2 ms·
If it was their stance that a war crimes court is a bad thing, then it would be a fine, principled stand that I wouldn't have a problem with. But given that the
by lutorm 17y ago
If it was their stance that a war crimes court is a bad thing, then it would be a fine, principled stand that I wouldn't have a problem with. But given that the US has never had a problem trying foreigners in war crimes courts (e.g. Nürnberg, or the whole Guantanamo/terrorist deal), they apparently don't think their constitution is good enough to apply it in a more wholesale fashion.
I remember Noam Chomsky saying something like "An argument whose validity depends on who is using it is merely an attempt at justification without any substance", and that seems a lot like what we're seeing here.
- dantheman 17y ago1. After Nuremburg it was a show trial put on by Stalin, there was no justification for the court -- it wasn't like the laws they broke existed in some sort of international context. 2. Not to defend Guantanamo -- I think it's abhorrent, but it is not a war crimes court, it's a place where prisoners of "war" are being taken. As I said before, I think the entire concept of war crimes in nebulous and if there is any enforcement it should be done by country affected.