US Opts Out of World Court

[Imran Siddiqui]

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.

Exactly... interpretations are a dime a dozen of the Constitution.

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.

And people from different political backgrounds have different perspectives on the US Constitution. HOWEVER, international law is one set of rules. It doesn't matter if the law is judged in different ways in different areas, they are judging under Int. Law.

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.

It destroys the entire argument for some countries for the WTO (ie, globalization is good). Backing one set of laws across the international spectrum is actually good for business as well, btw. And I do think it is good enough .

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
No maybe, that it would be thrown out, as starvation of civilians isn't the goal of the sanctions.

That is the effect however.

And So?

It goes along with the substantive procedural problems I have with the ICC that no one has completely dealt with.

[Imran Siddiqui]

That is the effect however.

There is a difference between intention and effect, no? And sanctions have never been against international law... we didn't sanction food.

It goes along with the substantive procedural problems I have with the ICC that no one has completely dealt with.

The registry, that is set up by the Treaty of Rome, goes through the cases... decides which ones are suitable to be heard or not.

[David Floyd]

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

No he doesn't, you put him in that situation for prosecuting him when if he didn't carry out the action he still woulda been prosecuted.

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.

The 10th Amendment says that (paraphrased) all powers not granted to the feds or restricted to the states remain with the states. How does this not imply powers?

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

True, but the Constitutionally allowed establishment of federal courts, while at the same time strongly limiting federal power, implies that a mechanism to ensure federal compliance should exist.

[Imran Siddiqui]

True, but the Constitutionally allowed establishment of federal courts, while at the same time strongly limiting federal power, implies that a mechanism to ensure federal compliance should exist.

And the Geneva Convention limited state power, implying that a mechanism to ensure compliance should exist.

I can't see how you can make one argument about the US and shut your eyes to the EXACT same argument for the UN. Your political biases show through.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
The registry, that is set up by the Treaty of Rome, goes through the cases... decides which ones are suitable to be heard or not.

Go back and look at my conversation with Roland to see what I'm talking about.

We can also add Article 92 to my list of problems.

[Ramo]

No he doesn't, you put him in that situation for prosecuting him when if he didn't carry out the action he still woulda been prosecuted.

If he's ever in a position to be prosecuted for war crimes, that would mean that if he refused to carry out orders, his sentence would likely be limited.

The 10th Amendment says that (paraphrased) all powers not granted to the feds or restricted to the states remain with the states. How does this not imply powers?

I just explained why; state Constitutions may prohibit a state from exercising some of those powers.

True, but the Constitutionally allowed establishment of federal courts, while at the same time strongly limiting federal power, implies that a mechanism to ensure federal compliance should exist.

What Imran said.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Go back and look at my conversation with Roland to see what I'm talking about.

I saw, and I see your fears are unfounded. Dealing with whether they would have the same protection as under US court. I agree with Roland here.

We can also add Article 92 to my list of problems.

Your problems don't matter to me though .

Seriously, what troubles you? That someone can be arrested under provisional arrest and stay there until the charges are filed?

Since the US has violated that rule many, many times, I don't see what is new .

Wouldn't you rather have OBL in jail for (maybe) a month until the charges could be formalized... when they really wanted to get him as quick as possible?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I saw, and I see your fears are unfounded. Dealing with whether they would have the same protection as under US court.

I don't believe that they would recieve a fair trial under this statute given the legal problems that I readily see with it. The fact that a person could still be held in detention even in the event that he was cleared of the charges troubles me greatly.

Seriously, what troubles you?

Provisional arrest = arrest them first, and think up some charges later. If you are going to arrest someone, I fail to see on what basis that you can do it without charge. The very idea smacks of police state tactics.

Wouldn't you rather have OBL in jail for (maybe) a month until the charges could be formalized... when they really wanted to get him as quick as possible?

I would rather that we use a $.35 bullet instead of going to the expense of a trial either in the US or before the ICC.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I don't believe that they would recieve a fair trial under this statute given the legal problems that I readily see with it. The fact that a person could still be held in detention even in the event that he was cleared of the charges troubles me greatly.

If he was cleared of charges, he'd HAVE to be released... or did you not read it correctly?

Provisional arrest = arrest them first, and think up some charges later. If you are going to arrest someone, I fail to see on what basis that you can do it without charge.

If you really have to get someone arrested as soon as possible before they do anymore damage (ie, OBL).

I would rather that we use a $.35 bullet instead of going to the expense of a trial either in the US or before the ICC.

We can sure see your respect for the rule of law.

[David Floyd]

If he's ever in a position to be prosecuted for war crimes, that would mean that if he refused to carry out orders, his sentence would likely be limited.

In Nazi Germany? I think not. In Stalinist USSR, I think not.

I just explained why; state Constitutions may prohibit a state from exercising some of those powers.

They certainly may, but I fail to see how State powers are not implied.

And the Geneva Convention limited state power, implying that a mechanism to ensure compliance should exist.

Ah, but the vital difference is the GC didn't set up any sort of Court or mechanism from which an implied enforcement power could be inferred, nor were there any documents written by the framers of the GC saying one way or another what the intent was.
Not to mention any such enforcement mechanism probably would have been opposed by the signatories anyway.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
If he was cleared of charges, he'd HAVE to be released... or did you not read it correctly?

No, I didn't. Have you even read the statute? Looks to me like you seem to be talking about a fantasy statute.

If you really have to get someone arrested as soon as possible before they do anymore damage (ie, OBL).

Is it really so hard for such a cost effective and efficent court to come up with a valid charge upon which to request the arrest of a person? We aren't talking about an executive agency after all.

We can sure see your respect for the rule of law.

I would rather not have to deal with the effects such a trial would have upon American civilians. You have your compromises with the rule of law (withholding evidence from the defense, provisional arrest, etc.) and I have mine.

[Ramo]

In Nazi Germany? I think not.

You're telling me that there were camps that were not liberated?

In Stalinist USSR, I think not.

I wasn't aware that war criminals from Stalinist USSR were hanged at Nuremburg?

They certainly may, but I fail to see how State powers are not implied.

Jurisdiction is explicitly stated. There are no implied state powers.

Ah, but the vital difference is the GC didn't set up any sort of Court or mechanism from which an implied enforcement power could be inferred,

Come on, that's circular reasoning!

nor were there any documents written by the framers of the GC saying one way or another what the intent was.

You won't find any of the framers of the Geneva convention refer to any international courts? I find that hard to believe.

[Imran Siddiqui]

No, I didn't. Have you even read the statute? Looks to me like you seem to be talking about a fantasy statute.

Yes, I read it... and I have NO idea where you got your interpretation from.

Oh, and btw, from the statute:

A concise statement of the crimes for which the person's arrest is sought and of the facts which are alleged to constitute those crimes, including, where possible, the date and location of the crime

Meaning that he is put in jail with some charges, just not fully fleshed out. So they can't make up anything.

It seems you really haven't read the statute and seem to be making up things.

I don't see anything wrong with that statute.

I would rather not have to deal with the effects such a trial would have upon American civilians.

Yes, forget about any trial. I'm sorry, but I see this as much more harmful than any piddling things that you don't agree with.

You have your compromises with the rule of law (withholding evidence from the defense, provisional arrest, etc.) and I have mine.

And how does that violate the rule of law? It is still a fair trial. You would rather not have a trial at all, and be judge, jury, and executioner.

Statements like that make me ashamed to be American at times.

[David Floyd]

You're telling me that there were camps that were not liberated?

You can't liberate dead people, and in many cases those camps were worse than death. Regardless, you can't punish someone for following orders to avoid death or harsh imprisonment - it's utterly immoral to put someone in a situation where they will be harshly punished no matter what.

I wasn't aware that war criminals from Stalinist USSR were hanged at Nuremburg?

Nope, but if you believe Germans should have been you must also logically accept that Soviets should've as well, and probably even Americans.

Jurisdiction is explicitly stated. There are no implied state powers.

Wrong - secession is an implied power, you just disagree that it exists.

Come on, that's circular reasoning!

You won't find any of the framers of the Geneva convention refer to any international courts? I find that hard to believe.

No, not only are they all dead, but I seriously doubt they left writings behind detailing their intent.