Would the International Criminal Court have Legitimacy if it Tortured U.S. War Crimin

Discussion in 'Politics' started by cpduprovider, Jul 8, 2011.

  1. cpduprovider

    cpduprovider Rookie

    May 29, 2011
    Thanks Received:
    Trophy Points:
    Would the International Criminal Court have Legitimacy if it Tortured U.S. War Criminals?

    Imagine if the International Criminal Court decided to kidnap and then render U.S. war criminal politicians to The Hague and used Libyan interrogators, who had bombs dropped on them by NATO and U.S. forces, to torture confessions out of these politicians for their crimes against humanity. Even if the ICC tortured confessions out of American politicians that ended up being proved true, does anyone here think the ICC would have any legitimacy if it tortured confessions? So, why does any American think our judicial system or military tribunal system has any legitimacy after torturing confessions out of people and hiding the crimes with civil case dismissals?

    The Obama administration’s DOJ has decided that it will drop 99 out of 101 torture cases. It allowed to stand two cases that have no evidence so they could get a couple of court case victories and then tell everyone, “See, nothing to see here.” This is a scam. Just because the U.S government says it did nothing wrong does not mean these people will not be tried as war criminals one day.

    The world can only hope that one day Muslim countries ger powerful enough to have kidnap squads like the Jews did and make U.S. war criminals stand trial in Muslim lands.

    The War on Terror could best be fought by punishing those who committed war crimes and crimes against humanity.

    If they did nothing wrong, then they have nothing to worry about.

Share This Page