# International Criminal Court **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 2, 2003, 7:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/international-criminal-court/185738 "2003-07-02T07:25:50Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2003, 1:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/international-criminal-court/185738/141 "2003-07-05T13:25:11Z")
\>\> That may be your point now, but that ain’t what you said earlier. I have explained several times what I intended to say but you insist on arguing against what you _wanted_ me to have said. I have explained it enough times. \>\> And your new position is basically an argument ad populum: We should do it because all the cool kids are doing it. Um, yeah. If you find yourseld aligned with dictators and rogue states against the rest of the advanced, democratic, developed countries, maybe you are the one who is mistaken? And, in anycase, who do you want to cooperate with? Who do you want to have on your side? Cooperation is a two way street. \>\> And I note that you still haven’t answered my question: are you opposed to the concept of a UN Security Council? Yes, I think the UN Security Council is flawed for many reasons but I do not want to sidetrack this discussion with a discussion of the Security Council. The Security Council leaves a lot to be desired but it cannot be compared to the ICC. One is a political body and the other a judicial body. Totally different. But yes, it is flawed in more ways than one. ---
**Author:** ![Edlyn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8797f3/32.png) [@Edlyn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Edlyn)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2003, 1:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/international-criminal-court/185738/142 "2003-07-05T13:38:27Z")
Are you a member of John B Anderson’s World Federalist Association, **sailor**? If so, it would be easier to comprehend the position that you’re taking here. As **Brutus** has pointed out, there is no reason to establish a permanent court in response to those like Hitler, Stalin, etc. What we have done in the past is sufficient or do you consider the Nuremburg trials (for example) a failure? Your accusations that the US is behaving in a rogue manner with arrogance because it will not willingly submit its sovereignty, as a nation to govern itself, unto an international government body authority, is against the principles this nation was founded upon and in my view, plainly treasonous. The UN (which again we should not have entangled ourselves with) was founded with the intention of nations co-operating with each other for matters of security to head off, if possible, another Hitler. What you do not seem to understand is that there is huge difference between co-operation and subjecting oneself unto others. I hope that you will reconsider and examine your position. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2003, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/international-criminal-court/185738/143 "2003-07-05T15:25:54Z")
sailor: You want to talk about selective enforcement? Ask the Israeli delegation to the United Nations about the UN’s stance vis a vis Entebbe and the hijacking. ---
**Author:** ![YourOldBuddy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/bc79bd/32.png) [@YourOldBuddy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YourOldBuddy)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2003, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/international-criminal-court/185738/144 "2003-07-05T15:38:12Z")
Americans I know have speculated that the US doesnt want to reopen cases such as Medina and Calley (MyLai) and similar cases from the Korean war. Sryboutspelling. ---
**Author:** ![Tee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@Tee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tee)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2003, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/international-criminal-court/185738/145 "2003-07-05T16:10:53Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by sailor \* > \*\*Um, yeah. If you find yourseld aligned with dictators and rogue states against the rest of the advanced, democratic, developed countries, maybe you are the one who is mistaken? And, in anycase, who do you want to cooperate with? Who do you want to have on your side? Cooperation is a two way street. > \*\* We’re not busy aligning ourselves into one of two camps - they already exist. This is an extension of the idealogical difference between those who want a world government and those who don’t, with the US being its natural self in the matter and the EU being its natural self in the matter. I think the ICC is little more than another shot at creating one world government through the back door; comments like yours above are typical efforts to trade cheaply on emotion rather than the facts at hand. “We look bad by not joining.” Well, not everyone cares at this point. The US government might have more specific and dubious reasons for not wanting to be involved. I don’t know. ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2003, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/international-criminal-court/185738/146 "2003-07-05T16:29:45Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by YourOldBuddy \* > Americans I know have speculated that the US doesnt want to reopen cases such as Medina and Calley (MyLai) and similar cases from the Korean war. Sryboutspelling. The Americans you know are pretty ignorant because the ICC cannot “reopen” those cases. As I said before, the USA is already signatory of several international treaties (WTO, Nafta, etc) which involve more obligations by far than it would assume under the ICC. The problem with the USA is that it wants to dominate everything. It founded the UN and used it for its own ends while it could. The USSR was despised as a rogue state which could not live with the community of nations and hampered the work of the UN. But now that the USA is taking the same tack we are expected to think that is a good thing. I expect any day to see President Bush taking his shoe off at the UN General Assembly and banging it on the table. When the Russians did it it was proof of how barbaric they were but when America does the same things it is just . . . different. If you want to get along you have to go along and the more the USA takes a confrontational attitude with the rest of the developed world the sooner its power will decline. ---
**Author:** ![lucwarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e19adc/32.png) [@lucwarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lucwarm)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2003, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/international-criminal-court/185738/147 "2003-07-05T18:01:07Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by sailor \* > \*\*\>\> That may be your point now, but that ain’t what you said earlier. > > I have explained several times what I intended to say but you insist on arguing against what you _wanted_ me to have said. I have explained it enough times.\*\* Nonsense. After you changed your position, I stopped arguing against the old position - at least as to you. \*\* > [@](#): > > \>\> And your new position is basically an argument ad populum: We should do it because all the cool kids are doing it. > > Um, yeah. If you find yourseld aligned with dictators and rogue states against the rest of the advanced, democratic, developed countries, maybe you are the one who is mistaken? \*\* I would point out that we would be “aligned” with dictators either way. And I agree that the position of the majority of developed countries is worthy of consideration. But inandof itself, it is not a reason to adopt the position. Moreover, the US has a special reason to take a different position from the other developed nations which is that we are uniquely powerful, interventionist, and unpopular. \*\* > [@](#): > > \>\> And I note that you still haven’t answered my question: are you opposed to the concept of a UN Security Council? > > Yes, I think the UN Security Council is flawed for many reasons but I do not want to sidetrack this discussion with a discussion of the Security Council. The Security Council leaves a lot to be desired but it cannot be compared to the ICC. One is a political body and the other a judicial body. Totally different. But yes, it is flawed in more ways than one. \*\* So are you against any and all double-standards? Or just some? Which double-standards are ok and which aren’t? ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2003, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/international-criminal-court/185738/148 "2003-07-05T18:36:26Z")
I don’t know if the topic is exhausted but I certainly am. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2003, 2:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/international-criminal-court/185738/149 "2003-07-06T02:37:11Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by sailor \* > \*\*Of course, the same argument could be made regarding many domestic laws. Do you really think Joe Sixpack, when he is drunk and in a fit of rage about to beat his wife for the umpteenth time is going to reconsider because of the severe penalties imposed by statute? I don’t think so. Does that mean we should just not penalise wife-beating? I don’t think so. The object of penal laws is not only to deter the penalised behavior but it also has other objects, one of which is to express society’s repulsion to that antisocial behavior. That is how a society expresses that it considers a behavior inadmissible: it punishes it. Even if the punishment does not stop a single crime from happeneing society will still express its repulsion by imposing the punishment. > > I do believe the ICC would diminish the incidence of crimes against humanity, but, even if it didn’t, it is still an expression of what civilised countries believe is inadmissible human behavior. And it is justice for the victims. > > Civilised countries distinguish themselves by being ruled by laws, domestic and international. Ad hoc tribunals are not the rule of law but selective enforcement of rules made ex post facto for the particular case. > > The USA was a creator of the UN and other international bodies. I remember when it was the USSR who continually despised the UN and acted like a rogue state because it did not get its way. Now the tables have turned and it is more and more the USA who defies the international community with the same arrogance the USSR used in its day. Arrogance is the best way to have the world laugh at you when you need their help. The USA should not be so arrogant as to believe it can go against the rest of the world. Treaties are made so that countries cooperate and gain. The USA cannot think it will get the cooperation of the rest of the world in exchange for nothing. It cannot be so stupidly arrogant. \*\* ^that is probably the most lucid and well-thought out argument I’ve seen in my short time on the boards. For myself, I admit defeat- I have changed my mind about the ICC (although I still believe an amendment _should_ be required by the wording of the Constitution) and no, I’m not being facetious this time. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/international-criminal-court/185738.md?page=7)