That's why we have juries and trials.
We don't allow the police to kill suspected bank robbers (they aren't bank robbers in fact until convicted) just because the police have the power to do so. They are entitled to arrest them, and recommend that charges be brought against them. But there is a separate judge and jury who look at the evidence and decide whether, indeed, the suspicions are accurate and they really are bank robbers.
With Iraq, the US is acting as accuser, judge, and jury rolled up into one. We don't allow that without our society. We shouldn't allow it on the national stage, either.
The UN is acting in some way in the role of judge and jury. They are looking at the accusations and charges made by the US, and determining whether there is sufficient basis for the accused to in fact be imprisoned or executed. The analogy isn't, of course, perfect, but it's reasonable.
But in our societal mores, learnt at our mother's knees, we reject the concept that a single authority should act as accuser, judge, and jury without right of appeal.
Why you (presumably) accept this very basic and vital principal for internal society, and indeed rely on it to protect you from wrong acts by armed policemen, but reject it for external, you haven't yet explained. |
