Now playing on dirty.radio: Loading... |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Re: All bark and no bite?
It makes no difference at all whether or not the ICC issued a warrant for Tony Blair, or GWB, or anyone, really. Sure, tell the world that you support the ICC, but what happens when your head of state is on a wanted poster? There's no provision for invading a country to capture him, and I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for his own country to turn him in. Then again, it's not like he can leave his home country, because then the host nation could capture him and turn him in, but that leads to a whole 'nother pile of shit to wade through. The only way to get them to trial is to have the authorities within said suspect's country give them up. Is it just me, or does that make the whole process moot, no matter how much legitimacy and support you give it?
__________________
You dodged a massive fucking bullet, man. The really huge Super Mario kind with the eyes on the side, where you had to run and duck into the little divot to avoid shrinking. You did that. You got into that divot, and you're still super sized, and you can break blocks with your face. Now get out there and step on some fucking turtles!! |
#13
|
||||||
|
||||||
Re: All bark and no bite?
First: This is debate - not personal - not antagonistic - very much in the broad/theoretical sense - at least that's what I'm aiming for. I get told off for being to glib - so I'll try hard to make sense.
Quote:
I'm fortunate enough to be on holiday and have the time to sit around and mull thoughts. And fortunate enough to live in a country that is insulated from having to make any real decisions. Quote:
Quote:
I see the ICC as stating a fact - and often it's a given that the stating of the fact won't bring justice, or restitution. But it's in the stating of the fact and the acceptance that new starts begin. Too pious? Possibly. But my case would be Australia. Where for years John Howard refused to apologise - to even say "Sorry" for what was done to Aboriginals as part of government policy. Would not in any official capacity say "Sorry". One of Kevin Rudd's first steps was to do that - to apologise. And of course it's not going to make it all better - but it's a start. It's taking some responsibility for choices made by others in the system- as representatives of that same system - and starting again. In NZ, we're working through a long process of restitution and making settlements with the many iwi (tribes) that were here before the Europeans arrived. We have the benefit of a formal document - the Treaty of Waitangi - and there are critics of the process. But as a country we're making the effort to settle and address long standing grievances. I have a friend who works for the Tribunal, and in discussions with her, she's said that often the simple act of a written and/or verbal apology from the Crown to the iwi is huge. It is often part of a greater settlement, including cash, land and so forth - but the formal apology is a powerful statement. For both parties. It's an acceptance that mistakes were made, wrongs were done. It's a symbol of starting again. And until you make a clean break, a clean start - nothing can be done really. Quote:
I do take responsibility for the leaders of my nation. Not everyday - and I'm not being holier than thou here - but I helped vote them in for fucks sake. I'm not in there shouting at them in parliament. But I'm considering what policies they are putting in place during the upcoming election. And - yeah - i'm being selfish and considering those policies that will directly affect me. But I'll do what I can to be part of that process. Accepting the reality - but entertaining the possibilities. Quote:
Which expectations should we hold to then? In personal relationships? In international relations? That's like me saying to my students: "I don't really think you can succeed this year - you probably won't get on with others in your class - and if some of the course work is difficult - you probably shouldn't bother." Sarcasmo said: Quote:
__________________
Doesn't information itself have a liberal bias? - S. Colbert |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Re: All bark and no bite?
Quote:
and you're right, the UK doesn't seem to support the overt jingoism that america tolerates, but i think they would be equally reluctant to hand over a leader or ex-leader, regardless of whether they wear flag pins on their lapels. in any country, even the most oppressive ones, you're always going to have people who disagree and people who agree with their leadership. the problem is, people are great at nodding vehemently when the world criticizes the leaders they disagree with. hell, i loathe GWB. if he were accused by the ICC of war crimes i would pound my fist and cry, "DAMN STRAIGHT!" but for every citizen who thinks like me, there's another who thinks he should be defended and would never stand for the outside criticism. you're going to run into that everywhere. which is why ultimately you can't make the argument that people should be "responsible" for their leadership. because not everyone sees the ramification of decisions the same way. so while i agree that we need to be responsible for our elected leaders, i fail to see how an entire population will come to agreement over who needs to be responsible for what. there are republicans in america who would string up bill clinton by his thumbs because they feel his failures during office led directly to the 9/11 disaster. and that's something that can be debated internally until we're blue in the face. but if an international organization made the same accusations it's doubtful that even those republicans would say, "well sure, let's extradite him." Quote:
so we propose the idealistic idea of an international court that can hold everyone responsible for actions according to an agreed upon system of ethics. how might that go wrong? we can immediately say, "YES! that will bring horrible dictators to justice!" but beyond that how might that idea be applied in a way we wouldn't agree with? does it mean we would give this court the independent right to pass judgement on our own countries' internal policies? if so, would you be okay with that court passing judgement from the outside and imposing its system without your population's consent? what if the greater international community decided to write abortion into the ethical code that falls under the court's purview? isn't the point of independent nations that a population can decide its own standard of morality and living standards? i chose a deliberately far fetched topic there, but without going so far as to play the "slippery slope" game you have to look at the possibilities. the problem with the ICC is that i just don't see a realistic scenario where populations would be okay with outside authority trumping their leaders' decisions. it really seeks to behave in more of a "globalized nation" way than the world is ready for. so it's not about saying, "it's not realistic, so don't even try." it's about saying, "this version of the idea isn't realistic, let's identify why and see if there's a more realistic proposal we can put on the table." i am sooooooooo rambling now. |
Post Reply |
|
|