“All war criminals should be tried”

If you extrapolate this, you get the limitation of real justice which is that the people who fund war crimes trials are themselves exempt from appearing as accused: wealth buys immunity from the Hague, in other words, like with America or the UK, because those hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who died needlessly in 2 US-led wars did not all kill themselves; and Saddam was overthrown by the US-led coup, which is illegal in international law. Making a pointless-but-bloody war which severely destabilizes a country either is or is not a war crime? And if it is, where are the indictments of Bush and Blair?

Or that the trial system is abused for political purposes.
See the Belgian War Crimes Law for example.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Crimes_Law_(Belgium)

Dear Stevo, if you listen to your type of twisted logic that would mean that there shouldn't be any war crime trials at all. During WWII hundreds and thousands of Germans died because of Allied bombings and the largest amount of refugees displacement occurred when Germany lost Prussia and other lands ie when Tito ethnic cleansed 500,000 Volksdeutsche from Vojvodina. Does this absolve them from their unspeakable crimes? No, you can't compare apples and oranges. This twisted logic is exactly what Tito and his communists used at the end of WWII in exonerating many Ustache war criminals. Just as long as you play the game.. Your statements are shameful and do an tremdous injustice to the victims. Who do you think ran the Nueremberg Trials? Americans and British and thank God! Look at Germany now look at what a economic powerhouse they are. I would rather be jugded by them then any backward Arabic or African country which has no history of democracy. PS have you noticed that there is a CIVIL war in Iraq and I didn't know that you thought Saddam was the welcome wagon. Didn't he gas hundreds and thousands of his own people?

If you extrapolate this, you get the limitation of real justice which is that the people who fund war crimes trials are themselves exempt from appearing as accused: wealth buys immunity from the Hague, in other words, like with America or the UK, because those hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who died needlessly in 2 US-led wars did not all kill themselves; and Saddam was overthrown by the US-led coup, which is illegal in international law. Making a pointless-but-bloody war which severely destabilizes a country either is or is not a war crime? And if it is, where are the indictments of Bush and Blair?

Or that the trial system is abused for political purposes.
See the Belgian War Crimes Law for example.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Crimes_Law_(Belgium)

Dear Stevo, if you listen to your type of twisted logic that would mean that there shouldn't be any war crime trials at all. During WWII hundreds and thousands of Germans died because of Allied bombings and the largest amount of refugees displacement occurred when Germany lost Prussia and other lands ie when Tito ethnic cleansed 500,000 Volksdeutsche from Vojvodina. Does this absolve them from their unspeakable crimes? No, you can't compare apples and oranges. This twisted logic is exactly what Tito and his communists used at the end of WWII in exonerating many Ustache war criminals. Just as long as you play the game.. Your statements are shameful and do an tremdous injustice to the victims. Who do you think ran the Nueremberg Trials? Americans and British and thank God! Look at Germany now look at what a economic powerhouse they are. I would rather be jugded by them then any backward Arabic or African country which has no history of democracy. PS have you noticed that there is a CIVIL war in Iraq and I didn't know that you thought Saddam was the welcome wagon. Didn't he gas hundreds and thousands of his own people?