the only thing that bother me with the ICC is that it can persecute people that took part in events that were before the ICC was even formed. this is against any logic, and this descredits it because who will the ICC chose next? Saddam? Kissinger? Bush sr? etc etc... the choice will be more political than anything else. And a court driven by politics can't be given importance because it being partial.

the ICC should start running after criminals that are acting now... that would be fair and credible.

just an (lame)illustration, imagine a new court that punishes premarital sex and start running after those who commited it before the creation of court and laws... that wouldn't be fair. also who would it punish? this fellow ? or that one? the latter being the son of an important figure. now politics enter into effect because the father of the latter start pressuring the court and its member ... etc etc.

___________________
[/IMG]http://i54.tinypic.com/ngycqo.png[/IMG]

quote:

Originally posted by ahlamalek the only thing that bother me with the ICC is that it can persecute people that took part in events that were before the ICC was even formed.

no dont worry, its not retro-active. in order for the ICC to prosicute someone the crime would have to have been done after its founding.

___________________
If God is the answer, it must have been a very stupid question.

oh shit i mistaken it with the court that brought milosevic to justice... nevermind.

___________________
[/IMG]http://i54.tinypic.com/ngycqo.png[/IMG]

Just out of interest, what would happen when someone brought before the court was found guilty?

I know it would have to vary from case to case, but generally, what would the punishment be? If it's imprisonment, where would this prison be, and who would be responsible for running it? And what about where different countries have different ideas about "justice" - by what criteria would they decide the nature of the punishment?

___________________
http://eschatonnow.blogspot.com/

most of that information is in the links i proveded (the FAQ one).
recent political manuevering has almost assured that the UN will have some power to control the ICC (or at least the ones on the security council). those judged would be prosacuted only for those crimes which the statuate declares as such, and by signing onto the statuate you would then be obliged to follow those rules. the ICC is set up in the Haugge (sp is wrong i know, sorry) and would use the current facilities that hold political prisoners (ie the future home of milosevic). the penatlies are basicly jail sentences up to life (or 50 years i think).

but ya that may pose some problems because certian crimes would for example be served a death sentence if they were tried in other countries. for example another wierd outcome would be if america had caught ossama and gave him a death sentence after a trail the ICC has the autority to come in and say we arent pleased with your court and we are going to try him in the ICC...

also about the prosecution of war crimes, they are still not detailed enough and unjust imo. for example israel could be tried for shooting into civilian areas or at ambulances when infact it was the palestinians who frist broke geneva convention by using civlian residential areas as base of military operations, or lack of wearing a military uniform, or using ambulances to smuggle weapons and militants. the geneva convention is a treaty not law, i fail to see why if one side breaks the treaty (or any treaty for that matter) the other must oblige to it as well.

___________________
If God is the answer, it must have been a very stupid question.

maybe because two wrongs don't make a right...

what you described, is a guerilla warfare not a conventional war, the Geneva convention is mostly about conventional warfare.

___________________
[/IMG]http://i54.tinypic.com/ngycqo.png[/IMG]