Subject:
|
Re: Justice for all.....
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 23 Dec 2003 06:22:27 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1390 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:
> > > > > 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.
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 what*. Names and purposes - otherwise your accusation remains void.
In other words, "to bribe" is a transitive verb, isn't it?
> > > > > 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.
Yes, I immagine it's impossible for all the thinking heads to accept the ICC as
a solution (imperfect, yet better than none at all). Go figure.
> > > > 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.
Ok... and again I call your attention to the fact that a court which is not
universally recognized is void. Unless all nations adhere to it... it's little
more than nothing.
As an example of unrecognized treaties, take Japan and the Geneva convention in
WW2 - your country was bound to it and had to take care of the (few) japanese
prisoners accordingly, whilst they could act as they pleased with allied
servicemen. Now transpose: all nations adhering to the ICC have agreed to stick
to the rules of good conduct, others are "barbarians", so to speak.
> > 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).
Indeed.
> > 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.
Basically, the danger is from self-adoration, AKA the plague of the empires.
And please don't confuse despise with disappointment... there's more of the
latter than you might think from a superficial analysys of european public
oppinion.
> > > > > > 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.
Which specific flaws are you referring to?
> Can't one of you libertarians bail me out here? I'm trying to argue
> for less government.
(sorry, can't help you there - I'm european and I just loooove centralism! :-)
> > > > > 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?
Maybe some 500 mph, more or less 100.
> Is that as far over the speed limit as it sounds?
For cars, yes :-)
> Give me an example where the charges aren't obviously ridiculous to
> the average court system bureaucrat.
There isn't such a thing. The whole concept of proof is based in reducing the
other party's arguments ad absurdio... or as close as possible to allow for
reasonable doubt, if things prove too complicated.
Pedro
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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)
|
52 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
