US Opts Out of World Court

[TCO]

There is lot of room for the SCOTUS to act capriciously .

yeah...so what's your point. You want more capricousness? You think they will be less capricious than the SC. And why? Or you think they will review SC decisions? Not sure where this is going....

I believe joining this court is in our interests. Internationalism is in our interests. If it isn't... then why are we in the UN?

I understand that you feel this way. But every advance of internationalism is not NESCESSARILY better. A world governmetn admistered by Buddha has much to reccomend it. But one admistered by a collection of Mobotos doesn't. The key is how this thing works in practice. REgardoing the UN. It's a nice forum...

[Imran Siddiqui]

yeah...so what's your point. You want more capricousness? You think they will be less capricious than the SC. And why? Or you think they will review SC decisions? Not sure where this is going....

I think they WILL be less capricious. Why? Because they are very limited in what they can rule on.

I understand that you feel this way. But every advance of internationalism is not NESCESSARILY better.

Anything that increases the power of the UN is better... especially in our stated 'interests', and the ICC increases the power of the UN.

Yes, the key is how it works in practice. You'll get to see it on July 1st, 2002. And the conspiracy talk with the black helicopters will fade away. It'll be like the UK with the Euro .

[TCO]

Originally posted by Roland
I don't care about your interests. But I'm just fascinated with your inept and corrupt government. Beats even ours in that regard, and that's no small achievement.

Yes I know. You have a strange "thing" for the US. I suggest spending some time here. Might give you some more perspective in your views.

It may surprise you that the UN does not nominate figure skating judges.

Oh don't be so technical. It's some Eurocom-dominated international body of finky-finks.

Btw, what tickled your balls so much about the spy plane affair ?

Well, it was a while ago. And maybe you were in a little bit of "sophist mode"...but as a I recall:

1. Blaming pilot for landing on Hainan. (Imho, the Chinese bear the blame for his landing because of causing the collision. No doubt in my mind given the types of aircraft involved and my knowledge of their operating patterns wrt ELINT gatherers.)

2. Made some remark to the effect that the Chinese "might" have a case for considering the Americans to be gulity of espionage for gathering ELINT (IMHO this is crazy given that it was passive and in international waters and the crew were in uniform and the plane clearly marked...the last 2 being basic parts of Genevea Convention.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Ah, one thing I forgot (silly me), is that Lt. Calley couldn't be tried under the ICC.

The ICC states that any crime has be 'widespread' or 'systematic'. One massacre wouldn't cut it.

Don't be so quick. I'm sure that those who think we were the bad guys in VNM will claim a pattern...

[Imran Siddiqui]

GP, go to sleep!

How can I go to bed knowing you are still up, perhaps responding to my posts .

I know that it is 5:50 AM down there for you as well. Damned Night Owl .

[Imran Siddiqui]

Don't be so quick. I'm sure that those who think we were the bad guys in VNM will claim a pattern...

But they can't get us for Vietnam... .

Anyway, if genocidal orders did come from above, they would take whoever issued them (based on evidence that they can find).

[Roland]

"1. Blaming pilot for landing on Hainan."

Nope. "the Chinese bear the blame for his landing because of causing the collision." - by far the most plausible scenario.

"2. Made some remark to the effect that the Chinese "might" have a case for considering the Americans to be gulity of espionage for gathering ELINT... basic parts of Genevea Convention."

It does not fit espionage under the geneva convention - yet this is not the issue.

Espionage under national law is a different thing, and in the absence of war I fail to see what in international law would have limited China from trying them for espionage. What do you see ?

[TCO]

hee hee.

That's my moniker for you. Mr. Night Owl. At least we don't have the chat thing going. No Irish 16 year old girls looking for sex chat with History...

[Imran Siddiqui]

That's my moniker for you. Mr. Night Owl.

Ah, fun college days... though coming to an end soon... Atlanta and law school beckons.

At least we don't have the chat thing going. No Irish 16 year old girls looking for sex chat with History

I don't think the g/f (or your wife) would be pleased with that .

[MrFun]

Re: Re: GP

Originally posted by GP

Can't be 100% sure of it, of course. But we've been a "force for freedom". If you want to live in "hypothetical land" you can worry about abuses from the US. If you really want to worry about the source of the problem, look elsewhere. I just sense this disconnect from Euro-weenies living in "hypothertical world" and those who actually have to spend time deploying to the nasty parts of the world and training to fight the next wars.

Given your predicate (assumption) obvviously the latter follows. The question is if the assumption is valid. Ok. To be honest, I understand this issue. But also to be honest, I don't think it is all about legitimate concern about abuses either. I think there is some desire to "hamstring the Gulliver".

Sure. I don't think this is worth the other countries getting that upset about, though. It's more of a pride issue than a real concern.

So, are you in la-la land??

The United States was really never a "force for freedom", with the exceptions with the American Revolution, and the Union, during the Civil War. In the late 19th century and in the first half of the 20th century, we sought to become an imperial power on behalf of our "little brown brothers" and white supremacy.

We used the words "arsenal for democracy" during World War I, because that sounded better than fighting to maintain economic and capitalistic interests, which was the real reason.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Dino, I think that means that your answer overrides your statement that the US holds ultimate soveriegnty in the country.

In what way does it override my statement regarding who holds ultimate sovereignty in the US?

Originally posted by Roland
who of you debaters about the ICC HAS READ AT LEAST PART OF THE ****ING STATUTE ?!?!?

I have read some of it. I had the occassion to the last time this issue came up for debate. Why do you ask?

Originally posted by GP
How closely does that addenda match what Americans are used to in terms of protections.

You would get signifigantly less protection if you were appearing before the ICC than you would if you were appearing before an American court according to my reading of the Rome Statute.

[faded glory]

Sorry I dont consider an American pilot who accidently hits a bus full of civilians instead of a Iraqi tank next to it, to be a war crime.

[faded glory]

My Lai Saw the trial of 3 men. 1 Calley was convicted and let go after a few months. However, there was no inquiry into the cambodian B-52 and Spec Op's incursions which estimates are killed 100,000 civilians in small villages along the border. But nobody checked it out. And after Pol Pot ; you probably couldnt prove a case.

[Roland]

" You would get signifigantly less protection if you were appearing before the ICC than you would if you were appearing before an American court according to my reading of the Rome Statute."

Based on... ?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Roland
Based on... ?

Article 64, sect. 7 & Article 68, sect. 1-6 of the Rome statute will do as a start. Article 81, section 3[c] asserts that the defendent may be held in detention even if acquitted.