Because of World War II, they should prosecute people to set a standard for prosecution in order for it not to happen again. They should also intervene during genocides and other crimes against humanity because if they do not the other dictators will see that they would not be punished. If we don’t punish offenders of crimes against humanity, others will think it’s okay to do these things. It will cause more problems within the country. If there’s no consequence, then murder is basically legal. We need to punish these people so that others will learn from them and such acts will not repeat in the future. Simply giving up in the face of these breaches of international humanitarian law and halting action to punish those that have taken part in such breaches is far more discreditable than any form of penalty for war crimes, as taking no action will lead to more violence and despicable acts. The treaty of versailles allowed for the prosecution of war criminals therefore its not against said treaty to prosecute. To ignore their crimes is saying that it is acceptable of what the war criminals did, and people get the idea that they can get away with criminal acts
Why does not happened with USA war criminals? One reason is because USA knowingly that could be accused of war crimes they withdrew from ICC (International Criminal Court) for good reason, as they intended to invade Iraq. Covering up the crimes or/and punishing the whistler-blowers for exposing their crimes is not a solution for a country that pretend is an example of democracy and dare every year to make a list with human rights abuses in the world but avoids to expose their own abuses in the world.
Seems unlikely, since the US has not ratified the '98 Rome Statute and the ICC does not have any authority to prosecute wars of aggression.
It seems unlikely that Bush, Howard or Blair will ever be indicted. That would require co-operation from the serving governments of their respective nations, which is extremely unlikely. And even if they are indicted, it's very unlikely they will be found guilty.
ICC goes after people who they have a reasonable chance of first of all, bringing to trial, and secondly of course that they can successfully prosecute them.
I really wonder what the point of the ICC is, it has no real power to do anything. Certainly it doesn't have any kind of police force. USA, China, India, Israel and many other nation states have not ratified the Rome Statute and do not intend to, at least not any time soon.
War is hard enough on a country. If one particular individual to perpetuate war crimes and genocide on a particular class of people, that person should be punished. Killing civilians, using biological weapons and wantonly going after non-military targets should never be allowed. Ultimately, war criminals should be put to death if they are found guilty of the crime.
Why shouldn't they be? We prosecute any other types of criminals don't we? Why should those who committed war crimes be exempt? There's no real good reason they shouldn't be in my estimation. A criminal is a criminal, be it at war or elsewhere. So yes, war criminals like any other criminal should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
War criminals should definitely be prosecuted under the current international law that governs war and the crimes committed during war time. Just like civil criminals, those that are accused of war crimes should be given a trial and prosecuted to the full extent of the law. War crimes are usually horrific in nature, and these crimes should be heavily scrutinized.