Subject:
|
Re: Just Teasing, I Have No Intention of Debating Any of This...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 19 Mar 2003 11:03:26 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
427 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Mike Petrucelli writes:
>
> > Since abrogating the Clinton administration's signature last year, the Bush
> > administration has persuaded 24 countries to sign bilateral agreements with
> > the United States, pledging not to surrender to the court U.S. nationals or
> > foreigners working under U.S. contract. The U.S. Congress has passed
> > legislation authorizing the president to take "all means necessary" to free
> > Americans taken into custody by the court.
>
> Does anyone know why? Lets see; no right to fair jury,
Define "fair jury".
> no right to language translator,
That'd be a première, in UN instances... Anyway, why are you complaining?
It's not as if the judges were to speak anything other than English among
themselves! :-)
> no right to legal counsel,
Please elaborate. What are the guaranties for the defense? There have to be
some, even if you consider them insufficient.
> and you can be imprisoned in any country
> the court chooses.
:-)
That's advantageous - the court can't choose countries with death penalty :-P
(yes, that actually works *for* the defendant!)
> This applies to civilians as well as military personel.
Evidently - should any of those be exempt from the rule of law? (in abstract)
> I
> don't know, maybe in other countries it is normal to be tried in a court
> without knowing or understanding why,
"Other"? AFAIK some US States allow the trial of the mentally ill! Can you
vouch for their understanding?
Relax, there is no risk any charge of the Hague is misunderstood by the
defendant. It's not as if it is a common court, or meant for common cases -
so I'm sure they have the utmost interest in keeping all procedures to the
highest standard.
> shipped to China or something, and never
> be seen again.
Spandau was in central Berlin. Milosevic is in the Hague. The Rwandese who
were charged haven't left Rwanda. Your fear is baseless.
> Here in the USA civilians don't tolerate that kind of crap. For
> crying out loud a US military court gives someone more rights than the current
> International Court does.
Then again, the US military court is more often used than the Hague will
ever be... :-)
I will agree with you that the International Court is not in a perfect stage
of its development - that bit is easy to recognize. I will also agree that,
given the specificities of the US (being a superpower and all), they have
managed to grant to many "enemies" in the past, rending any attempt to
create that "fair jury" you mentioned a headache at best. Yet, it is *not
impossible* - and the best way to assure the imparciality of the judges and
jury is to further elaborate on the rules for their formation. It's not by
pure and simple forfait from the IC!
Or is it your oppinion that the only way an American citizen will have a
fair trial is in the US? Even for common crimes, that is?
Pedro
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
164 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
