Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei
Well let's take this from a different angle then perhaps. I think we are both in agreement that the American tradition doesn't hold a monopoly on due process, many of our own traditions were derived from traditions before our own time.
But on what grounds do you think that this ICC will be legit and just? If you read the link posted regarding the congressional bill on the matter, there were many assertations made that pointed out that there would be no due process, no double jeopardy, no trial by peers, limited access to bail, and an indefinite detention.
Maybe you know, but on what traditions are the basis of the ICC to be set up on? I'll drop the issue of authority.
|
It would be legit if we all sign the treaty and accept it, or am I oversimplifying the matters now. Cause I though that was the foundation for a international treaty. Countries sign and abide by it.
Furthermore it would be just if the court would be unbiased and thus giving due process. How to do that? Well how do you do that in a country? How do you know your system is unbiased? In some cases people still argue that any system is biased (whether American or European). If that is your problem with the ICC I suspect that you are weiry of your own system as well, cause (like mine) it is not flawless, but it tries darn hard to be that.
As for the trial by peers, not every country has a trial by jury/peers. So in that aspect there could well be a problem. Then again who are his peers? the people from the country of origin? or from the country were the alleged crime was committed?
Limited acces to bail could be resolved by letting the suspect go under supervision of his/her country. But yes that is a problem. As for indefinite detention I fail to see the point since under American law terrorist are being held for years now without trial. No I am not saying the people in front of the ICC are terrorist (nor am I implying that USA soldiers are), but it seems that even the American system has found ways round that point.
Personally my biggest beef with the ICC would be the length of trial. As can be seen with Milosovic, Saddam and Chemical Ali it can take years before they appear before court, and that process takes years as well. If that can be trimmed down to months there would be less problems.
Furthermore I can well imagine that people feel that there is bias/hatred towards the USA. Speaking personally I know plenty of people who agree with the USA politics as well as people who hate the politics. However the vast majority does not hate Americans (do not mix those up).