Subject:
|
Re: Justice for all.....
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 19 Dec 2003 19:26:29 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1191 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Pedro Silva wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Don Heyse wrote:
> > Thanks for the link. It highlights yet another reason the world
> > is not yet ready for a global court system. Money. Until the
> > economic disparity in the world is reduced significantly, there is
> > too great a possiblilty that economically disadvantaged countries
> > can be bribed. Even more patience is required for that one, I think.
>
> That hasn't bothered rich countries from joining in thus far.
> Richer than the US, per capita, I might add. So whose money,
> bribing whom, to what end?
Does it really matter who or what money? The fact that it's possible,
and the previously linked article demonstrates that it's already
happening means that the ICC is being influenced by money. That needs
fixing before the ICC will ever work.
> If it were for money alone, the ICC would be swamped in trials already.
I don't know what you mean by this.
> > However, now that the EU has a single currency, perhaps they could start
> > a bit smaller with an EUCC, show everyone how well it works, and slowly
> > try to entice other nations to join.
>
> The EU has had an European Court of Justice for a number of years now,
> and so far no problems have arisen; I suspect there is no need for a
> specific court aimed at war crimes, them being conspicuously absent
> from the EU's internal life.
> Also, all the current 15 memberstates have signed up to the ICC, as
> well as 9 of the 10 upcoming members (exception being the Czech Republic
> - don't ask me why, I don't know).
That's great. Now get those pesky Czechs to sign up. Bring in the
Baltics, and some North African countries. Then run with it for a few
years to show us how well it all works. With 911 in *our* recent past,
some of us are just a bit more paranoid over here.
> The amazing thing is how noone in these nations seems to be bothered by the
> ICC... I tend to think the excuse of "others will sue us for this and that,
> blablabla" is rather lame, since being *accused* does not imply being
> *condemned*. If you've done nothing wrong, and the burden of proof is not on
> you, why worry?
Have you ever been in court? I don't think that burden of proof stuff
always works as well in actual practice as it does in theory. Anyhow,
is there a link to the rules used by the ICC? I'd like to read (ok skim)
them and see what they say about it.
Don
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Justice for all.....
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Don Heyse wrote: <snip> (...) A tangent-- I read many newsgroups, and someone's .siggy file caought my eye--it says "I don't believe in capital punishment anymore for when was the last time you saw a rich person get (...) (21 years ago, 19-Dec-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Justice for all.....
|
| (...) Yes. And "to what end" as well, don't leave that one out. (...) And what do you propose to "fix it", if anything? (...) Two things: if money could buy charges in the ICC that easily, the court would be overwhelmed with legal actions already. (...) (21 years ago, 20-Dec-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Justice for all.....
|
| (...) That hasn't bothered rich countries from joining in thus far. Richer than the US, per capita, I might add. So whose money, bribing whom, to what end? If it were for money alone, the ICC would be swamped in trials already. (...) The EU has had (...) (21 years ago, 19-Dec-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
52 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
