Subject:
|
Re: Justice for all.....
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 23 Dec 2003 02:38:28 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1321 times
|
| |
|
|
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:
> > > > 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.
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.
> > > > 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?
No, you got me there. We usually hire professional lawyers and politicians
around here to "fix" that sort of problem. Apparently they were unable to
work out a solution and just put the whole thing off for a while.
> > > 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?
I never said there was no history of US meddling in the area, but we
were talking about starting with a EUCC and growing it to include
more local neighbors.
> Notwithstanding, I agree that they too should recognize the ICC.
> Everyone should.
As do I. I think we just disagree on the time frame and the prerequisites,
and maybe some of the rules (but I haven't read them yet, so who knows).
> > > 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? ;-)
You're right. I prefer beer, hardly ever eat at restaurants, and my
wife buys most of my clothes, but they were the best metaphors I could
come up with. Perhaps that's why I'm not a professional politician.
> 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!
I'm not sure what new damage we face. Everyone else seems to despise us
plenty already.
> > > > > 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.
Consider it an example of what can go wrong with any legal system.
The US should not recognise any court with such serious flaws.
Can't one of you libertarians bail me out here? I'm trying to argue
for less government.
> > > > 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.
What's 800 kph? Is that as far over the speed limit as it sounds?
Give me an example where the charges aren't obviously ridiculous to
the average court system bureaucrat.
> 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.
Ok. You win.
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Justice for all.....
|
| (...) Ok. I find it relevant because *you* brought it up, and have not ellaborated what you meant. It's very easy to leave vague suspicion in the air, so what I'm asking you is to be blunt and say whom, in this regard, bribes/is bribed and *to do (...) (21 years ago, 23-Dec-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Justice for all.....
|
| (...) Actually I think Scott brought it up and the answers you seek are in the article he provided earlier in this thread: (URL) for some reason you mysteriously deleted in this post: (URL) you so desire, you can reprint the entire BBC article here. (...) (21 years ago, 23-Dec-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Justice for all.....
|
| (...) I stress again that I find this relevant. (...) Oh bribery is a crime all right. But I doubt it can fit the definition of war crime. Care to prove me wrong? (...) True, it is close to Europe (we use the term "Mediterranean Basin" as well when (...) (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
|
|
|
|
