US Opts Out of World Court

[Imran Siddiqui]

The War on Terror, which is slowly being taken too far, of course - but heavy involvement with international organizations will soon embroil us in countless "peacekeeping ops" and "police actions", and American lives will be lost.

Countless peacekeeping and police actions? You mean like Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Iraq, etc?

What, like crimes against humanity? I don't believe there is any such thing. Either it is against your nation's laws or it isn't, and if not you shouldn't be punished for it.

What you believe doesn't matter. The US has established that there is crimes against humanity in Nuremburg. Let's not be hypocrites.

Sure, SCOTUS takes state court cases if there is a valid Constitutional issue. And US citizens may be subjected to federal courts because there are Constitutionally allowed federal crimes and a method for establishing federal courts. The Constitution says nothing about international courts, although George Washington warned specifically against internationalism.

The Constitution says treaties are on the same level as it, so there is room for it in that document.

We should make every effort to be integrated politically. We are economically, so we need to protect our 'interests' by having some control of some of the political apparatuses overhead.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by faded glory
atleast he is consistent for the last year . much more than any of the rest of us

So is David Duke .

[David Floyd]

Yes, Floyd. Hitler and his henchmen shouldn't have been punished. What they did wasn't illegal. They should have been released and we all would have lived happily ever after. Tra la la la la.

*shrug* They committed no legal crimes and were following orders. Who the hell are you to make moral judgments, saying someone should refuse an order and risk prison or worse? What gives you that right? That puts people in a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation.

And if that's not enough, punishment after the fact is basically enforcing an ex post facto law, which you would probably never support in the US, and is hypocritical to do to someone else given our own Constitution.

[David Floyd]

Countless peacekeeping and police actions? You mean like Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Iraq, etc?

Don't forget the two world wars, Bosnia, Kosovo, etc.

What you believe doesn't matter. The US has established that there is crimes against humanity in Nuremburg. Let's not be hypocrites.

Nuremburg was simply a case of "might makes right", something the US has been consistently guilty of.

The Constitution says treaties are on the same level as it, so there is room for it in that document.

Very true. So what?

We should make every effort to be integrated politically. We are economically, so we need to protect our 'interests' by having some control of some of the political apparatuses overhead.

Economic and political interests and power are different animals. Free trade is certainly a good thing, but supporting international prosecution of a citizen of Azjaktistan (or whatever) is both wrong and unrelated.

[DinoDoc]

Am I stuck in somesort of wierd timewarp or didn't Imran and I already debate this exact same topic a while ago? What is it doing in the news again?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Economic and political interests and power are different animals. Free trade is certainly a good thing, but supporting international prosecution of a citizen of Azjaktistan (or whatever) is both wrong and unrelated.

Azjaktistan?

And which citizen? They won't prosecute soliders, but rather people that ordered massacres. What is wrong with that?

[David Floyd]

And which citizen? They won't prosecute soliders, but rather people that ordered massacres. What is wrong with that?

They have no moral authority to impose their laws or morals on a citizen of a sovereign state. Let the courts of each nation deal with criminals and prosecute violations of the law. But I cannot support having an international body do it. In any case, the ICC is not limited to heads of state.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by David Floyd
That puts people in a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation.

Who are you to say someone in this position can't be blamed for making choice A?

[Imran Siddiqui]

They have no moral authority to impose their laws or morals on a citizen of a sovereign state.

If they approve the ICC, then they DO HAVE AUTHORITY! Jeez, can't you get this through your thick skull?!

[David Floyd]

Who are you to say someone in this position can't be blamed for making choice A?

Sorry, it doesn't work that way. They can't be blamed for taking the easy way out of adverse, even deadly consequences. But to turn around and imprison them or execute them for what they did is bull****, because it effectively says "You're ****ed no matter what you do". How is that OK?

[Ethelred]

Its hardly surprising the Bush would not want to go with a World Court. The US has a history of distrust of internationalism and the Right is particularly distrusting.

In the long run the world and the US needs some sort of internation legal system. George Washington lived in world where crossing the Atlantic took many weeks not hours or even minutes.

[David Floyd]

If they approve the ICC, then they DO HAVE AUTHORITY! Jeez, can't you get this through your thick skull?!

They would have the legal authority, which is different from moral authority. Just because the government says it's ok doesn't make it so. However, my problem is also the ICC being imposed on people like Saddam Hussein, who will surely not ratify it.

[Imran Siddiqui]

However, my problem is also the ICC being imposed on people like Saddam Hussein, who will surely not ratify it.

The ICC cannot be imposed on those that have not ratified it. Your uninformed remarks of the issue shows how little you know.

[David Floyd]

The ICC cannot be imposed on those that have not ratified it. Your uninformed remarks of the issue shows how little you know.

You mean it shouldn't be. Milosevic, I'm sure, never consented to his trial, but there you go. Same for the Nazis and Japanese after WW2.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yugoslavia is a UN member nation, and thus consents to the tribunals set up by the UN.

Nazis and Japanese were US ad hoc tribunals, which we'd end up setting up instead.