why are nations accused?
106845
Actually the Government of the nation is accused of something. In some countries where there is no democratic government then the ruler, king/queen, head of the nation is accused. They are accused of the decisions they took or an act(s) they have done. Nations are accused of Human Right Violations, spreading or harbouring terrorism, polluting environment etc.
28937
Usually the accused person has only a limited ability to control where his case will be heard.  The prosecutor who charges him chooses the venue of the trial, although the accused can argue that the venue is wrong for various reason. (I am talking about criminal trials because you used the term "accused." )  In general, an accused person might ask that the trial be dismissed and brought in another country if that is where the allegedly wrongful behavior occurred.  The accused might want it moved because; 1) the law is more favorable in the other country; 2) the courts are more favorable in the other country; 3) the government or prosecutors are more favorable in the other country, or 4) he believes a jury would be more favorable to him or his actions in the other country.  It could even be the case that the behavior in question is not illegal in the other country.  Lastly, one other possible reason is that the penalties are less in another country.  For example, the United States has the death penalty for many crimes in which it would not permitted in other countries (and some countries will not extradict people to be tried in the US for that reason.)\n\n(A note about Polanski -- in his case he was not the accused, he in fact was the person suing Vanity Fair, and he sued in London not only because he can't return to the United States, but also because England has libel laws much more favorable to a well-known public figure than does the United States.  Essentially in the US a famous person has to prove the publication was known to be false and meant to hurt the figure -- in England just the falsity needs to be shown.)
927999
Isn't it always a good idea to put self-admitted criminals on trial?\n\nDoes the US stand to gain anything by allowing someone to admit to breaking the law, and then not even put them on trial because they claim (without any legal support) that their position entitles them to break the law at will?\n\nIf Bush is put on trial (impeached = trial) and found not guilty, so be it. But not even putting him on trial sends the wrong message. It tells the world that the US doesn't care about the rule of law, and that we allow those in power to break the law at will.\n\nHardly a justification for the US claim to depose other dictators.
725780
Possessed by demons? Often an accusation levied against people who do not fit societies current specification for optimum citizen.\nThose that actually commit crime should be judged as any others by the legal system. Let us end the insane insanity excuse for evading responsibility for crime.
1013567
And you get the same answer as you got when you asked this question yesterday.\n\nBecause you have not requested extradition.\n\nIf they have committed a crime - present our courts with the evidence, otherwise you can stop whining.
407177
This object is not the cause - it's merely an attempt at justification.\nDifferent foreign wars have different real causes, but economics is usually present.  These days it's the over-powerful lobbies of Israel, the CIA and the US Military.
740097
Your example would work better if Russia or England or China was the invader, but it's a valid point.\n\nPeople blame the Iraqi insurgents for fighting in a civil war, against a govt they didn't elect which was established when an enemy country unilaterally invaded and deposed the ruling govt. Whether we like them or not, it's fair to ask if they have reasonable grounds for defending their country against hostile occupying forces.
1172230
Must of us know that. It is a defense that some used. Some feel it is against the people or you would ignore the law. Ever see those questions where it said-we all break them? What kind of morals to they have? Do they truly believe that? \n You are right for many it is about country.
191022
George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and many other right wing zealots in the U.S. government have conspired to wage an illegal war of aggression against Iraq, kidnap and torture civilians around the world, attack civilians and medical facilities in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere. These crimes violate U.S. law, the U.S. Constitution, the Hague and Geneva conventions and other treaties and conventions.\n\nThere is no question that the U.S. is responsible for war crimes, the question is who will stand up to the Bush Adminstration. Who can question the U.S.? No politician will speak out. No court will take the case. No international organization is willing to challenge the U.S. No other nation dares to risk retribution from the U.S. government by even raising the issue.\n\nOnly the people can challenge these crimes. Only by raising a public hue and cry so loud that the issue cannot be politely ignored will this horrific crime spree be stopped.
1030143
If we are a nation of laws, we need to follow the laws. That means that anyone accused of a crime must be given access to an attorney and a fair trial. These are Constitutional rights that do not apply just to citizens but to anyone accused and in US custody.\n\nAlso according to the Constitution, any arrest requires Probable Cause to believe a crime has been committed, and review by a Grand Jury for any indictment (under federal laws). So, if the government has any evidence that someone is a crime, they should follow the procedures, get an indictment, and then give them a trial.\n\nThe Commander-in-Sheik (and Sunburn) seems to think the rule should be "guilty until proven innocent". The government wants to be able to hold people indefinitely, without accusation, without access to the courts, without any Constitutional guarantees. Some people say this is fine, because after all, we're only talking about terrorists. NO WE'RE NOT.\n\nWe're talking about people the government has CLAIMED are terrorists. Often without any proof or even probable cause. Certainly not after a formal indictment. Not even formally being accused, because the accusation triggers 6th Amendment rights. So the government can simply arbitrarily claim someone is a terrorist, and hold them indefinitely, without trial and without any rights? \n\nIsn't this what we attacked Saddam for doing?
812686
It's a sad fact that many African countries that start off as democracies revert to tribalism. Zimbabwe is a extreme example but you'll find Mugabe has his defenders here on Answers. Most of these 'defenders' have of course never been to Zimbabwe and are just spouting someones  propaganda. I hope the RSA doesn't follow this path but of course corruption is rife throughout the country and this often leads to one party states which are the end of democracy.
521114
Yes.  If the nation offers a war criminal amnesty, then they will not be prosecuted.
215821
No, I think that the majority of the population is good and obeys the law.  The minority needs to be punished.  If prosecution didn't exist, it would be the majority that the country would be alienating.
673360
Innocent people get wrongly accused of doing bad things they did not do.
449664
I agree with all of you. People around the world are claiming races, people belonging to a particular religion or culture to be responsible of one-person's (or a group of very few people's) act. Why should any one blame someone else for someones misdeed. There shouldn't be even consideration of the person's race/religion/country/language. Not all the people of a particular group have same thoughts or ways to think. Not everyone acts in the same way in a similar situation.
782900
No countries have done such things, groups within countries have done though.  For example, Islamic fundimentalists have waged war on western civilisation (not just Christianity I might add) but that doesn't mean all of the Middle East suddenly becomes an enemy.  Much in the same way, the Nazis were German but that doesn't mean all of Germany was an enemy during WW2, just the state that took presidence.
805447
International law - no grounds for it.\n\nA stronger case could be made for treason trials for several Democratic leaders.  Are you in?