I don't know what the criteria is, nor do I know which law we're following. International law? Because I kind of think that's broken when the person on trial, you know, effectively murders several thousand people for no reason. Where would you hold it? Who would work as the jury? And how long would it take and how much of a motivator would it be to other future terrorists?
Mind you I am not framing this is "EFF YEAH USA THIS IS OUR RIGHT TO KILL PEOPLE!" and that is specifically why I used Dick Cheney as the example, seeing as how he's helped drag USA into a war that's still killing people in various ways.
My point being that the whole "harmless elderly man" is wrong on several counts and that I'm not losing sleep over a terrorist who had no qualms abut murdering thousands of people not getting a trial in a complicated situation wherein he was in a country that was letting him live a pretty decent life and he serves as the figurehead and motivator for a whole host of future people who wanted to ignore international laws and continue killing innocent (read: non-military) people. I'm not the person to decide who lives and who dies but I'm not also not going to sit here and play holier-than-tou when I don't have to be responsible for the safety of my whole country and/or tiptoeing around international diplomacy on a day to day basis.
You don't like this? That's fine. Good luck being a leader of a country and having to make these decisions yourself. I can guarantee you it's not going to be that simple. It's easy to sit behind a computer screen and go "tut tut JUSTICE!!'
I mean - I'm not condoning what the US does. The US's military is bloated and full of bullshit and designed so that corporations get profit so we have to continually be in war.
But then again Bin Laden was a terrible human being who has done many terrible things with no accountability to any country or political group or what have you because he was hanging out in a bunker directing his followers to go out and kill. He certainly wasn't harmless, and the US couldn't really declare a war the normal way because Bin Laden has no borders, no sanctions, nothing.
And as I said above - it's easy to be morally just and righteous on the Internet or in this person's case, making a movie. I have serious problems with Obama and our government and drone strikes but you know - I can't say I'd ever want to be in the position to make those decisions. At the end of the day you'll likely have blood on your hands and it's going to be with you whether it's innocent or not.
"I don't know what the criteria is, nor do I know which law we're following. International law? Because I kind of think that's broken when the person on trial, you know, effectively murders several thousand people for no reason. Where would you hold it? Who would work as the jury? And how long would it take and how much of a motivator would it be to other future terrorists?"
You do know that there have been trials of mass murderers at the ICC, right? Charles Taylor, for instance, fits right in with your definition above. So I'm still wondering how this case is different.
This also, personally, brings me back to the fact that many have been criticizing the ICC for the fact that it has mainly brought tyrants and criminals from smallish countries to trial, when it seems to me that the issue is not so much the ICC itself but the fact that powerful countries such as the U.S. can simply bypass it whenever they feel like it (because God forbid any US military personnel ever be put on trial at the ICC for crimes against humanity!).
Mind you I am not framing this is "EFF YEAH USA THIS IS OUR RIGHT TO KILL PEOPLE!" and that is specifically why I used Dick Cheney as the example, seeing as how he's helped drag USA into a war that's still killing people in various ways.
My point being that the whole "harmless elderly man" is wrong on several counts and that I'm not losing sleep over a terrorist who had no qualms abut murdering thousands of people not getting a trial in a complicated situation wherein he was in a country that was letting him live a pretty decent life and he serves as the figurehead and motivator for a whole host of future people who wanted to ignore international laws and continue killing innocent (read: non-military) people. I'm not the person to decide who lives and who dies but I'm not also not going to sit here and play holier-than-tou when I don't have to be responsible for the safety of my whole country and/or tiptoeing around international diplomacy on a day to day basis.
You don't like this? That's fine. Good luck being a leader of a country and having to make these decisions yourself. I can guarantee you it's not going to be that simple. It's easy to sit behind a computer screen and go "tut tut JUSTICE!!'
Reply
That is all. :)
Reply
I mean - I'm not condoning what the US does. The US's military is bloated and full of bullshit and designed so that corporations get profit so we have to continually be in war.
But then again Bin Laden was a terrible human being who has done many terrible things with no accountability to any country or political group or what have you because he was hanging out in a bunker directing his followers to go out and kill. He certainly wasn't harmless, and the US couldn't really declare a war the normal way because Bin Laden has no borders, no sanctions, nothing.
And as I said above - it's easy to be morally just and righteous on the Internet or in this person's case, making a movie. I have serious problems with Obama and our government and drone strikes but you know - I can't say I'd ever want to be in the position to make those decisions. At the end of the day you'll likely have blood on your hands and it's going to be with you whether it's innocent or not.
Reply
You do know that there have been trials of mass murderers at the ICC, right? Charles Taylor, for instance, fits right in with your definition above. So I'm still wondering how this case is different.
This also, personally, brings me back to the fact that many have been criticizing the ICC for the fact that it has mainly brought tyrants and criminals from smallish countries to trial, when it seems to me that the issue is not so much the ICC itself but the fact that powerful countries such as the U.S. can simply bypass it whenever they feel like it (because God forbid any US military personnel ever be put on trial at the ICC for crimes against humanity!).
Reply
Leave a comment