All bark and no bite?

[Sarcasmo]

So the ICC has been around for a few years now, and we see that there is an arrest warrant for a sitting president; responsible for one of the worst genocides in the last 15 years (and no, it's not Bush.)

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/africa...ges/index.html

My understanding of this is: The ICC special prosecutor thinks that Sudan's president/dictator is a really bad guy, and someone that should be tried at the Hague. However, the only people authorized to arrest him are the Sudanese. Which is kinda like saying, "We're going to try you for war crimes and genocide, which you're more than likely guilty of, after which we're going to strip you of power and stuff you in a tiny jail cell for the rest of your natural life...just as soon as you turn yourself in."

Maybe it's just because I've had a rough weekend, but this makes me laugh, kind of: the UN and ICC thumping their chests and screaming empty threats to anyone who will listen...which is almost no one.

[Sean]

Yep. I'd say that's a pretty glaring flaw in the system.

[cacophony]

^ there is no system. if everyone doesn't participate and recognize its legitimacy, there's no system in which a flaw can appear.

[chuck]

There I was thinking you were talking about the International Cricket Council - which is also pretty much ineffective and pointless in the face of self-policing strategies and a dominant partner. In the case of cricket, it's India - which has all the money, the population and pretty much has the rest of the world (the cricket playing world) by the balls.

In the case of the great game - with regards to Sudan and Darfur - it's China that has the money, the military presence, the economic presence in the area isn't it? So it has the rest of us by the short and curlies.

Darfur and Africa are sort of like what Southeast Asia was in the 1950s - 1970s, 'cept we're not giving it a fancy name like 'the domino theory' - we're just chucking the human rights/genocide meme around.

When in fact - as usual it's about wants and needs. In this case - China wants oil - and the US/Western powers are bogged down in Iraq/Iran - and there's not much anyone can do really.

Is that the "systems" fault? Nah - not really.

Unfortunately - due to blatant disregard and open hypocrisy to power plays over the last 10 years ie. Iraq, Zimbabwe, North Korea - and an inability to engage meaningfully by the main members of the Security Council (who are the only players with the military capability to do anything in cases like Darfur) - the system is non-existent.

And I'm not just pointing fingers at the US here - the African political leaders as a group have been spectacular in their ability to ignore the very people they profess to represent.

At least someone in the ICC is screaming a threat - it's not like Bono's efforts did much good.

But wait - weren't the G8 mob discussing something in Japan? World food prices or some such fancy pants horseshit?

Basically - I'm even more cynical than you Sarc - and I've had a pretty chilled out week. The ICC is a reflection of the non-system - but also a symbol of the hope and belief that we can do something better about it. Like cacophony says though - until we all start giving it a go, this systems a non-starter.

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

Originally Posted by chuck

...by the short and curlies...

Does this still apply if one shaves?

You get more whistling that way.

[cacophony]

Originally Posted by chuck

until we all start giving it a go, this systems a non-starter.

so if the ICC demanded the US turn GWB over for his role in killing thousands of iraqis, do you think the US would comply? would the US let anyone have the authority to come and get him?

what if they did the same of tony blair for his role in the iraq catastrophe while he was in power? would the UK have just rolled over?

it's all fine and good to talk about an international criminal court as long as we're comfortable that we're not going to be on the receiving end of its prosecution. that's what ultimately dooms the system to failure.

[chuck]

Originally Posted by cacophony

so if the ICC demanded the US turn GWB over for his role in killing thousands of iraqis, do you think the US would comply? would the US let anyone have the authority to come and get him?

No.

Are you saying he had a role in the killing of thousands of Iraqis?

Originally Posted by cacophony

what if they did the same of tony blair for his role in the iraq catastrophe while he was in power? would the UK have just rolled over?

Quite possibly.

The ICC is a court - so they'd have to make a case and provide evidence. And direct links between the accused and the said atrocity/genocide.

It's not a court of kangaroo - or a court of talkback - or god forbid - the court of Fox - because all of those courts have tried, acquitted and executed the defendants.

Originally Posted by cacophony

it's all fine and good to talk about an international criminal court as long as we're comfortable that we're not going to be on the receiving end of its prosecution. that's what ultimately dooms the system to failure.

So not taking responsiblity for the actions of our elected leaders is what dooms the system to failure?

Yes. I do agree with that.

No-one's accountable for anything - occasionally in the movies - and occasionally at an election - but no-one really holds anyone accountable. For blow-jobs, for blatant lies, for pissing on the constitution. It's all the same game.

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

OK, what about MY question?!?

[chuck]

Originally Posted by jOHN rODRIGUEZ

OK, what about MY question?!?

Yes.

A close shave is best.

Unless you prefer humming.

[cacophony]

Originally Posted by chuck

Are you saying he had a role in the killing of thousands of Iraqis?

i'm saying there are many in both the american population and the international community who could easily make a logical connection between bush's agenda, his deliberately misconstrued facts, and the current conflict which has cost thousands of innocent iraqis their lives.

i'm not making MY argument. your whole response seems based on an assumption that i'm arguing my personal opinion. i'm talking in broader terms.

Originally Posted by chuck

Quite possibly.

*snort* yeah. right. quite an unrealistic perspective you have there.

Originally Posted by chuck

The ICC is a court - so they'd have to make a case and provide evidence. And direct links between the accused and the said atrocity/genocide.

sure. and they can do that all they want. and they could make an airtight case and proclaim all the guilt they want. but it's going to be the minority of the population who will be willing to have an international body pass judgment on their government and leaders and invade their borders to remove the accused. don't forget, even saddam hussein had thousands of vehement supporters.

i recall the iraqi public opinion after saddam hussein was chased out of baghdad and the big statue came down. there seemed to be a shared sentiment that those who detested saddam were happy he was gone, but that there was an anger and a shame that someone came in uninvited to do the job for them. no, i'm not saying everyone, i'm saying there was a prevalent emotion there that was expressed over and over and over. not everyone wants to be judged by the international community.

it's like how you can bitch about your parents but god forbid someone else do so.

Originally Posted by chuck

So not taking responsiblity for the actions of our elected leaders is what dooms the system to failure?

wrong perspective. it's not about taking responsibility for the actions of our leaders. it's that the evaluation of those actions is a subjective task and every individual makes his or her own determination of guilt, and decides whether "responsibility" is necessary. thus my point about GWB. many people would make the argument that he is directly responsible for the deaths of thousands and thousands of innocent iraqi civilians. and many people would argue that he is not. if an international court decides that GWB should be accused, that's all fine and good. but no one has any right to demand his extradition or that those who agree with his actions should roll over and accept that judgment.

Originally Posted by chuck

No-one's accountable for anything - occasionally in the movies - and occasionally at an election - but no-one really holds anyone accountable. For blow-jobs, for blatant lies, for pissing on the constitution. It's all the same game.

i'm not really sure what point you're trying to make here. the world is an unjust place. big revelation there. regardless of whether international accountability is tops on our wish list, it's highly unlikely that it's an attainable goal. it's an unrealistic expectation of the diverse populations of the world. sorry i'm not an idealist. i'm a realist. and that's the reality.