US Opts Out of World Court

[TCO]

I'm not familar with UN judicial system. Just am worried about the kangaroos running the show...

[Imran Siddiqui]

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.

And it wouldn't be under the ICC.

Well here in the USA, SCOTUS has to follow the Constitution. That doesn't mean you don't have a lot of different interpretations of it.

You need to brush up on Constitututional history if you don't think there are a lot of different interpretations of it . In fact, international law probably has less interpretations arising from it than the Constitution has.

Different laws, yes, but generally the same legal system.

International Law is one system .

How does a court designed to try war crimes go along with increased trade.

It all fits in with globalization.

[David Floyd]

You're like a little child who sees every flaw in his parent's actions. But misses the overall things that they do for him...

Yeah, like the overall things it did for the Japanese Americans, or all the civilians it firebombed or nuked

[Ramo]

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?

People facing the consequences of their actions, how is that not fair? No, I've never been in such a position, but I haven't experienced a number of things. Does that mean I can't judge anybody whose situation I haven't been in?

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

The Constitution never mentions any implied powers. The power of federal Judicial Review was based entirely on the Federalist papers and the power of state courts to review state laws.

[David Floyd]

People facing the consequences of their actions, how is that not fair? No, I've never been in such a position, but I haven't experienced a number of things. Does that mean I can't judge anybody whose situation I haven't been in?

It's not fair to jail or execute someone for doing an action, when refusing to do such an action would result in their death or imprisonment.

The Constitution never mentions any implied powers.

Of course it does.

power of federal Judicial Review was based entirely on the Federalist papers and the power of state courts to review state laws.

Well, the Federalist papers were written by those who set up the Constitution, and what they meant - the spirit of the law - is certainly relevant.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
And it wouldn't be under the ICC.

The sanctions that have been put upon Iraq would be.

[Ramo]

It's not fair to jail or execute someone for doing an action, when refusing to do such an action would result in their death or imprisonment.

Bull****! I emphatically disagree with you.

Of course it does.

Implied federal powers.

Well, the Federalist papers were written by those who set up the Constitution, and what they meant - the spirit of the law - is certainly relevant.

No, that's completely changing an important aspect of the Constitution based on the feelings of one of the writers of the Federalist Papers (forgot who wrote about judicial review, probably Madison). I'm not saying that it's wrong, but it certainly has no legal justification.

[David Floyd]

Bull****! I emphatically disagree with you.

How can you disagree with the statement that it's immoral to put someone in a damned-damned situation?

Implied federal powers.

9th and 10th Amendments imply State powers and individual rights.

No, that's completely changing an important aspect of the Constitution based on the feelings of one of the writers of the Federalist Papers (forgot who wrote about judicial review, probably Madison). I'm not saying that it's wrong, but it certainly has no legal justification.

Actually the spirit of the law is relevant in court cases today.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The sanctions that have been put upon Iraq would be.

ICJ

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
ICJ

ICC. I'm looking at the statute right now.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Against who?

And it wouldn't stand up... it'd be dismissed.

[DinoDoc]

And it wouldn't stand up...

Maybe, maybe not but that still doesn't change the fact that the case could be made under Article 8, sec. 2b xxv of the Rome Statute.

[Ramo]

How can you disagree with the statement that it's immoral to put someone in a damned-damned situation?

He puts himself in that situation through carrying out atrocious orders.

9th and 10th Amendments imply State powers and individual rights.

No, these Amendments grant jurisdiction to states of powers not explicitly enumerated by the federal gov't. That doesn't automatically imply that the state has all other powers, since the state has only powers enumerated in state Constitutions. And a right is not the same thing as power, hence the distinction between individual rights and federal powers.

Furthermore, this is all immaterial since we're dealing with implied federal powers, which obviously aren't mentioned in the Constitution.

Actually the spirit of the law is relevant in court cases today.

There is no nothing mentioning judicial review in the Constitution, so there is no spirit.

[Shi Huangdi]

"You need to brush up on Constitututional history if you don't think there are a lot of different interpretations of it . "

Maybe not a lot of good ones, but there are plenty of them. You have David Floyd who feels the 14th amendment is illegitimate and that the Federal gov. can do basically nothing, you have orange who thinks that the Constitution isn't really the supreme law of the land at all, just general guidelines. Even among official circles, you have that southern state judge who ruled(and was over-ruled) that school prayer is OK because the Constitution doesn't prohibit the states from setting up a state religion. A majority of SCOTUS thought the Constitution mandated abortion be legal. Also note the shift in SCOTUS for the federal government's economic role in the new deal era.



"International Law is one system ."

You missed my point completely- I am not saying international law isn't one system, I am saying the judges would come from completely different systems and would have completely different perspectives.






"It all fits in with globalization. "

Sorry, that's not good enough. While I do not favor increased political globalization, it still is not an all or nothing deal. You can be a part of the WTO without being a part of the World Court, so you can't use economics as a justification for supporting it.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Maybe, maybe not but that still doesn't change the fact that the case could be made under Article 8, sec. 2b xxv of the Rome Statute.

"Intentionally using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare by depriving them of objects indispensable to their survival, including wilfully impeding relief supplies as provided for under the Geneva Conventions"

No maybe, that it would be thrown out, as starvation of civilians isn't the goal of the sanctions. 100% that the case would be thrown out.

And So? Any case can basically be made, no matter how absurd, under US courts. Does that mean that we should have a Federal Court System because some wacko could bring an idiotic suit?

edit: Oh, and like I asked.... the case would be against WHO?