It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

UN criminal court ( waste of time? )

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 29 2004 @ 12:36 PM
link   
since most countries have their people imune to the world court of justice
( or what ever its called )

is it worth having around?




posted on Nov, 29 2004 @ 12:40 PM
link   
Is having a body that overrides the sovereignty of other nations a good idea? Can you guarantee me that a "World Court" would do things as the saying goes "Straight down the middle" or would their decisions be impacted based on the beliefs of the nation each Judicial officer is from?

Additionally, this planet does not consist of one culture. There are things that people in Africa or the Middle East do that I as an American find unacceptable and vice versa. I have no right to "judge" their culture and they have no right to "judge" mine. They might consider my watching TV to be a crime. Does that make it one? They might beat the hell out of someone who shoplifted, whereas we might let him off with a slap on the wrist. Who's to decide? We're all different.

The odds of having a completely politically neutral and untainted body that is able to blindly judge people worldwide are slim to none.

[edit on 11-29-2004 by Djarums]



posted on Nov, 29 2004 @ 01:08 PM
link   
Djarums, the same irrational type of arguments cold be mounted against any other court. Are you an ennemy of state-inforced legal system ? Do you prefer the mob justice currently ruling among nations ? And why ?



posted on Nov, 29 2004 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Are you an ennemy of state-inforced legal system ?


The two issues have nothing to do with each other. A state should enforce what goes on in that state. The appointed agents of other states should not. If you can give me an answer to the questions I stated above, then I would be more inclined to accept the full establishment of such a court. I have not yet seen answers to those questions though.



posted on Nov, 29 2004 @ 03:47 PM
link   
well if you think geneva conventions should not be applied then yes it is a waste of time but if you do then it is not. yet america wont let anyone near its troops because oh no they wont let them be judged by their peers.
also this whole diffrent laws thing is stupid. we are talking about a court for terrorists and such. now you cant say that terrorists are not hunted.



posted on Nov, 29 2004 @ 03:54 PM
link   
It would seem that an International Court has the role of administering international laws to which participants subscribe. Quite simple really.

Participation or non-participation in their own right are indications of the position of a government (not necessarily the prevailing opinion of a nation's people).



posted on Nov, 29 2004 @ 03:58 PM
link   

now you cant say that terrorists are not hunted.


You would rely on this international court to prosecute "terrorists"? I don't think that's very bright. Why? Because some nations who might be involved in this court are sponsors of terrorism themselves. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter as everyone is oh so fond of saying. So then what? An attack on civilians takes place and one Judge calls it terrorism and another one calls it justified freedom fighting?

Maybe I need to write this in a hot pink size 72 font to clarify it for people. There is a difference between saying an International uber-authority courtroom is a bad idea and saying that I don't like justice.

Like I said again and again and again earlier, guarantee me a Judicial body that is untainted by politics, and unblemished by interests and prejudices and I will consider this point. Until then, this is a flawed proposal that will never work universally.

If you think this has anything to do with "America doesn't want to be inspected" or whatever, then I'm sorry but you're just not reading.

EDIT: As an additional note to reflect MA's post, I have no problem with there being an International body to deal with things like Maritime issues or perhaps border issues. But things such as prosecuting terrorists, or deeming someone's conflict legal or illegal based on the fact that your views don't mesh with theirs is not going to work.

[edit on 11-29-2004 by Djarums]



posted on Nov, 29 2004 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Djarums


You would rely on this international court to prosecute "terrorists"? I don't think that's very bright. Why? Because some nations who might be involved in this court are sponsors of terrorism themselves. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter as everyone is oh so fond of saying. So then what? An attack on civilians takes place and one Judge calls it terrorism and another one calls it justified freedom fighting?

thats one exsample, what about drug barons? warlords? sure its ok to slaughter 200 people in the name of freedom.



Maybe I need to write this in a hot pink size 72 font to clarify it for people. There is a difference between saying an International uber-authority courtroom is a bad idea and saying that I don't like justice.

hey dont bite my head off!


Like I said again and again and again earlier, guarantee me a Judicial body that is untainted by politics, and unblemished by interests and prejudices and I will consider this point. Until then, this is a flawed proposal that will never work universally.

soverign countries judges are EVEN MORE likely to be influenced by this than a random country.
every system is influenced no matter the size or level.


If you think this has anything to do with "America doesn't want to be inspected" or whatever, then I'm sorry but you're just not reading.

mabye you arent reading, your suggesting your own ally is out to get you.
your own allies that have lied and died for you.
im sorry but look at it clearer.


EDIT: As an additional note to reflect MA's post, I have no problem with there being an International body to deal with things like Maritime issues or perhaps border issues. But things such as prosecuting terrorists, or deeming someone's conflict legal or illegal based on the fact that your views don't mesh with theirs is not going to work.

there is an international law that was laid down, the rights of people is one of them, so your suggesting that its ok for people to be stamped and beaten if its in their country?



posted on Nov, 30 2004 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mokuhadzushi
Djarums, the same irrational type of arguments cold be mounted against any other court. Are you an ennemy of state-inforced legal system ? Do you prefer the mob justice currently ruling among nations ? And why ?


that's exactly the type of thing he was commenting against. in the US, courts have to follow the law, the law of the US, in other countries, the same, but between countries, laws are different and can be found disagreeable, and therefore, what is legal in one place may be illegal somewhere else. take gun ownership, for example. it is legal in the US to own handguns, it is not in some countries, what do you do if one person is accused of a crime by this central world court, when it is not illegal in his country? what do you do if the court decides your government is illegal or has committed crimes that they must go to trial for and your government disagrees? you see, there are no easy answers. a world court will only work when we are no longer human. when we live in a sterile, star-trek-type of world where everyone is nice to each other in fear of thinking the wrong thing and being disappearred for it.



posted on Nov, 30 2004 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by fledgling666

that's exactly the type of thing he was commenting against. in the US, courts have to follow the law, the law of the US, in other countries, the same, but between countries, laws are different and can be found disagreeable, and therefore, what is legal in one place may be illegal somewhere else. take gun ownership, for example. it is legal in the US to own handguns, it is not in some countries, what do you do if one person is accused of a crime by this central world court, when it is not illegal in his country? what do you do if the court decides your government is illegal or has committed crimes that they must go to trial for and your government disagrees? you see, there are no easy answers. a world court will only work when we are no longer human. when we live in a sterile, star-trek-type of world where everyone is nice to each other in fear of thinking the wrong thing and being disappearred for it.

so its ok for rape?
ok for pedofelia?
there can be no exceptions.



posted on Dec, 1 2004 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by fledgling666

that's exactly the type of thing he was commenting against. in the US, courts have to follow the law, the law of the US, in other countries, the same, but between countries, laws are different and can be found disagreeable, and therefore, what is legal in one place may be illegal somewhere else. take gun ownership, for example. it is legal in the US to own handguns, it is not in some countries, what do you do if one person is accused of a crime by this central world court, when it is not illegal in his country? what do you do if the court decides your government is illegal or has committed crimes that they must go to trial for and your government disagrees? you see, there are no easy answers. a world court will only work when we are no longer human. when we live in a sterile, star-trek-type of world where everyone is nice to each other in fear of thinking the wrong thing and being disappearred for it.

so its ok for rape?
ok for pedofelia?
there can be no exceptions.


what are you talking about?

i never said rape and pedophilia were ok or legal, so what's your point? what i am saying is that a world court shouldn't be the body deciding the outcome of a trial for said offenses. the individuals should be tried in their own country. evidence should be able to be shared between countries, but the job of the court system is to try the citizens of it's own country.



posted on Dec, 1 2004 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by fledgling666


what are you talking about?

well if one law is legal in one country but not legal all over the country makes it ok doesnt it?
using your logic.


i never said rape and pedophilia were ok or legal, so what's your point? what i am saying is that a world court shouldn't be the body deciding the outcome of a trial for said offenses. the individuals should be tried in their own country. evidence should be able to be shared between countries, but the job of the court system is to try the citizens of it's own country.

so what if one country sees it as fine to rape a young girl? its ok then?
if there is an international court where every country gets a say in a criminals crimes then it is fair. what happens if this person has killed someone in another country? its ok?



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join