Rumsfeld, Gonzalez, Yoo etc., might be prosecuted for war crimes -- in a German court

Great Debates
41

Universal jurisdiction may be one of the worst ideas in history. Any state saying that it can classify certain crimes as under its jurisdiction no matter where they happen anywhere in the world is a huge violation of state sovereignty and also opens a terrible can of worms.

We’ve had some mild success in establishing international courts to deal with international crimes, although we still have a long way to go; and I think the scope of said courts should always be extremely limited. If the defendant’s crimes are also crimes in their home jurisdiction and their home jurisdiction has made a good-faith investigation or attempt to prosecute for said crimes the international court should never have jurisdiction or right to prosecute.

I think international tribunals or courts are the better way to deal with issues like war crimes, or crimes against humanity, in many cases of said crimes they can’t be left up to the state in question because they may have been technically legal under the laws of that state which of course were written and distorted by whoever was in power.

But one state should never try to conduct criminal prosecutions concerning things that it has no normal jurisdiction over.

Also, for the record, the Nuremberg trials had nothing to do with “universal jurisdiction.” Up until 1949 (or technically 1955) the allied powers were the proper governing authorities in Germany and thus the persons tried at Nuremberg were under their actual jurisdiction.

42

And what would be the downside of that?

43

War.

44

By which you mean that you have no problem with Iran or Sudan convening a court to prosecute the Massachusetts judiciary for establishing a right to homosexual marriage in that state?
Or perhaps they could simply try, in absentia, all the managers, editors, and officers of any corporation that chose to publish The Satanic Verses?

You’re right. There appears to be no downside to individual nations choosing to extend their law to anyone in the world that offends them.

45

Touche.

46

Reminds me of the Apple commercial where the Windows guy keeps saying ‘touche’…

:stuck_out_tongue:

-XT

47

Now you’re offering arguments in support. All that would be difficult and complicated — but oh, so much FUN! :smiley:

But, assuming the forces of traditional morality would, in the long run, lose, as they deserve to lose –

– do you have any good reason to expect they wouldn’t? Or shouldn’t?

48

I honestly didn’t see any other way of reading Martin’s post. War is, of course, the biggest downside, but you would introduce an isolating element into internationaly relations that would set us back perhaps 2,000 years. Government officials would be concerned about traveling to other countries, and these types of actions would generate reactions in the targeted countries that could easily escalate to war.

49

For better or for worse … this is the community of nations in a nutshell. AFAIK, it’s always been that way for humanity, and I can’t see how it would ever change.

One of my favorite little personal maxims is that if man somehow ever collectively gives up “might makes right”, we would cease to be Homo sapiens. It would then be time to recognize that our species has made some kind of a leap … perhaps we could go with Homo pacis )(apologies for butchering the Latin).

50

One of the biggest advances in society was the ability to leave office and survive. If we’re going to go back on that, then we’re in a world of hurt.

51

I don’t see what I said as a personal attack…unlike rjung’s relentless drive by attacks which strike me as trolling, though doing so in a manner that skirts the letter, if not the spirit of the rules. Telling another poster to put up or shut up (though perhaps telling them to STFU is a bit harsh…I was pretty riled), doesn’t strike me as a personal attack to be honest. Pointing out that the assertion, unless proven is in the other posters head or their own little universe doesn’t seem an attack either.

But thats for you guys to decide. For my part, though I don’t feel what I said was a personal attack, I will certainly knock it off…and apologize, though in this case not to rjung. I apologize for breaking the rules, pissing off the mods and for hijacking this thread.

-XT

52

An update:

53

That principle does not require extending complete criminal immunity to officeholders for their actions while in office. Pols wind up in jail all the time, it’s nothing new.

54

Isn’t the whole “raise yourself better than your base instincts” the whole point of civilization? Just because we’ve got our lizard hindbrains giving us brutish instincts to boink everything in sight and fight anything else doesn’t mean we should just go ahead and do it.

55

Basic difference in philosophy between you and I – I don’t believe humanity taken in toto can do better. You have hope … which is admirable (not meant sarcastically).

56

For some reason, a pack of humans operate differently than the way that the individual humans that make up the pack might operate.

57

Looks like the German lawsuit is moving ahead:

58

Ok, I’m a bit confused some of these arguments. Perhaps someone could clear up any misconceptions I might have.

It is my understanding that universal jurisdiction is accepted by the US (and that we apply universal jurisdiction to a few crimes ourselves) and by international law generally. If this is so, I fail to see what precident this case would create.

I also fail to see why Iran shouldn’t be able to try the Massachusetts judiciary or the publishers of Satanic Verses in absentia. I mean, I certainly don’t think they should do it, but what horrible result would occur because they could? They would only do so if they clearly intended to provoke the US. And they have plenty of ways of doing that already, so it isn’t like their inability to try people in the US is what’s preventing war with Iran. The US would have no reason to recognize such a trial, of course, and could presumably gain agreement from other countries if necessary not to extradict those people to Iran (except, of course, from countries openly hostile to US).

The group pushing for Rummy’s endictment may be far-left nutcases, but they need the German federal prosecutor to agree to any charges. Given that Germany and the US are allies, I can’t believe the German prosecutor would bring charges against an American against America’s wishes without truely overwhelming and undeniable evidence. But in the unlikely case that such evidence for war crimes exists, I don’t see why charges shouldn’t be brought under the well-established and internationally agreed-upon standard of universal jurisdiction.

59

Janis Karpinsk is testifying today ,I believe. A little more credence than you think.