The International Criminal Court is an excellent idea, but it is doomed from the start due to opposition from the usual suspects.

The world will be a much safer place if the criminal regimes are accountable. The Americans, Israelis and Russians rightly fear that were a ICC their leaders and soldiers would be charged with war crimes and they rightly fear that they would be found guilty.

The only people who should be afraid of law courts are criminals.

I only hope to live to see the day that the tyrants and their lackeys of this world get punished for their crimes.

Sadly I cant see that happening. In this world you have to take the law into your own hands if you want justice.

quote:

Originally posted by rupert The world will be a much safer place if the criminal regimes are accountable. The Americans, Israelis and Russians rightly fear that were a ICC their leaders and soldiers would be charged with war crimes and they rightly fear that they would be found guilty.

Yeah but it's not exactly realistically enforceable. What's to stop an American or Russian leader, for instance, from saying "Ok, good for you, but I don't recognize your court, and if you try to do anything about it I'll nuke you, m'kay?" - nothing.

You'd have to fight a war just to enforce the decisions of the court. I don't see what use such an institution could possibly be.

i just came back from a panel discussion about this topic here at my university. tomorrow i will be participating in a small roundtable discussion about this topic with other students and profs.

anyways the topic is very interesting.

i've learned that in general yesm, i agree in a broad sense to some universal laws that should be enforced so yes there is a need for an international court with jurisdiction to adress these issues. subjects such as murder of civilians, war crimes, genocide, rape and other grave breaches of the geneva convetion.

however the current court set in place has far too weak a foundation and is really at the early stages of its development, thus now i dont belive it should have any power. and i agree to the fact that america will not be a signatory of the statuate (the only problem being that if it were to sign on it would have more influence in bringing around changes to the statuate - but then agian the US has enough influence now). more provisions should be set out and ammendments should be done. also when getting down to exact details one should remember that all countries will have their own views as to legality of specific issues, after all every single human on earth has his own view of morals and justice. the system now can too easily be exploited for political moves and gains. furthermore the representation (as in the UN) is not as fair as it should be from country to country. there is no need to rush to such things because the status quo is actually doing a fine job. the ad hoc war tribunals for milosovic and rwanda are fairing well at addressing the crimes. furthermore developed countries have a good record of putting to justice their own people who have committed international crimes... especially the cases in countries like america where all procedings of such crimes are made public to the entire world.

___________________
If God is the answer, it must have been a very stupid question.

Hrm. very interesting izzy. I will read all of your links, and probably some more before i state my final opinion.

at this point however, i will say that i support the ICC before even looking.

quote:

Originally posted by JohnSmith Hrm. very interesting izzy. I will read all of your links, and probably some more before i state my final opinion. at this point however, i will say that i support the ICC before even looking.

Ya thats interesting... sometimes I have preconcieved ideas of wether I adhere or protest a solution, without being fully informed (hence it is pre-concieved). I am curious if you will change your opinion, or stick to it though with more info. I have been known to do both.

Obviously info from the links of the iccnow.org site are going to be presented in away that is very partial FOR the icc. Personally I am against it, and believe in the hegemonic theory and the rule of force to exact justice.

yes, i agree.

I have changed my stance sometimes, for example in regards to the olympics as i mentioned in this thread:

http://tester.tranceaddict.com/foru...&threadid=73830

Unfortunately, the thread promptly died after i posted, which was dismaying.

The US have made a law that makes it possible to invade Holland so that they can free any American prisoners

who the hell do they think they are!!!

___________________
Alsof Het G*dverdomme Himmel Niks Kost!!!

quote:

Originally posted by Blik The US have made a law that makes it possible to invade Holland so that they can free any American prisoners who the hell do they think they are!!!

yesterday i had my roundtable discussion with 7 other students and a prof about the topic (needless to say i 0wned the debate). that specific thing came up.
its not a law but rather a policy, but ya that official state department's policy says that because the US is not a signator of the ICC if a case were to present itself that an american were to be prosecuted and taken to the ICC (the ICC has jurisdiction to prosocute even people who had not signed on to the treaty if a crime happened in one of the countries that had signed on), america would see that as an attack agianst its soverignty and so would use force if nessacry to ensure their safety back to the US. so ya if a case like that were to happen, america would invade a fellow NATO member (netherlands, being the home of the ICC), pretty interesting scenerio.

john smith, ya sorry about that other post that got bogged down... i was pretty busy then and didnt have time to follow up on it (got two exams on monday as well )

___________________
If God is the answer, it must have been a very stupid question.

quote:

Originally posted by Izzy john smith, ya sorry about that other post that got bogged down... i was pretty busy then and didnt have time to follow up on it (got two exams on monday as well )

s'ok, it's not your fault.

as for the US and it's declaration that it is "allowed" to "liberate" it's people in the event they were captured by the ICC..

wow. that is really all i can say.

quote:

Originally posted by JohnSmith as for the US and it's declaration that it is "allowed" to "liberate" it's people in the event they were captured by the ICC.. wow. that is really all i can say.

ya, wow, what a government!! One that would even declare war just to free it's own citizens! I think I'm about to cry Such a beackon of government.

quote:

Originally posted by rupert The International Criminal Court is an excellent idea, but it is doomed from the start due to opposition from the usual suspects. The world will be a much safer place if the criminal regimes are accountable. The Americans, Israelis and Russians rightly fear that were a ICC their leaders and soldiers would be charged with war crimes and they rightly fear that they would be found guilty.

Heh, perhaps the Palastinians, Chechens, Al-Queda would also fear the wrath of an International criminal court seeing as how some of these groups have been responcible for war crimes as well.

Yassir Arafat would be a nice person to try at an ICC.

___________________
Current fav albums

DNA, kick me up
Protoculture, Circadians