US Opts Out of World Court

[Boris Godunov]

Well, Reagan should have been shot on the grounds for making such a lame joke and being too dumb to know the camera was on...

hehehehe...

[David Floyd]

He did commit plenty of other moral wrongs, no question about it...Imran, any comment on a punishment?

[Boris Godunov]

For Iran-Contra, I can think of no better punishment than the one that has already been inflicted on him by nature.

[David Floyd]

Then of course there is the matter of lying about it.

[Boris Godunov]

Lies don't always worry me, especially coming from politicians. Par for the course. It was the blatant violation of the Constitution and the subversion of the will of Congress I find utterly disgusting. I think it set a dangerous precedent.

In my opinion, what Reagan did was far worthier of impeachment and removal than even that evil bastard Nixon was.

[Ramo]

I don't see what this action accomplished, since we didn't respect the authority of the World Court when they ordered the US to pay $17*10^9 in reparations for the terror Reagan et al. committed against the Nicaraguas.

[David Floyd]

What Reagan did was certainly impeachable...certainly worse than what Clinton did.

[David Floyd]

I don't see what this action accomplished, since we didn't respect the authority of the World Court when they ordered the US to pay $17*10^9 in reparations for the terror Reagan et al. committed against the Nicaraguas

While we certainly should have payed, and what we did was wrong, I disagree that the World Court should be able to infringe upon our national sovereignty.

[TCO]

Re: GP

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
a) Why should the rest of the world believe that you'll adequately police your own soldiers?

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.

b) If we don't believe that you will, why shouldn't we be pissed that you're too high an mighty to ever contemplate letting someone else do it for you?

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".

c) Obviously there's no question of forcing the US to do anything it doesn't want to, but at some point annoying the rest of the world has negative impact on the US...

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.

[Shi Huangdi]

I opppose this, as I do not think the United States shoud be working to strengthen international insitutions. Anyway you look at this, this puts more power in international hands and strengthens the criminal justice process. SCOTUS in lieu of Appeals tribunals for every dispute work well for our wanting of a strong enough judiciary to ensure the gov's adherence the Constitution, but the process of trying war crimes is not a process we neccesarily want to strengthen. It's actions might interfere with US goals and policy. International bodies have had suspect problems before- take for instance U.N. Human rights Comission, which has Zimbabwe but not the USA. This court would also draw judges from around the world- although systems differ among the world: A British judge would be trained in common law, a French judge would be trained in the inquisitorial system, a Chinese judge would be trained to strictly obey the party, and an Iranian judge would be trained in Islamic law. These different legal perspectives could pose problems. I think in most cases the USA should not promote organizations which might go against US interests and principles.

[Imran Siddiqui]

And you said 1922 Hitler, remember. We're talking about a Hitler who had yet to do anything but write rotten things.

Yes, but we KNOW he was. I'd kill one man to save millions... anyday.

Also, I support those Eastern European countries that killed their Communist leaders, such as Romania. That was justified.

I disagree that the World Court should be able to infringe upon our national sovereignty.

And what makes national sovereignty so untouchable? It hasn't been in the past.

[Ramo]

Well DF, I think your ideas on national sovereignty are incoherent.

[David Floyd]

This court would also draw judges from around the world- although systems differ among the world: A British judge would be trained in common law, a French judge would be trained in the inquisitorial system, a Chinese judge would be trained to strictly obey the party, and an Iranian judge would be trained in Islamic law. These different legal perspectives could pose problems.

Very good point, hadn't thought of that.

[Imran Siddiqui]

but the process of trying war crimes is not a process we neccesarily want to strengthen. It's actions might interfere with US goals and policy.

This court would also draw judges from around the world- although systems differ among the world: A British judge would be trained in common law, a French judge would be trained in the inquisitorial system, a Chinese judge would be trained to strictly obey the party, and an Iranian judge would be trained in Islamic law.

They would all have to follow international law.

And US states all have different laws. Should we only have justices from a certain area for the SCOTUS?

I think in most cases the USA should not promote organizations which might go against US interests and principles.

Further globalization isn't in our interests . It is much smarter to increase political globalization if we are promoting economic globalization.

--

Btw, NAME one instance where the ICC could be against American interests. I mean, a concrete example.

[KrazyHorse]

Yet another x-post

Ummm...

Issues on which the US has been indictable in the past:

Attacks on civilian structures in Iraq causing untold civilian deaths
Funding of terrorist groups in Nicaragua
Funding of the Khmer Rouge even after it proved its insane nature
Extrajudicial executions in Viet Nam
Funding of terrorist attacks in Cuba
etc.?

If hamstringing the Gulliver is accomplished by asking you to adhere to the usual rules of war, then Gulliver has some very serious problems with the way it operates.