I think you are SO right mala–but I don’t know legally how that would be done. I mean, you know me, i don’t really CARE what the repercussions are for the United States if it admits it’s role in all the travesties around the world. But, legally, if the U.S. starts admitting where it’s done wrong so that people can start suing etc. in courts–you know we’d be bankrupt in about three months and have to foreclose shortly after.

So–I’ve actually done whole weeks of organizing trying to contemplate with others–if we would use the international courts to try to force accountability from huge nation/states–would we be going for money–which in turn would be unlikely to result in a victory for human rights because everybody, even the court knows a bunch of survivors could bankrupt the entire world–

Or would we go for the less powerful “u.s. admits it’s wrong without having to submit to consequences” that would more likely result in a victory for the human right side–but would probably ultimatly achieve almost nothing except the right to say to the world “This did happen.”

hm. it’s so difficult.

The problem with international courts is that nobody wants to subject themselves to such a court. Even small Latin American countries don’t really want it.

Many on the left want to see conservatives in the dock for war crimes (Pinochet, Rumsfeld, etc.). However, to be fair, shouldn’t Daniel Ortega be held to account for Sandinista war crimes from over 20 years ago? When Ortega, acting as a current head of state, is willing to cede Nicaraguan sovereignty and put himself in peril, then we can talk.

The US has seen how organizations like the UN General Assembly become places for petty tyrants to rant about the peccadilloes of the US, in order to distract attention from their own corruption.

wow so thousands of dead and desaparecidos are just replacable grocery items? Nice compassion