Announcement

**Ramo** · May 7, 2002, 01:25

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

It may hurt the state, but that benefits the people.

**David Floyd** · May 7, 2002, 01:27

It may hurt the state, but that benefits the people.

Unless the person is a US (or any) soldier who was simply following orders.

**Imran Siddiqui** · May 7, 2002, 01:27

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.

No, I don't. Because I don't believe it to be right, doesn't mean I have a legitmate complaint. I can complain, but for naught.

Actually I answered this - reread my post.

Unfortunetly not well.

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

The UN has done so.. there is a great mitigation of the principle of 'might makes right' since Geneva and the UN came into existance.

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

Why not? All morals are relative. There is no such thing as absolute morality.... all rights derive from the state... there are no natural rights. So yes, murder can be ok from one perspective, but not another, and usually is so.

**DinoDoc** · May 7, 2002, 01:28

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

The national government has ultimate sovereignty in the US because it is the vehicle through which the nation and its people affect their will. It isn't relevent to the ICC and its ratification in the US.

**Imran Siddiqui** · May 7, 2002, 01:28

Unless the person is a US (or any) soldier who was simply following orders.

Then the person that gave the order is hauled in. Ordinary soldiers don't get hauled in before the ICC.

AND, they can only be hauled in, if the US did not try them.

**KrazyHorse** · May 7, 2002, 01:28

Dino

So who owns your house?

**Gatekeeper** · May 7, 2002, 01:30

Everyone:

I am disappointed in Bush's decision not to participate in the functioning of this court. That said, the only way in hell the court will work is if there's a cut-off date for pursuit of perceived and real past transgressions. Otherwise the court will be indunated petitions from God only knows how far in the past — heh, perhaps even the "reparations for past slavery" cases in the United States could end up there.

If this court is to work, the cut-off date is an absolute. The court has to be functioning properly and focused completely on the present and future of humanity, not on past perceived and real transgressions.

An interesting observation about this thread: I've noticed that a number of folks are fixated on the past again. They don't appear to give a damn about the court other than to use it to go after the past (I'm surprised Kissinger and Chile haven't shown up in a rant yet). How about the present and future, guys? That's what this court is for, not the past, no matter how awful it may be. The past should be the province of existing special tribunals or the concerned nations themselves. The future should be the domain of this new United Nations court.

As for a cut-off date, I'm not sure. I'd like it to be after the Cold War because if you're going to nail America's ass to the wall for episodes committed during that phase in the 20th Century, then you'd better go after the former Soviet Union and its satellites as well. And Western Europe could be charged as accessories to any injustices committed during the Cold War. Ah, here we go again. The past can be so dominating, can't it? Cut-off date after the Cold War. Begin date January 1, 2003.

Gatekeeper

**Imran Siddiqui** · May 7, 2002, 01:30

For?

Violating international law by transporting WMD and WMD information. Massacres. Etc.

**KrazyHorse** · May 7, 2002, 01:31

Gatekeeper: I only brought up the past to rebuke a (perceived) claim that the rest of the world shouldn't care that the US didn't sign because the US is the good guy.

**DinoDoc** · May 7, 2002, 01:32

Re: Dino

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
So who owns your house?

My parents.

**Imran Siddiqui** · May 7, 2002, 01:33

As for a cut-off date, I'm not sure. I'd like it to be after the Cold War because if you're going to nail America's ass to the wall for episodes committed during that phase in the 20th Century, then you'd better go after the former Soviet Union and its satellites as well.

I'd prefer cases since 1998, when the court was signed into existance... though it doesn't exist yet, the court has been written in. Therefore no ex post facto, because the court and the law were signed into law in 1998.

And get on AIM, GK

.

**Imran Siddiqui** · May 7, 2002, 01:33

My parents.

Actually, according to what you've said, wouldn't it be the US?

**David Floyd** · May 7, 2002, 01:33

No, I don't. Because I don't believe it to be right, doesn't mean I have a legitmate complaint. I can complain, but for naught.

Complaining isn't even consistent.

Unfortunetly not well.

How is this unclear?

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 Geneva Convention are nowhere to be found in that document.

The UN has done so.. there is a great mitigation of the principle of 'might makes right' since Geneva and the UN came into existance.

So that explains why Israel regularly ****s over the Palestinians, then? And the League CERTAINLY did wonders for preventing WW2, eh?

Why not? All morals are relative. There is no such thing as absolute morality.... all rights derive from the state... there are no natural rights. So yes, murder can be ok from one perspective, but not another, and usually is so.

No, murder is by definition wrong - an absolute.

Then the person that gave the order is hauled in. Ordinary soldiers don't get hauled in before the ICC.

Then hopefully you're trying either Bush, Rumsfeld, the Chairman of the JCS, or someone like that, rather than 2nd Lt. Becameascapegoatandgot****ed. Of course, that won't happen - face facts.

**KrazyHorse** · May 7, 2002, 01:34

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

For?

Violating international law by transporting WMD and WMD information. Massacres. Etc.

a) What international law prohibits transporting WMD and related info?

b) When did he transport WMDs? IIRC it was Soviet freighters doing the shipping.

c) The US has stationed nukes all over the globe. Are you telling me that it commits a crime every time a missile sub sets out from port?

d) Massacres? Please provide links.

**KrazyHorse** · May 7, 2002, 01:34

Re: Re: Dino

Originally posted by DinoDoc

My parents.

I rest my case.

Announcement

US Opts Out of World Court

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment