US Opts Out of World Court

[KrazyHorse]

You think that every soldier should be able to get out of the military with no penalty anyway.

[Imran Siddiqui]

But I also believe that were you to change the UCMJ on this issue, you'd have to give every US soldier the option to get out of the military with no penalty.

Fine! Happy?

But, let's be practical here. If the law changes does that mean the military has to be given an option to leave? No... so why should this?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
If you hadn't noticed, that's all the enforcement that's possible with treaties with large nations.

Which is why the ICC is, to borrow from GP, nothing more than moral masterbation at this point. No real enforcement is possible at this point and the procedural safeguards will be less than those that are in US courts. Furthermore, No Arab countries and hardly any Asian countries have ratified it.

[David Floyd]

Boris,

The only way David would start a war is if he caught Putin in his home trying to steal his VCR.

Seriously, Floyd's not a warmonger, you're making assumptions. If anything, he's TOO reluctant to go to war, which is probably much better than the other extreme, isn't it?

Exactly.

Imran,

If there was no government, yes. The government is mightier than I am, though.

So assuming we went somewhere there is no government - say, the moon, and I pull out a gun and rob you, you'd see nothing wrong with it?

So you'd support SCOTUS not having the right of judicial review?

First off, an impartial court didn't interpret Geneva, the victorious powers did without giving all signatories a say. That's your first problem right there.
Second, the US Constitution and Geneva are two separate things. Judicial review is easily justified using the Constitution, but the ability to liberally interpret provisions of the eneva Convention are nowhere to be found in that document.

Kind of. You would need some might to enforce it. But countries or people in them would give up their criminals (like Yugoslavia), therefore, with the changing mentality, the whole 'might makes right' argument calls. Of course, you could call the UN then the mightiest, with support from almost all the member nations, if it comes to that.

OK, I just can't support the doctrine of "might makes right", simply because it paves the way for authoritarianism.

I ain't saying it was right, I was just disputing that he wasn't tried. If the first verdict stood, he'd be still doing hard labor.

How was My Lai wrong? I mean, I thought might made right?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Which is why the ICC is, to borrow from GP, nothing more than moral masterbation at this point. No real enforcement is possible at this point and the procedural safeguards will be less than those that are in US courts. Furthermore, No Arab countries and hardly any Asian countries have ratified it.

You have to crawl before you walk.

And there is always the chance for enforcement if countries or people within them help us out .

After all, how do you justify anything new? I mean, when the EU started, there was no enforcement of its actions. It grew into it.

[KrazyHorse]

Dino, you've just provided an "argument" that says that the US shouldn't ever sign a treaty.

By signing this, US would promise to do certain things that it doesn't do now.

[TCO]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Sure, but isn't that why there would be some sort of fair trial?

My point was more wrt to states wanting the treaty.

[David Floyd]

But, let's be practical here. If the law changes does that mean the military has to be given an option to leave? No... so why should this?

Simply because in such a case, US soldiers could potentially face trials in foreign nations by foreign judges for following actions - the US won't send Bush to trial, or the Chairman of the JCS, they'll find a low ranking scapegoat.
At least in the current system, the accused are able to face a trial by their peers, which an ICC would certainly not provide.

[KrazyHorse]

GP

And then what's the problem? Agreements mean what they say. If you don't like what they say, then try to change it. Simply pointing out that some people might have nefarious motives in wanting this to be signed doesn't provided evidence one way or another as to whether you should sign.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
After all, how do you justify anything new?

If it provides benefits to the US. The ICC fails that test.

[Imran Siddiqui]

So assuming we went somewhere there is no government - say, the moon, and I pull out a gun and rob you, you'd see nothing wrong with it?

To me it would be. To the world at large, probably not, because no one would enforce any right that I claimed I had.

Judicial review is easily justified using the Constitution

So if it can be justified in someway, it is ok? Wouldn't that mean that the most of the expanses of state power are constitutional? If you can extract judicial review out of the Constitution, then it isn't that far of a leap to extract the Nuremburg trials from Geneva, say.

OK, I just can't support the doctrine of "might makes right", simply because it paves the way for authoritarianism.

Yes, but this is how it has been. Look at the real world for once. The ICC & ICJ mitigates the 'might makes right' principle, just as US law does so in the United States.

How was My Lai wrong? I mean, I thought might made right?

How things are, and what I think is moral are two different things, Floyd .

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by DinoDoc


If it provides benefits to the US. The ICC fails that test.

A Macchiavelian who has trouble understanding the idea of ultimate sovereignty, where it lies in the US and what it means...

[David Floyd]

To me it would be. To the world at large, probably not, because no one would enforce any right that I claimed I had.

Wait - you said might makes right. You didn't say it makes right for some and wrong for others. If might makes right you have no legitimate complaint in this scenario.

So if it can be justified in someway, it is ok? Wouldn't that mean that the most of the expanses of state power are constitutional? If you can extract judicial review out of the Constitution, then it isn't that far of a leap to extract the Nuremburg trials from Geneva, say.

Actually I answered this - reread my post.

Yes, but this is how it has been. Look at the real world for once. The ICC & ICJ mitigates the 'might makes right' principle, just as US law does so in the United States.

How so? The League and UN were supposed to do the same thing, and neither did so.

How things are, and what I think is moral are two different things, Floyd

Not really - either something is right or it isn't, you can't argue that murder is OK from one perspective but not another.

[Imran Siddiqui]

If it provides benefits to the US. The ICC fails that test.

How does the UN provide benefits to the US under that test

I can't see how it does not. It allows people to be tried that couldn't be tried in US courts. I recall reading about people that were kept captive in the US embassy wanting to sue Iran... in US COURTS. Sorry, but if that isn't justification for international courts (ICJ and ICC), I don't see what is.

(and anyway, when they left they signed a treaty saying they wouldn't sue, so it would have been void anyway).

We'd like to try people like Castro (if he ever steps down). What a better way to justify it by having the ICC do it?

And furthermore, it would increase the power of 'democracy' and 'human rights', things we say we believe in, in the rest of the world. This would increase our credibility on moral crusades (like Kosovo).

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
We'd like to try people like Castro

For?