US Opts Out of World Court

[DinoDoc]

Say what?

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
I rest my case.

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

No.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Complaining isn't even consistent.

Of course it isn't. But who cares?

First off, an impartial court didn't interpret Geneva

You could make the same case for SCOTUS. It was made up of Founders of the US.

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.

Why can't you charge people using the Geneva Convention. I still don't get it.

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

Enforcement, enforcement, enforcement.

OF course you avoid the issue... I said the UN prevented as much 'might makes right' that could be done. After all, the Geneva Convention can be cited, and that reigns in Sharon and his butchers. Because the US wouldn't approve Geneva violations... the culture has changed.

Then hopefully you're trying either Bush, Rumsfeld, the Chairman of the JCS, or someone like that, rather than 2nd Lt.

If there is no proof that an order was confered above the unit, then you can't try those above. No evidence.

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

The NPT, which Cuba is a signatory to.

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

Back then there was no NPT, but since the NPT, there seems to be some proof that Cuba has been sending plans for biological weapons to other revolutionary movements.

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?

Nope, the NPT allows the Big 5 to have nukes (but can't give over information). However, those that don't have nukes cannot transport information or build nukes (meaning Pakistan and India are in violation).

d) Massacres? Please provide links.

This isn't a massacre, but political prisoners (forbidden under Geneva):

http://www.hrw.org/press98/jan/pope121.htm

I don't know if this is unbiased, but tells about Cuban massacres done in Angola:

http://www.frontline.org.za/articles/racism.htm

There was also the creation of a mass refugee exodus, which I believe is against Geneva as well.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/columnists/glazov/glazov07-31-01.htm

Since coming to power in 1959, Fidel has been personally involved in the assassination of hundreds of people. Many crimes that were committed in the 1970s and 1980s by Leftist guerrilla groups in Latin America can be brought directly to his doorstep.

Read the article for the ones in detail

I mean, most of them, yes, are trumped up a bit, but you know the US would try to try Castro.

[Ramo]

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

I've never been a fan of the Nuremburg defense.
Execute a bunch of defenseless civilians, and be prepared to face the consequences, regardless of whether General ****wit orders you to do it. The spineless **** should've disobeyed the orders.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Dino, I think that means that your answer overrides your statement that the US holds ultimate soveriegnty in the country.

[David Floyd]

Imran,

Of course it isn't. But who cares?

Obviously not you

You could make the same case for SCOTUS. It was made up of Founders of the US.

Who else was gonna make up SCOTUS? Foreigners?

Why can't you charge people using the Geneva Convention. I still don't get it.

Because it doesn't say you can and language to that effect probably wouldn't have been approved.

Enforcement, enforcement, enforcement.

OF course you avoid the issue... I said the UN prevented as much 'might makes right' that could be done. After all, the Geneva Convention can be cited, and that reigns in Sharon and his butchers. Because the US wouldn't approve Geneva violations... the culture has changed.

The League could've stopped Germany/Italy (50 nations led by 1 and all that), but the one time they tried, when Italy invaded Ethiopia, they just looked stupid. Why should now be different?
How did the UN prevent any "might makes right" for any actual strong countries? It certainly didn't stop the US, USSR, China, or Israel, to name a few.

If there is no proof that an order was confered above the unit, then you can't try those above. No evidence.

In most cases junior officers aren't gonna order massacres. Proof or not, the wrong person is still being tried.

Ramo,

I've never been a fan of the Nuremburg defense.
Execute a bunch of defenseless civilians, and be prepared to face the consequences, regardless of whether General ****wit orders you to do it. The spineless **** should've disobeyed the orders.

So you can sit on your pedestal 60 years later and say that soldiers or government officials should have faced death or imprisonment rather than obey orders that ultimately got them just that? How is that fair?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Back then there was no NPT, but since the NPT, there seems to be some proof that Cuba has been sending plans for biological weapons to other revolutionary movements

AFAIK, the NPT covers nukes, not bioweapons, and the info he's said to be giving out is what even the dear republican senator from Castroless Cuba is calling "dual-use", i.e. it's info on how to make pennicillin that somebody's trying to trump up into a bioweapons threat

This isn't a massacre, but political prisoners (forbidden under Geneva)

No problem. I've already stated my disapproval of the Castro government's handling of dissent.

I don't know if this is unbiased, but tells about Cuban massacres done in Angola

The source you provided seems extremely fuzzy on details. It also overstates the number that died during the period of "revolutionary justice" in Cuba by a factor of 5, and fails to mention that almost all of those were for non-political crimes committed during Batista's reign (rape, murder, looting, etc.). Again, I disagree with the application of the death penalty...

There was also the creation of a mass refugee exodus, which I believe is against Geneva as well

Huh? Your source mentions nothing about a mass refugee exodus. If you're referring to the exodus of Cubans to the States, then he didn't engineer it, and has on numerous occasions attempted to stop it.

I also like how one of your sources mentions the bombing of an Army barracks in Argentina as an act of murder. I'm sorry, but they must have missed the lesson where we learnt what being a valid military target meant...

[TCO]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
GP, your major contention was that we shouldn't be worried about you because you're the good guys and you don't let your military play fast and loose with the rules. I provided instances where this has not always been the case.

I never said that the US or agents of the US had never done anything wrong. (Although, don't agree with all your cases...but even if I give you some. My point remains.) We are the good guys. "They" (lol) are the bad guys. If we are really the bad guys, you should come up with somthing better than some silly tribunal to restrain us (defensive alliance or what have you.)

This is just a silly piece of paper for people who want to meddle around...rather than acting.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Who else was gonna make up SCOTUS? Foreigners?

Just pointing out it isn't impartial.

Because it doesn't say you can and language to that effect probably wouldn't have been approved.

The Constitution doesn't say that SCOTUS can review laws of Congress and say if they are constitutional. Show me that it can.

The League could've stopped Germany/Italy (50 nations led by 1 and all that), but the one time they tried, when Italy invaded Ethiopia, they just looked stupid. Why should now be different?
How did the UN prevent any "might makes right" for any actual strong countries? It certainly didn't stop the US, USSR, China, or Israel, to name a few.

Because genocide has gone down lately. The reason Rwanda and Serbia have been such news is because it isn't common anymore. You don't see the big powers do the things they have in the past (USSR in Ukraine, US in Philippines) to other people in war. This is evidence of the UN changing public opinion. I believe that the protests against Vietnam was due to the fact that a Geneva Convention and a UN existed.

AFAIK, the NPT covers nukes, not bioweapons, and the info he's said to be giving out is what even the dear republican senator from Castroless Cuba is calling "dual-use", i.e. it's info on how to make pennicillin that somebody's trying to trump up into a bioweapons threat

NPT covers all WMD. And there are allegations, that the US would use to try to try Castro in court, right?

The source you provided seems extremely fuzzy on details.

I know they ain't the best sources. But just some things the US would bring up.

Huh? Your source mentions nothing about a mass refugee exodus. If you're referring to the exodus of Cubans to the States, then he didn't engineer it, and has on numerous occasions attempted to stop it.

I would think taking their land and jailing political dissidents would qualify as creating a refugee problem, if they all left .

[Imran Siddiqui]

This is just a silly piece of paper for people who want to meddle around...rather than acting.

By itself, yes, it isn't much. But coupled with other things, it could really be powerful.

[KrazyHorse]

He didn't create refugees for the sake of creating them; he applied the new way of doing things and the people who got screwed by it wanted to leave. Difference.

Oh, and the NPT seems to be about nukes, Imran.

http://www.un.org/Depts/dda/WMD/treaty/

[David Floyd]

Just pointing out it isn't impartial.

So the exclusion of Englishmen made SCOTUS biased?

The Constitution doesn't say that SCOTUS can review laws of Congress and say if they are constitutional. Show me that it can.

OK.

http://www.bowdoin.edu/~sbodurt2/court/cases/marbury.html

Because genocide has gone down lately. The reason Rwanda and Serbia have been such news is because it isn't common anymore. You don't see the big powers do the things they have in the past (USSR in Ukraine, US in Philippines) to other people in war. This is evidence of the UN changing public opinion. I believe that the protests against Vietnam was due to the fact that a Geneva Convention and a UN existed.

I disagree that genocide has gone down since the foundation of the UN. And the Vietnam protestors were not, I think, protesting because the UN said the Vietnam War was bad.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Oh, and the NPT seems to be about nukes, Imran.

Ooops, sorry.

So the exclusion of Englishmen made SCOTUS biased?

Actually yes.

OK.

I've read Marbury, it gives little justification, other that we said that is what we think it means. Ah, interpretation .

I disagree that genocide has gone down since the foundation of the UN. And the Vietnam protestors were not, I think, protesting because the UN said the Vietnam War was bad.

I do... the whole Geneva/UN Culture instilled that actions, such as the US' in Vietnam were not right.

And yes, genocide has gone down since the late 1940s. You can point to the Armenian genocides, colonial genocides (which have killed far more than anything after 1950), etc.

[Gatekeeper]

KrazyHorse:

**shrug** OK. I tend to think that republics and democracies are generally a bit more trustworthy than their counterparts in dictatorships, authoritarianism, theocracies and, yes, communism. But, like all human endeavours, it's never 100 percent perfect.

Gatekeeper

***

Imran:

I can live with a 1998 cut-off date. Logical, too, since that's when the court came into being.

As for AIM ... well, if my ISP would keep me connected for more than five minutes at a time, I'd be on AIM. I keep getting booted ... been bad for the past two weeks or so. At any rate, I've signed up for cable Internet. Installation date is May 13.

Gatekeeper

[David Floyd]

Actually yes.

Not against Americans, which is the point.

I've read Marbury, it gives little justification, other that we said that is what we think it means. Ah, interpretation

That's why SCOTUS exists - to interpret the Constitution. As far as I know Geneva provided no such body.

And yes, genocide has gone down since the late 1940s. You can point to the Armenian genocides, colonial genocides (which have killed far more than anything after 1950), etc.

OK, I'll grant you the point on actual genocide, but Mao's murders all happened post 1950, as one example. The UN certainly didn't stop that.

[Imran Siddiqui]

As for AIM ... well, if my ISP would keep me connected for more than five minutes at a time, I'd be on AIM. I keep getting booted ... been bad for the past two weeks or so. At any rate, I've signed up for cable Internet. Installation date is May 13.

Woohoo! Nice... they managed to link up those barren wastes, eh?

Nice to see a moderate Republican like you post from time to time... we need more internationalists on this side (watch I just confused you with some one else and you'll be cursing me for calling your a righty ).