US Opts Out of World Court

[Imran Siddiqui]

Not against Americans, which is the point.

Was still impartial... there is nothing that is impartial really.

That's why SCOTUS exists - to interpret the Constitution.

Tut-tut, Floyd.

Art 3, Sec 2

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects

Says NOTHING about Constitutionality, just to render decisions using law that has been passed by Congress and the President. That is what I see using a strict view.

It was set up to interpret law made by the federal government, not the Constitution.... read some of Jefferson's writings.

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.

Kinda hard, when the UN didn't recognize the PRC (because of the US) until the 70s .

[TCO]

Originally posted by DinoDoc


Which is why the ICC is, to borrow from GP, nothing more than moral masterbation at this point.

Hey! Who gave you permission for that? As Paiktis will tell you, GP only has so many cute comments. I end up having to say the same thing in every discussion. Don't be wearing out my phrases, like you did with my Kitty Horse and Brat Pack (TM) monikers.

[TCO]

Re: Imran

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
And? How many counts of murder was it? Something over 300 IIRC. Your criminal code seems remarkably lax in this case. This is a tenth the body count of the WTC. I'm sure that Bin Laden will be freed into house arrest after 20 years.

Face it; the US Army doesn't care that much if their soldiers go nutbar and put a village to the sword because it's not Americans who are dying. Nothing special about the US in this, just a fact of life. No accountability to victims&families = no interest in vigorous pursuit of justice.

I'm not sure the entire chronology of how Calley's sentence was reduced. Certainly I think he committed murder and should have had a stiff punishment. But are you just looking for a mechanism to profide double jeapordy? Would you also retry OJ? I mean the system worked. You might not like the result...but does that mean you want to do away with a judicial system? with all its guarantees of rights for defendants, etc.?

Do you want some sort of court that hangs people because of public outcry rather than moving along the normal path?

[TCO]

One question: Will constitutional rights be protected for defendants in these cases? Rules of evidence, etc.?

FYI: The UCMJ IS subordinate to the Constitution and rights of defendants for Miranda, etc. are maintained. (I know...have my Law for the Junior Officer book near me...)

[TCO]

Re: GP

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
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.

well...those nefarious motives might indicate how this thing would actually play out in reality.

[TCO]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


For?

Ok...look. You showed your cards. You;re not going to **** with Castro and you are going to **** with us. Therefore this treaty is bad for us.

[David Floyd]

It was set up to interpret law made by the federal government, not the Constitution.... read some of Jefferson's writings.

The Court - which, as you admit, was made up of Founders - argued convincingly that because the Constitution strictly limited federal power, it was reasonable to say that a judicial body is constitutionally entitled to use judicial review in order to ensure federal compliance with the Constitution.

Because John Marshall was one of the Founders, I'm gonna have to go with his view on the matter.

Kinda hard, when the UN didn't recognize the PRC (because of the US) until the 70s

So it didn't help prevent massacres - if it didn't recognize the PRC, nationality sovereignty shouldn't even have been an issue to the UN

[TCO]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
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.

Those were just individual acts of misconduct. We were the good guys in terms of out policies and our actions to defend freedom during the Cold War.

If you think that we were the bad guy in the Cold War, it makes me that much less interested in signing treaties where you get to exert control over U. S. citizens. (Since I think you're kinda misguided...makes me trust you less...)

[Imran Siddiqui]

The Court - which, as you admit, was made up of Founders - argued convincingly that because the Constitution strictly limited federal power, it was reasonable to say that a judicial body is constitutionally entitled to use judicial review in order to ensure federal compliance with the Constitution.

Because John Marshall was one of the Founders, I'm gonna have to go with his view on the matter.

It isn't strictly stated in the Constituton, therefore, it has to be an interpretation of what the Constitution says. Plenty of Founders said that the Court exceeded its power by calling for judicial review. Washington and Adams didn't do anything about it, and thus the precedent was set.

As Andrew Jackson, said "The Court has made its decisions, now let it enforce it".... indicating that even in 1830s, some did not believe in the court's power for judicial review (if the President would not follow it's orders).

[David Floyd]

It isn't strictly stated in the Constituton, therefore, it has to be an interpretation of what the Constitution says. Plenty of Founders said that the Court exceeded its power by calling for judicial review. Washington and Adams didn't do anything about it, and thus the precedent was set.

As Andrew Jackson, said "The Court has made its decisions, now let it enforce it".... indicating that even in 1830s, some did not believe in the court's power for judicial review (if the President would not follow it's orders).

Yes, it was certainly a controversial decision, but just as Congress and the States have implied powers, and the people have implied rights, it only makes sense that the courts have implied powers.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yes, it was certainly a controversial decision, but just as Congress and the States have implied powers, and the people have implied rights, it only makes sense that the courts have implied powers.

So why can't the UN imply power from the Geneva Convention (ie, have a court to enforce the convention).

[David Floyd]

So why can't the UN imply power from the Geneva Convention (ie, have a court to enforce the convention).

Because unlike the Constitution the Geneva Convention neither implies powers or sets up judicial bodies.

[Gatekeeper]

Imran:

I can only hope the cable Internet installation goes right the first time around. My system meets all the software requirements as of tonight (I had to download the latest MS Outlook Express for the Mac and just finished DL'ing IE 5.1.4 ... the latter wasn't necessary, but IE 4.5 was dated, apparently). My hardware was ready for cable from day one (which was back in May 1999).

As for my political views, no offense taken. I'm just a plain moderate most of the time. A registered Republican moderate — rare, from what I've been told.

Gatekeeper

[Imran Siddiqui]

Because unlike the Constitution the Geneva Convention neither implies powers or sets up judicial bodies.

So? You would need a body to enfore the Convention, and I believe that implies a court .

I can only hope the cable Internet installation goes right the first time around. My system meets all the software requirements as of tonight (I had to download the latest MS Outlook Express for the Mac and just finished DL'ing IE 5.1.4 ... the latter wasn't necessary, but IE 4.5 was dated, apparently). My hardware was ready for cable from day one (which was back in May 1999).

Well get back online soon! I've missed having someone to talk to at 4 in the morning .

[Roland]

I could make a longwinded post on this issue, but I wonder - who of you debaters about the ICC HAS READ AT LEAST PART OF THE ****ING STATUTE ?!?!? Looks to me like most of you are talking about a fantasy statute.

Someone asked for a cutoff date - well, lookie, Art 11:

Jurisdiction ratione temporis

1. The Court has jurisdiction only with respect to crimes committed after the entry into force of this Statute.

2. If a State becomes a Party to this Statute after its entry into force, the Court may exercise its jurisdiction only with respect to crimes committed after the entry into force of this Statute for that State, unless that State has made a declaration under article 12, paragraph 3.

Someone asked about constitutional rights (GP?) - well, naturally not the US constitution. Although Art 21 para 3:

3. The application and interpretation of law pursuant to this article must be consistent with internationally recognized human rights...

GP:

"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."

Relatively "good" in relation to western and developped east asian countries. But will you seriously tell me that the US has been the good guy in Chile, Iran, Nicaragua... ?