I haven't mentioned another argument, The Hague tribunal. It is clear our generals and all of you who are sitting here now with me could end up there, too.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
I met with people who are already very angry with the tribunal.
If we examine the Hague Convention carefully, we see that it considers the offer of good offices a duty of every nation. In other words, such offers should be made whenever a dispute becomes critical and threatens to explode into war.
I believe an international criminal court is very much to be desired.
The military tribunals currently underway at Guantanamo Bay create a clear legal process, as affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, for adjudicating the cases of these terrorists, when possible. Those efforts would be severely undercut by moving the detainees to the United States.
The U.S. couldn't even get rid of Saddam Hussein. And we all know that the EU is just a passing fad. They'll be killing each other again in less than a year. I'm sick to death of all these fascist lawsuits.
I say that why don't we bring all points of view. Sit around a table and discuss this evidence, and produce evidence as it may be, and let's see what the outcome is, which is why we are having this International panel which we are all talking about.
Compulsory arbitration is a practical instrument of pacification and, as such, it can and should be enacted by the Hague Conference.
Were I ever alone in the dock, I would not want to be arraigned before our flawed tribunals, knowing my freedom could be forfeit as a result of political pressures. I would prefer a fair trial, under the shadow of the noose.
No international court can ever substitute for a working national justice system. Or for a society at peace.
In order to prosecute war, you have to take some risk.
No opposing quotes found.