Subject:
|
Re: Justice for all.....
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 22 Dec 2003 20:49:50 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1347 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Don Heyse wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Pedro Silva wrote:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Don Heyse wrote:
> > > 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?
> >
> > Yes. And "to what end" as well, don't leave that one out.
I stress again that I find this relevant.
> > > 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.
> >
> > And what do you propose to "fix it", if anything?
>
> Charge anyone caught bribing smaller countries with war crimes?
Oh bribery is a crime all right. But I doubt it can fit the definition of war
crime. Care to prove me wrong?
> > The North African countries are not part of Europe... so I don't see a
> > need to refer them - you had previously asked about the EU's stance on
> > the matter, and that's what I was addressing.
>
> Yeah, but North Africa is geographically closer to Europe than the US.
> And there is a history of European meddling in their politics, so I
> thought they might stress the system a bit more so we could see how it
> works under pressure.
True, it is close to Europe (we use the term "Mediterranean Basin" as well when
referring to these neighbours). I dispute however that the "history of european
meddling in their politics" is not applicable to the US as well in the post ww2
period. Remember, there's US 6th fleet in the Med... it's not there for
exhibitions, is it?
Notwithstanding, I agree that they too should recognize the ICC. Everyone
should.
> > The thing about your idea of letting the RotW "test" the court before the
> > US thinks of joining is that it sets a double standard for no better
> > reason than, in your own words, paranoia.
>
> Why are you so eager for the US to join up? Is it a double standard
> to try on clothes before you buy them? Don't the nice restaurants let
> you taste the wine before you order a bottle? What's the hurry?
Your examples are not that good: do you ask to try the *food* at a restaurant?
And IMHO one tastes the wine to check if it has been kept in good conditions,
not for the taste. Regarding the clothes, one just gets fat (from going to
restaurants, maybe? ;-)
There isn't a real hurry, it's more a matter of coherence. Why wouldn't the US
join? Your country has had a moral superiority in the past that it risks damage
in face of this refusal to join the ICC - it's puzzling to us seeing a nation
preach the virtues of justice and then bail out from the court!
> > > > 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?
> >
> > Nope, I've never been on trial or accusing anyone. Which is not that
> > awkward, given age and legal system involved :-)
> > But I do follow court rulings & procedures.
>
> I'd think after watching the OJ trial on TV, you wouldn't want
> the US involved in your legal system.
Your answer is misleading, I'm afraid: it's not the US that gets involved in
trial! The US only has to *recognize* the court and its procedures. The actions
are always between individuals, not countries - even when multiple individuals
are summed up on a similar charge.
> > > I don't think that burden of proof stuff
> > > always works as well in actual practice as it does in theory.
> >
> > Please ellaborate what you mean.
>
> When people are involved, nothing works as well in practice as it
> does in theory. Look at economics. You can do all sorts of nifty
> mathematical extrapolations with supply and demand, but once you
> involve actual people the rules don't work because they introduce
> too much chaos.
>
> Here's a little experiment you can try at home. Get yourself a
> traffic ticket and then go to court to try and fight it. Take note
> of whether or not burden of proof ever enters into the picture.
The burden of proof enters the picture, yes. It is on your side if you choose to
contest the fine. For instance, last year there was a lady here who was fined
for speeding at 800+ kph. She just took the photo to court and the case was
dismissed.
Now, if I am to "get myself a ticket", I probably won't have grounds to contest
(ergo, I fail the burden of proof). My point stands.
Pedro
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Justice for all.....
|
| (...) Yes, but I don't, so I can't really add much here. Perhaps if you tell us *why* you find it so relevent I might be able to reply to that. (...) No, you got me there. We usually hire professional lawyers and politicians around here to "fix" (...) (21 years ago, 23-Dec-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Justice for all.....
|
| (...) Charge anyone caught bribing smaller countries with war crimes? (...) Sorry, I blame my crappy US lack of education for that one. I meant the Balkans. (...) Yeah, but North Africa is geographically closer to Europe than the US. And there is a (...) (21 years ago, 22-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
|
|
|
|
