Posted by: Jimbob | http://the-fix.org | Mon Apr 15 00:59:02 2002

Geez I gotta move over the Tasman soon. The US government doesn't even TRY to hide how much of a bastard it is anymore; they've pretty much come out and said "we won't support the court because, hey, we've committed war crimes and we don't want out soldiers to end up there!" How is that tolerable? And how can the Australian government support such shocking hipocracy (sic...can never spell that word)?

Posted by: alex | None | Mon Apr 15 15:36:39 2002

it's 'hypocrisy'. as in, it's hypocrisy for boatloads of white folk (i.e., us) to send back boatloads of yeller folk (i.e., them heathen afghani and iraqi folk) in front of the boatloads of black folk (i.e., koori and torres strait islanders) what we done stole this country from. amen!

we didn't sign it because we'd get dragged in there lickety-split for all kinds of stuff. complicity in east timor, the 'border protection act' and so on.

Posted by: Chapter Pitr | http:// | Tue Apr 16 07:58:00 2002

What's the problem if one part of the world accepts to have its own citizens judged by an international tribunal and the other don't ?

IMHO, the most important is to have even a few countries signing for global stability forever (hope, hope !). The fact that another part of the world keeps wishing eradicating evil wherever it goes is compatible with the former.

Posted by: acb | http://dev.null.org | Wed Apr 17 05:53:39 2002

So what you are saying is that the ends justify the means? That if one is waging War Against Evil, it's OK to slaughter a few innocent villages here and there in the course of that greater good?

IMHO, evil is as evil does. The WTC bombing was evil; so is indiscriminately dropping daisy-cutter bombs and killing thousands of innocent civilians, because it's safer for oneself than sending men down to pick targets more carefully. Or as Nietzsche said, let him who fights monsters be careful that he does not become a monster.