The I. C. C. (International Criminal Court) should try American war criminals for war crimes.

Without further ado, We first need to understand the context of the International Criminal Court, Based on what has preceded the institution's foundation and likewise followed it. There have been a wide variety of international treaties regulating the laws of war to help protect the interests of oppressed groups ever since the implementation of the Geneva and Hague Conventions spanning all the way back to the former's original implementation in 1864. These treaties have defined the specifics of war crimes, Clarify what those actions entail, And commonly did so with the signatures of major imperial western powers, Albeit some times neglecting the approval of the respective empire stemming from Washington D. C. With the exception of the fourth Geneva convention, And the four document examinations that further regulated and adjusted what made up International Law, These documents had already become mainstream by the time of the Second Great War. That is not to say that the belligerents followed the requested guidelines, Especially the ones that made up the Axis powers. All educated members of society who do not follow extreme radical ideologies to this day recognize the significance of the massive atrocities of the Holocaust, Whose initiators who did not commit suicide preceding the capitulation the Third Reich found themselves either tried at Nuremberg (like Goering, Bormann and Donitz) or at a certain other location for their activities during the war. This is truly when American hypocrisy is first shown as a decisive force in ever-changing political dialogues and social changes that we now see today. It is obvious that the German, And the Japanese (we'll get to that a little later) war crimes were significantly worse than that of the ones committed by the Allied Powers, And that is ever the more clear when we see the ignorance on the latter's existence. Crimes are still crimes, And all should be talked about, However. The Soviets committed a wide variety of alleged illicit acts during the six year bombardment of weaponry across the soil of the European continent. The Katyn massacre, The invasion of Estonia, Latvia, And Lithuania, The bombing of Helsinki, The NKVD prison massacres, And the mass rape of Berlin still leave a handful of undesirable executive decisions unmentioned and ignored. Less severely but still significantly important are the crimes the American government would have punished their opposition for commiting if possible. These would include the massive wide conventional civilian air raids on Japanese Civilians, Preceding that of the much more commonly understood atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. At the time of the Nuremberg trials, The U. S. Alongside France, The United Kingdom, And the Soviet Union all appointed judges and prosecutors to oversee the investigations and punishments suitable for twenty four notable men of the failed state. These individuals were indicted for four notable offenses, Ranging from war crimes to crimes against humanity and interestingly, "planning, Initiating and waging wars of aggression and other crimes against peace" and "participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of a crime against peace". The latter two are most especially unique as they seem very comparable to the actions of the U. S. Government in places such as Iran (1953), Iraq (2003, Yemen (present day), Latin, Central, And South America (1900's-present) and the Middle East (1900's onwards. ) Finally, In 1950 came the creation of the Nuremberg Principles which are as follows: Principles of International Law Recognized in the Charter of the N"rnberg Tribunal and in the Judgment of the Tribunal Principle I Any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefor and liable to punishment. Principle II The fact that internal law does not impose a penalty for an act which constitutes a crime under international law does not relieve the person who committed the act from responsibility under international law. Principle III The fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under international law acted as Head of State or responsible Government official does not relieve him from responsibility under international law. Principle IV The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, Provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him. Principle V Any person charged with a crime under international law has the right to a fair trial on the facts and law. Principle VI The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law: (a) Crimes against peace: (i) Planning, Preparation, Initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, Agreements or assurances; (ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i). (b) War crimes: Violations of the laws or customs of war which include, But are not limited to, Murder, Ill- treatment or deportation to slave-labour or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, Murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war, Of persons on the seas, Killing of hostages, Plunder of public or private property, Wanton destruction of cities, Towns, Or villages, Or devastation not justified by military necessity. (c) Crimes against humanity: Murder, Extermination, Enslavement, Deportation and other inhuman acts done against any civilian population, Or persecutions on political, Racial or religious grounds, When such acts are 2 done or such persecutions are carried on in execution of or in connection with any crime against peace or any war crime. Principle VII Complicity in the commission of a crime against peace, A war crime, Or a crime against humanity as set forth in Principle VI is a crime under international law. To ensure that all nations would follow the laws of war, The Security Council of the United Nations was created. Unfortunately, However, The five member states with the power to block any resolution despite the wishes of the other fourteen members (China, U. S. , France, The United Kingdom and Russia/Soviet Union) have often been the main pursuers of crimes against peace and the main nations to commit war crimes. To partially subside this, The International Criminal Court was founded. Its members support the idea of universal jurisdiction, But this agreement only has the support of one hundred twenty three sovereign states, Not including the United States, China or Russia. The U. S. Alongside China and Russia, However, Have supported the referral of the Libyan situation of 2011 to the ICC. Noam Chomsky in 2003 did an excellent job upon being interviewed on his claim that all post-war presidents would be indicted if the Nuremberg Principles were upheld. I would advise all to watch the video as it is still relevant to this day. The two circumstances that are most deeply problematic to me involving the United State's foreign policy would be that of the invasion of Iraq in 2003, And the civilian targeting of the Yemeni populous right this very second. I would argue that Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheney (the troika of tyranny as Wolfgang Kaleck would call them) should be tried for waging crimes against peace for the invasion of Iraq. The regime of Saddam Hussein was not a threat to the sovereignty of American soil, And thus any unilateral invasion would be a war of aggression. The further explanation for such conflict involving the claim that Saddam, 1/Was involved in 9/11, Or 2/Had weapons of mass destruction was a lie. My wordcount is up.