10 Years International Crime Court: Towards World Law?

by hamilcarr 202 Replies latest social current

• 

  BurnTheShips

  Think about the higher forces binding the UN. It is a real, enforcable and historically enforced power. You seem to have an almost complete ignorance of the long history of the UN, which has its low moments as well as high ones. If one country misbehaves, the other nations will apply presure of numerous sorts to bear. You seem to have swallowed the 'toothless dog' fantasy regarding the UN, which is generally based on ignorance.

  The comparisons that you try to draw between the ICC and the UN show that you do not understand the structure, aims, manifesto, and realities of either. The only thing they have in common, as I have already stated a number of times, and which you yourself acknowledge, is its international flavor. the ICC works through local law enforcement, local courts, local lawyers. It does not have an army or warehouses full of grain. It does not need them as its aims are completely different to that of the UN. Its only interest is legality.

  What's up Burn, fed up with Wikipedia?

  HS

  It is amazing to me that you can say so much and essentially say nearly nothing. The majority of your post is a blustery accusation of ignorance to cover the fact that you have been caught with your pants down. You do this all too often HS and it is a sign of intellecual laziness. You can do better.

  The comparison being made here has nothing to do with the particular aims of the respective bodies, but with the means of enforcement. You say that if one country misbehaves, others will apply pressure. This is exactly the point I have made. This is not much different from a state of affairs in which no universal body exists.

  BTS
• 

  hamilcarr

  In this, I think, we can find the "meaningful" point that our friend BTS was trying to make.

  The Tiger has no teeth. Neither does his distant relative, the little KittyKat.

  You can't play both cards at the same time.

  Claiming supranational institutions are worse sovereign aggressors than national states and at the same time asserting they've no real power makes your point undebatable.

  Hence, I withdraw from this discussion.
• 

  hillary_step

  Burn,

  The comparison being made here has nothing to do with the particular aims of the respective bodies, but with the means of enforcement. You say that if one country misbehaves, others will apply pressure. This is exactly the point I have made. This is not much different from a state of affairs in which no universal body exists.

  This is NOT what you said at all! The thread is a matter of public record and readers can judge for themselves just what a liar you can be when you find yourself cornered. The only thing that the ICC and the UN have in common, as I have noted a dozen times, is an international membership. That you are now deviously trying to shift the goal-posts to make yourself look clever is your problem, not mine. If you think others cannot see what you are trying to do, you are living in a fantasy.

  But why should I expect you to remember anything that you wrote two minutes beforehand? You have an intellect like a butterfly.

  If your posts on this Board are anything to judge you by, you lack substansive character. If you cannot take this criticism from myself, who has pointed this out to you on numerous occasions, try reading other posts directed at you that suggest the same thing, such as JGnat's for example who seems to refuse to debate you due to your penchant for slithering from your own stated positions, and for filling your posts with nothing very much at all in the way of analysis.

  Hamil,

  Hence, I withdraw from this discussion.

  ...and who can blame you.

  Burn the Ships is without doubt the grossest intellectual pseud to have hit these Boards since its inception. Shallow, vacuous, unregulated in his thinking, contradictory in his viewpoints dependant on the day of the week, undisciplined in his research, without an established moral backbone, a proven liar and above all lacking in critical thinking skills. His coffee-shop opinions vacillate with the sentiment of the you-tube, and Wikipedia hour.

  Apart from that, he seems to be really clued in about life.

  HS
• 

  Crumpet

  I'd like to hear your thoughts on the (im)possibility of world law.

  Interesting topic and one I was considering only the other day.

  One of the problems, at least on a European level, appears to be that the anti terror laws override all other treaties, conventions and even the European Court for Human Rights.

  The other issue is that certain groups in certain countries are called terrorist groups by the governments whereas they regard themselves as peaceful liberation or simple opposition movements and this umbrella of anti-terrorism singles out their members, can suspend all their assets, freeze their bank accounts just for their affiliation. I think world law is in danger of becoming American law. Governments refuse to give asylum to these individuals, who will be persecuted in their home countries, because they are afraid - not of any terrorism acts occuring, but because they don't want to incur the wrath of a country they trade with or disrupt smooth diplomatic relations.

  I think individual countries/member states need to retain some kind of autonomy and that this kind of abuse of anti terror laws in the wake of 9/11 to maintain political diplomacy is a violation of human rights in itself. It needs to be challenged.
• 

  hillary_step

  Crumpet,

  I think individual countries/member states need to retain some kind of autonomy and that this kind of abuse of anti terror laws in the wake of 9/11 to maintain political diplomacy is a violation of human rights in itself. It needs to be challenged.

  This is an interesting point.

  Despite the futile attempts of some posters on this thread to blacken the name and prospects of the ICC by comparing it to the UN, these organizations have nothing in common either in aims, structure, and methodology. This is by no means accepting that the UN has anything at all to be ashamed of.

  The UN is a huge blundering organization that has had its high and low points, failures and successes like any other organization, but it is directly responsible over its lifetime for the saving of millions of lives. William Jacob's book 'The Search For Peace - The Story Of The United Nations' is an excellent documentary of the history of the UN. It differs of course from the WTS and neo-con American view but it, at least, is accurate!

  The main problem with the UN is it is so large that it is slow. It reacts too slowly in emergency situations and can be confounded in its aims by rogue members, like Israel and the US and China who in the former pay no attention to UN resolutions and in the latter tend to veto anything that are not in its direct interests.

  The ICC has no such issues, because unlike Burn The Ships complete and utter misunderstanding of its methodology, it does NOT rely on a voting consensus to take action. Members cannot disqualify operations against a target the reason being that it is a LEGAL institution set up to deal with LEGAL infringments. Unlike the UN it only deals with laws, not opinions, agendas or huge political obstacles. Both these organizations do a worthy job, and the world is a better place because of them. However, they are very, very different institutions.

  I have great faith that in the years ahead the ICC will bring to justice many of the political and military criminals that pepper the world. The US, China, Russia, Cuba and few other countries have abstained from membership. One needs to ask why they would, given the very limited powers that the ICC, unlike the UN, has to interfere a nations politics (not its function) of a nation.

  HS
• 

  BurnTheShips

  Two fools that cannot have their assumptions challenged.

  The one mischaracterizes the argument, and withdraws in a huff.

  The other goes into yet another tirade, to the point of calling me a liar, among other things.

  HS, I am fortunate to be an ocean away and that you posting anonymously, I would be sorely tempted to let you feel my gentle fist otherwise.

  BTS
• 

  hillary_step

  Burn,

  Two fools that cannot have their assumptions challenged.

  Yes, I am quite sure that those who read your feeble attempts at ducking for cover on this thread will agree with you, the problem is that the two fools are not the ones that you have in mind.

  The one mischaracterizes the argument, and withdraws in a huff.

  On the contrary Burn, again those who are foolish enough to waste their time reading this thread will note than in actuality it is yourself who has mischaracterized the argument. It does not take much of a brain to see what you are playing at here. Hamil has done the decent thing and withdrawn from a futile battle, I am anything but decent, as you know.

  The other goes into yet another tirade, to the point of calling me a liar, among other things.

  Well, you came on this Board as Burn The Ships and wrote in your introductory thread, 'This is my first post....". I later managed to enveigle from you, after much prodding I might add, that in actual fact Burn the Ships was your second identity on this Board. Perhaps I have mischaracterized this lie.

  HS, you are fortunate to be an ocean away and posting anonymously, I would be sorely tempted to let you feel my gentle fist otherwise.

  Are you threatening me with physical violence kid? Not a terribly good idea I assure you.

  HS
• 

  Crumpet

  Crumpet,

  I think individual countries/member states need to retain some kind of autonomy and that this kind of abuse of anti terror laws in the wake of 9/11 to maintain political diplomacy is a violation of human rights in itself. It needs to be challenged.

  This is an interesting point.

  Thank you HS. You see - you aren't all 'indecent' after all, and I'm not just hot-air-between-the-ears....though mostly I confess.

  I shall continue to waste my time reading this thread, because I like a lovely lively debate.
• 

  BurnTheShips

  Whether or not you agree with HS this is uncalled for

  It is absolutely not uncalled for. IT has nothing to do with disagreement. That "man" would never use that language against me in my presence. If he did, I would be sorely tempted to knock sense into him. That is all.

  BTS
• 

  llbh

  That "man" would never use that language against me in my presence.

  BTS

  How do you know? And if he did would you resort to violence? If so you need help in many ways.

  In my country we believe in free expression without fear of violence and we believe in the rule of law

  David