posted on Aug, 30 2014 @ 04:26 AM
a reply to: aboutface
I am under the impression, having read a fair bit on the ICC, that it is toothless to enact any proceeding against any nation which has not ratified
its legitimacy. In fact, the United States has even passed laws which prevent its service persons from being called to the court, or being tried by
it, under the banner A.S.P.A., the American Service Persons Act.
This happened during the Bush presidency, but there has, as far as I am aware, been no attempt by the Obama administration to alter that situation.
The ICC therefore has no ability to act against any person from the U.S. who could possibly be considered as complicit in a straight up war crime, let
alone a decade (or more) long effort to undermine the security of half the damned world, not to mention committing vast treason against their own
people, and against the very principles they are supposed to uphold, as in the case of Bush.
However, Blair has no such protection, him being a British person, and Britain being both a signatory to, and having ratified the ICC in terms of its
interaction and agreement with the organisation to enact legal proceedings with its guidance.
However, I am not sure if there are any "protections" offered him by other means. Personally though, I would like to see the pair of them suffer
for what they allowed to come to pass, regardless of how the Tamil Tigers (who are not the whole of the Tamil people by the way, an important
distinction), or ISIS might react to it.