Thanks beardedbruce, for giving us the quote to which you were referring.

However, I'm more interested in finding out what the source of it is. It sounds somewhat like his now famous Congressional testimony back in the day, but not like it. Is that where you got the quote from?

Also, I'm guessing you are referring to the International Court of Justice at the Hague, which is often called the "World Court". That is the main judicial arm of the UN, and involves disputes between nations, but only when the parties agree to be bound by the decision. That clearly never would have happened with the US, who has consistently refused to be held to the same standard as Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia, for example.

It is grossly inaccurate to depict the soldiers and grunts as the ones the World Court goes after. The UN has established tribunals on Yugoslavia and Rwanda to prosecute leaders (again note: NOT individual soldiers) responsible for war crimes and crimes against humanity. Special Courts, believed to be cheaper and more efficient than UN tribunals, are jointly administered by the UN and the domestic government. They are also considered by many to be open to political manipulation.

The International Criminal Court is separate from the World Court, and was just established in July 2002, can actually go after the world's leaders, which many felt would be a much more effective way to pursue prosecution of war crimes and crimes against humanity. It was established to go one step further, promising to end the impunity long enjoyed by world leaders to carry out illegal actions live the US' unilateral invasion of Iraq in violation of the UN charter (and possibly the US laws and treaties it has signed).

Nowhere has the failure of the World Court been more strongly felt, than in the case of Pinochet.

Of course, the US has refused to sign on to the International Criminal Court, as it would likely have it's top leaders (Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Powell) in the docket over Iraq, Guantanamo, etc etc