 |
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:19
|
|
quote:
It may hurt the state, but that benefits the people. |
Unless the person is a US (or any) soldier who was simply following orders.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Gatekeeper
|
 |
United States of America
Feb 2000
time: 23:19
|
|
Everyone:
I am disappointed in Bush's decision not to participate in the functioning of this court. That said, the only way in hell the court will work is if there's a cut-off date for pursuit of perceived and real past transgressions. Otherwise the court will be indunated petitions from God only knows how far in the past — heh, perhaps even the "reparations for past slavery" cases in the United States could end up there.
If this court is to work, the cut-off date is an absolute. The court has to be functioning properly and focused completely on the present and future of humanity, not on past perceived and real transgressions.
An interesting observation about this thread: I've noticed that a number of folks are fixated on the past again. They don't appear to give a damn about the court other than to use it to go after the past (I'm surprised Kissinger and Chile haven't shown up in a rant yet). How about the present and future, guys? That's what this court is for, not the past, no matter how awful it may be. The past should be the province of existing special tribunals or the concerned nations themselves. The future should be the domain of this new United Nations court.
As for a cut-off date, I'm not sure. I'd like it to be after the Cold War because if you're going to nail America's ass to the wall for episodes committed during that phase in the 20th Century, then you'd better go after the former Soviet Union and its satellites as well. And Western Europe could be charged as accessories to any injustices committed during the Cold War. Ah, here we go again. The past can be so dominating, can't it? Cut-off date after the Cold War. Begin date January 1, 2003.
Gatekeeper
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:19
|
|
quote:
No, I don't. Because I don't believe it to be right, doesn't mean I have a legitmate complaint. I can complain, but for naught. |
Complaining isn't even consistent.
quote:
Unfortunetly not well. |
How is this unclear?
First off, an impartial court didn't interpret Geneva, the victorious powers did without giving all signatories a say. That's your first problem right there.
Second, the US Constitution and Geneva are two separate things. Judicial review is easily justified using the Constitution, but the ability to liberally interpret provisions of the Geneva Convention are nowhere to be found in that document.
quote:
The UN has done so.. there is a great mitigation of the principle of 'might makes right' since Geneva and the UN came into existance. |
So that explains why Israel regularly ****s over the Palestinians, then? And the League CERTAINLY did wonders for preventing WW2, eh?
quote:
Why not? All morals are relative. There is no such thing as absolute morality.... all rights derive from the state... there are no natural rights. So yes, murder can be ok from one perspective, but not another, and usually is so. |
No, murder is by definition wrong - an absolute.
quote:
Then the person that gave the order is hauled in. Ordinary soldiers don't get hauled in before the ICC. |
Then hopefully you're trying either Bush, Rumsfeld, the Chairman of the JCS, or someone like that, rather than 2nd Lt. Becameascapegoatandgot****ed. Of course, that won't happen - face facts.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Imran Siddiqui
|
 |
The Potterverse
Jan 1970
time: 00:19
|
|
quote:
Complaining isn't even consistent. |
Of course it isn't. But who cares?
quote:
First off, an impartial court didn't interpret Geneva |
You could make the same case for SCOTUS. It was made up of Founders of the US.
quote:
Judicial review is easily justified using the Constitution, but the ability to liberally interpret provisions of the Geneva Convention are nowhere to be found in that document. |
 Why can't you charge people using the Geneva Convention. I still don't get it.
quote:
So that explains why Israel regularly ****s over the Palestinians, then? And the League CERTAINLY did wonders for preventing WW2, eh? |
Enforcement, enforcement, enforcement.
OF course you avoid the issue... I said the UN prevented as much 'might makes right' that could be done. After all, the Geneva Convention can be cited, and that reigns in Sharon and his butchers. Because the US wouldn't approve Geneva violations... the culture has changed.
quote:
Then hopefully you're trying either Bush, Rumsfeld, the Chairman of the JCS, or someone like that, rather than 2nd Lt. |
If there is no proof that an order was confered above the unit, then you can't try those above. No evidence.
quote:
a) What international law prohibits transporting WMD and related info? |
The NPT, which Cuba is a signatory to.
quote:
b) When did he transport WMDs? IIRC it was Soviet freighters doing the shipping. |
Back then there was no NPT, but since the NPT, there seems to be some proof that Cuba has been sending plans for biological weapons to other revolutionary movements.
quote:
c) The US has stationed nukes all over the globe. Are you telling me that it commits a crime every time a missile sub sets out from port? |
Nope, the NPT allows the Big 5 to have nukes (but can't give over information). However, those that don't have nukes cannot transport information or build nukes (meaning Pakistan and India are in violation).
quote:
d) Massacres? Please provide links. |
This isn't a massacre, but political prisoners (forbidden under Geneva):
http://www.hrw.org/press98/jan/pope121.htm
I don't know if this is unbiased, but tells about Cuban massacres done in Angola:
http://www.frontline.org.za/articles/racism.htm
There was also the creation of a mass refugee exodus, which I believe is against Geneva as well.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/columni...zov07-31-01.htm
quote:
Since coming to power in 1959, Fidel has been personally involved in the assassination of hundreds of people. Many crimes that were committed in the 1970s and 1980s by Leftist guerrilla groups in Latin America can be brought directly to his doorstep. |
Read the article for the ones in detail
I mean, most of them, yes, are trumped up a bit, but you know the US would try to try Castro.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:19
|
|
Imran,
quote:
Of course it isn't. But who cares? |
Obviously not you 
quote:
You could make the same case for SCOTUS. It was made up of Founders of the US. |
Who else was gonna make up SCOTUS? Foreigners?
quote:
Why can't you charge people using the Geneva Convention. I still don't get it. |
Because it doesn't say you can and language to that effect probably wouldn't have been approved.
quote:
Enforcement, enforcement, enforcement.
OF course you avoid the issue... I said the UN prevented as much 'might makes right' that could be done. After all, the Geneva Convention can be cited, and that reigns in Sharon and his butchers. Because the US wouldn't approve Geneva violations... the culture has changed. |
The League could've stopped Germany/Italy (50 nations led by 1 and all that), but the one time they tried, when Italy invaded Ethiopia, they just looked stupid. Why should now be different?
How did the UN prevent any "might makes right" for any actual strong countries? It certainly didn't stop the US, USSR, China, or Israel, to name a few.
quote:
If there is no proof that an order was confered above the unit, then you can't try those above. No evidence. |
In most cases junior officers aren't gonna order massacres. Proof or not, the wrong person is still being tried.
Ramo,
quote:
I've never been a fan of the Nuremburg defense.
Execute a bunch of defenseless civilians, and be prepared to face the consequences, regardless of whether General ****wit orders you to do it. The spineless **** should've disobeyed the orders. |
So you can sit on your pedestal 60 years later and say that soldiers or government officials should have faced death or imprisonment rather than obey orders that ultimately got them just that? How is that fair?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
KrazyHorse
|
 |
Macedonia
May 2001
time: 00:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Back then there was no NPT, but since the NPT, there seems to be some proof that Cuba has been sending plans for biological weapons to other revolutionary movements |
AFAIK, the NPT covers nukes, not bioweapons, and the info he's said to be giving out is what even the dear republican senator from Castroless Cuba is calling "dual-use", i.e. it's info on how to make pennicillin that somebody's trying to trump up into a bioweapons threat
quote:
This isn't a massacre, but political prisoners (forbidden under Geneva) |
No problem. I've already stated my disapproval of the Castro government's handling of dissent.
quote:
I don't know if this is unbiased, but tells about Cuban massacres done in Angola |
The source you provided seems extremely fuzzy on details. It also overstates the number that died during the period of "revolutionary justice" in Cuba by a factor of 5, and fails to mention that almost all of those were for non-political crimes committed during Batista's reign (rape, murder, looting, etc.). Again, I disagree with the application of the death penalty...
quote:
There was also the creation of a mass refugee exodus, which I believe is against Geneva as well |
Huh? Your source mentions nothing about a mass refugee exodus. If you're referring to the exodus of Cubans to the States, then he didn't engineer it, and has on numerous occasions attempted to stop it.
I also like how one of your sources mentions the bombing of an Army barracks in Argentina as an act of murder. I'm sorry, but they must have missed the lesson where we learnt what being a valid military target meant...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Imran Siddiqui
|
|
The Potterverse
Jan 1970
time: 00:19
|
|
quote:
Who else was gonna make up SCOTUS? Foreigners? |
Just pointing out it isn't impartial.
quote:
Because it doesn't say you can and language to that effect probably wouldn't have been approved. |
The Constitution doesn't say that SCOTUS can review laws of Congress and say if they are constitutional. Show me that it can.
quote:
The League could've stopped Germany/Italy (50 nations led by 1 and all that), but the one time they tried, when Italy invaded Ethiopia, they just looked stupid. Why should now be different?
How did the UN prevent any "might makes right" for any actual strong countries? It certainly didn't stop the US, USSR, China, or Israel, to name a few. |
Because genocide has gone down lately. The reason Rwanda and Serbia have been such news is because it isn't common anymore. You don't see the big powers do the things they have in the past (USSR in Ukraine, US in Philippines) to other people in war. This is evidence of the UN changing public opinion. I believe that the protests against Vietnam was due to the fact that a Geneva Convention and a UN existed.
quote:
AFAIK, the NPT covers nukes, not bioweapons, and the info he's said to be giving out is what even the dear republican senator from Castroless Cuba is calling "dual-use", i.e. it's info on how to make pennicillin that somebody's trying to trump up into a bioweapons threat |
NPT covers all WMD. And there are allegations, that the US would use to try to try Castro in court, right?
quote:
The source you provided seems extremely fuzzy on details. |
I know they ain't the best sources. But just some things the US would bring up.
quote:
Huh? Your source mentions nothing about a mass refugee exodus. If you're referring to the exodus of Cubans to the States, then he didn't engineer it, and has on numerous occasions attempted to stop it. |
I would think taking their land and jailing political dissidents would qualify as creating a refugee problem, if they all left  .
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Imran Siddiqui
|
|
The Potterverse
Jan 1970
time: 00:19
|
|
quote:
Oh, and the NPT seems to be about nukes, Imran. |
Ooops, sorry. 
quote:
So the exclusion of Englishmen made SCOTUS biased? |
Actually yes.
I've read Marbury, it gives little justification, other that we said that is what we think it means. Ah, interpretation .
quote:
I disagree that genocide has gone down since the foundation of the UN. And the Vietnam protestors were not, I think, protesting because the UN said the Vietnam War was bad. |
I do... the whole Geneva/UN Culture instilled that actions, such as the US' in Vietnam were not right.
And yes, genocide has gone down since the late 1940s. You can point to the Armenian genocides, colonial genocides (which have killed far more than anything after 1950), etc.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Gatekeeper
|
|
United States of America
Feb 2000
time: 23:19
|
|
KrazyHorse:
**shrug** OK. I tend to think that republics and democracies are generally a bit more trustworthy than their counterparts in dictatorships, authoritarianism, theocracies and, yes, communism. But, like all human endeavours, it's never 100 percent perfect.
Gatekeeper
***
Imran:
I can live with a 1998 cut-off date. Logical, too, since that's when the court came into being.
As for AIM ... well, if my ISP would keep me connected for more than five minutes at a time, I'd be on AIM. I keep getting booted ... been bad for the past two weeks or so. At any rate, I've signed up for cable Internet. Installation date is May 13. 
Gatekeeper
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:19
|
|
Not against Americans, which is the point.
quote:
I've read Marbury, it gives little justification, other that we said that is what we think it means. Ah, interpretation |
That's why SCOTUS exists - to interpret the Constitution. As far as I know Geneva provided no such body.
quote:
And yes, genocide has gone down since the late 1940s. You can point to the Armenian genocides, colonial genocides (which have killed far more than anything after 1950), etc. |
OK, I'll grant you the point on actual genocide, but Mao's murders all happened post 1950, as one example. The UN certainly didn't stop that.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:19.
Apolyton Time is 00:19. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
07-05-2002 10:25
|