Slashdot Mirror

As to tolerating arms races, you can't stop them. And your condoning of anything is really not relevant. Its not like the nations of the world wait in baited breath for your approval. The underlying interests force this context. Your moral outrage at that doesn't alter those forces. So your moral outrage as much as it might matter to you doesn't change the system.

Your outrage... no offense... is irrelevant.

As to the UN being a sign that such a system could be built, no... you missed my point that the UN is ultimately a projection of US and Western liberal ideals. Absent Western hegemony those ideals won't be a controlling factor on international relations.

Obviously. See the obvious. It is obvious.

As to court, courts are ultimately backed up by the police. If I ignore a court, the cops come for me. For your international court to have meaning it would need a "cop" powerful enough to take any nation in the world to court by force. In other words... a hegemon. Currently the US has hegemony. What would you propose that would be MORE powerful than the US thus making it capable of taking hegemony from the US?

Even if the US completely vanished thus making it not something you have to surpass... you still have to have enough power to take the Russian Federation and the Chinese etc to court... BY FORCE. Because that's how courts work.

If anyone could just ignore a court, then the party that believed he would lose a court case would just ignore the summons.

This is really pretty fundamental.

What do you think brought the Germans to war crimes trials at the end of WW2? A letter? Do you think it was a court summons that brought Nazi war criminals to trial?

Obviously not. How can you not see how obvious this is? This is amazing.

What brought Nazi war criminals to trial was the combined military power of the allied military machine. Which as everyone knows was also the foundation of the UN itself.

How do you not know this? This is basic history. You're killing me here.

As to military upsides over the last 50 years...

Well, the US was asked by the Europeans and the UN to intervene in Kosovo, Iraq the first time, Libya, and I think they were asking as well in Syria. Just off the top of my head.

Do you want links on this? Lets do it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://www.icc-cpi.int/libya/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Whether you like or dislike war... most of these conflicts you're pissed at by the US go through a process of international law as signed by all member nations.

What is more, you limitation of the time of your argument to the last 50 years is also a concession that there are wars you clearly agree with.

What you probably don't grasp with that, is that the 50 year span you're talking about is largely the period of US hegemony. Prior to US hegemony... well, germany or imperial japan could contest for power. After US hegemony we have peace by and large in the world. With the only conflicts being limited regional conflicts that do not disrupt international trade or or pose a threat outside of the limited war zones.

if you removed US hegemony then that would change... you take the international order for granted. Everything you think people just "do now because its 2018"... they do it because of the system we have built. Take the system down and everything will change.

You give the US no credit for the international order. That is unsupportable given the US's overwhelming influence on everything. Give the US its due and then recalculate your position. Also keep in mind that most of the things the US does come with the backing

There is an international criminal court - just the US hasn't signed up to it and during the Bush presidency threatened violence to anyone who pulls a US citizen in front of the court.

http://www.icc-cpi.int/Menus/ASP/states+parties/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_the_International_Criminal_Court

there's no "international court" or body of "international law." (probably you know this, but many people reading the phrase "international copyright laws" get confused).

Here are some bodies and courts of international law: 1,2, 3,4.

I think I just made a law troll post.

Slashdotters post 10,000 photos of trashed Nokias. Does that influence "The Law"?. "The Law" can be seen as the final rulings, and a composition of many factors. PR, Written law, precedents, lawyer and client skills, judge, jury, place and time, social acceptance or tolerance at that social-political moment, media influence, public and lobby actions, and many other factors influence decisions. Piracy, for example, clearly illegal and punishable by written law, but it's socially accepted within many contexts by most of the public, in most countries. A tortured journalist does have a great social-political moment in the US, and Iran does not. Had he been tortured by a Western power, he'd have no chance. Nokia, as a Western, non-US corporation, has some factors favoring, some against it. Written law and social moment are generally against torture in the US, but he might have had better chances at the ICC, which has jurisdiction, and is not in a country in wars, which generally uses torture and makes more of the public accept it. Even if he doesn't win, he'll have great influence on the social-legal debate. It could lead to greater isolation of torture-supporting entities, just for PR reasons. Especially if we publish those tortured-Nokia photos.

The main reason that we don't do such a thing to our citizens is that most countries that would want our people sent over to them wouldn't give them a fair trial, and that's not inherently because they're American. A Chinese is probably no more like to get a fair trial in Mugabe's Zimbabwe than an American.

And people wonder why the US is loathe to join the ICC.

BULLSHIT!
BULLSHIT!
BULLSHIT!
BULLSHIT!
BULLSHIT!
BULLSHIT!
BULLSHIT!
BULLSHIT!
http://www.gutenberg.net.au/ is not under US jurisdiction? It's under australian jurisdiction.
You can see at the adress that you are in an other "country".

If the US are so eager to push their laws into other countries maybe they should join the International Crime Court [ICC] and not avoid it like some vampires the sunlight! I think the ROI at WIPO is better than at the ICC!

1st, I did. Actually, right before this post once again. Maybe do it yourself and see which amendments apply to the judicative. Then point out to me which is in conflict with the statutes of the ICC, for I fail to see one.

> ICC see what the USA does as wrong but has no problem with the PA blowing up kids

There has been no trial on either. I fail to see find such statements except from your sayings.

Finally, which human rights subsection?
There is the Office of Prosecution, the chief prosecutor is Mr. Luis Moreno-Ocampo of Argentina, which has been unanimously elected. The judges and some more administration.

> Damn right I do not trust foreign/supranationl enities as I can not vote them out of power.

Can you vote on your judges in the US? Do you trust them?

BTW, Palestine is PS, PA is Panama.

> that doesn't treat the Bill of Rights like a joke, and I'll think about it.

The ICC is a court, hence most aspects of the Bill of Rights don't even apply to the ICC. Otherwise, the court follows the international accepted rules of conduct, most of which are written of the Bill of Rights. Here the complete statute

Concerning the aspect of undue punishment, the ICC is judging over war-crimes and genocide. What kind of punishment would the US impose on those crimes?

So, it seems to me, that your personal distrust for foreign and/or supranational entities is more the basis for your reaction than its legal framework.

Considering the crimes Saddam Hussein has committed against people of several countries, would it not be logical for his ultimate trial to be held in the form of an international war crimes tribunal, a la Nuremberg?

Yes it would. There already is such a court, the International Criminal Court..
The problem is, the USA opposes it.

This was not always the case; Funny you mention Nuremburg, where the american procecuter Robert Jackson expressed a desire to create such a permanent tribunal.

I feel that is the America the world admired and respected.
Todays unilateral foreign policy is a shame on America, and the ideals America is supposed to represent. And it is the reason why the USA no long commands the same international respect.

Surely Kissenger is one of the major reasons the US refused to join the International Criminal Court?

Because[sic] the US really, really respects the opinion of the rest of the World.