this need not be the case, i think in fact it is the opposite of what should happen - in speaking of crime we are upholding the civilised rule of law, instead of reverting to pure might-makes-right gangland struggle
And just exactly what court has such jurisdiction, let alone can be trusted, to adjudicate such crimes?
Listen... contrary to the Utopian fantasies of people of your ilk, international law has no statuatory enforcement authority. It consists only of a series of treaties, mutual understandings, and generally accepted protocols (so long as they are convenient, that is) amongst governments.
If international law had had some kind of force, we wouldn't even be in this mess to begin with.. Iraq would have had a regime change in 1991-92, rather than a couple of members conducting a technically unauthorized seige and quarantine of Saddam's regime.
The UN has NEVER directly authorized/stipulated the use of force against a nation (as I've incessantly tried to explain to some of the denser minds out here). All it has ever done is withdrawn any potential restrictions on achieving a particular goal (normally interpreted as authority to use force).
And there can be NO dealing with international criminal states, or the non-governmental actors they support and harbor, until such a statuatory enforcement capability exists under UN control..
And I doubt many governments are keen on permitting the UN to raise such a military force, let alone pay the taxes that would be required to equip and deploy it.
As you apparently ignored, War is an intolerable act against a nation. It is a crime/tort against a nation that no court has been able, or has the authority, to adjudicate.
The UN was created to facilitate peaceful conflict resolution, but once an act of war has been committed, there is little it can do but sit as a helpless observer and hopefully a objective arbitrator for such time when both sides accept a cease-fire. It has NO police authority, normally associated with preserving domestic order and tranquility, where police officers interject themselves into a conflict/dispute to enforce a statuatory legal requirement.
So it's ridiculous for anyone to suggest that 9/11 was merely a "crime" that should be handled by an international "court". It was an attack carried out on the basis of the declaration of war against the US which Bin Laden issued in 1996, and then reiterated in 1998. And it was an attack funded, facilitated, supported, and applauded by a significant population is numerous countries.
Why this is not considered so clear-cut as WWII or WWI, is because these attacks against the US are part of the escalating civil war between modernism and reactionarianism in the Islamic world. Like it or not, this battle has to be fought, militarily, economically, and politically. And it is a multi-front war, where the opponents are not necessarily going to be state actors, but non-state actors vying to overthrow existing regimes who share, at least in part, American values/intersts.
Now we can choose not to respond, or to respond with non-binding legal lawsuits, condemnations, sanctions, but the fact is that only form of enforcement of international criminal organizations is to use military force. Either the domestic military that exists in these countries, or our own.
So before you start calling 9/11 a mere crime, you should ask exactly how you propose to bring the perpetrators to justice.
Hawk |
