wrote:I wonder why all these murderous thug-ruler types get off so easily.
Cause we let them ... :-(
That was why the attempt to arrest Pinochet, even if it was abortive, and the trial of Milosevic are so important. They set a precedent for what could be a new era.
Sofia wrote:But, for some reason, I don't think the US could've gone in and captured Taylor, or killed him in a fire fight attempting to capture him, without coming off looking worse than him. When Reagan bombed Qaddafi's house, we were baby-killers.
Well, not to harp on this, but thats why its such a practical little thing to have a permanent war crimes tribunal (the ICC), recognized by a majority of UN states (even if not by the US).
Its really quite a different thing for any one single country to just decide to go out and (try to) assassinate some foreign head of state it doesnt like - and for the troops of a country to act on the request of the UN and countries in the region to get involved, and then capture someone indicted by an internationally recognized court for war crimes and extradite him to it.
'S really quite a basic differentiation, there. (... <sighs> - I think if we'd manage to get to the bottom of the American (administration's) apparent inability to grasp it - the psychology behind that, behind the inability to differentiate between "America" ("I") and "the world" ("we"), perhaps - we would know and understand so much more ...)
You're right about one thing, tho - even if the Americans had sincerely gone to capture Taylor in order to extradite him, and it had gone wrong and they'd killed him instead - they would have gotten a bum rap, with all the predictable paranoid backlash. Its a fair enough consideration to not want to be getting in any of that, I guess (though the Bush team doesnt seem to have been overly concerned getting a bum rap about anything they did thus far ...).