wyly Posted September 25, 2011 Report Posted September 25, 2011 Yeah, why should the most educated, advanced, richest, and freest countries have more of a say than the inferior, racist(Israel), violent(Israel), primitive, uneducated and dictatorial countries. Who are we to judge that Canada is a superior country in every dimension when compared to Saudi Arabia, Rwanda, Kazakhstan or Israel? fixed it for ya... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
cybercoma Posted September 25, 2011 Report Posted September 25, 2011 Are we scrapping things like UNICEF, UNAIDS, IAEA, the World Health Organization, the International Criminal Court, and the World Food Programme, since they're part of the UN too? Quote
Smallc Posted September 25, 2011 Report Posted September 25, 2011 (edited) Are we scrapping things like UNICEF, UNAIDS, [world food program] I see no reason why other organizations couldn't handle that. IAEA, the World Health Organization, the International Criminal Court, since they're part of the UN too? They can all exist on their own, even the ones I addressed earlier. It's really the General Assembly that's the problem. Edited September 25, 2011 by Smallc Quote
wyly Posted September 25, 2011 Report Posted September 25, 2011 They can all exist on their own, even the ones I addressed earlier. It's really the General Assembly that's the problem.and what is this problem with the gm that has you all perturbed???... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
cybercoma Posted September 25, 2011 Report Posted September 25, 2011 and what is this problem with the gm that has you all perturbed???... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-15028776 Quote
Smallc Posted September 25, 2011 Report Posted September 25, 2011 and what is this problem with the gm that has you all perturbed???... Really? Really? Quote
cybercoma Posted September 25, 2011 Report Posted September 25, 2011 I don't know about Smallc, but my problem with GM is that their entry-level car can push $30,000 when you begin adding options to it. They've priced themselves out of the market. That's not to mention their questionable quality. Detroit is dead. Quote
Guest American Woman Posted September 25, 2011 Report Posted September 25, 2011 (edited) Are we scrapping things like UNICEF, UNAIDS, IAEA, the World Health Organization, the International Criminal Court, and the World Food Programme, since they're part of the UN too? The International Criminal Court should not be part of the UN. The other things you mention are appropriate, but it's not a legal system - nor should it be. All countries are not equally fit to make judgments, just as all jury candidates are not equally fit for jury duty. Edited September 25, 2011 by American Woman Quote
cybercoma Posted September 25, 2011 Report Posted September 25, 2011 Without an International Criminal Court, the Nazis would have never been put to trial for Crimes Against Humanity because they created the laws in their country and made it legal to exterminate the Jews, "Gypsies", homosexuals, political dissidents, etc. Quote
wyly Posted September 25, 2011 Report Posted September 25, 2011 Really? Really? really really is not an answer that works for me...so I'll assume you have nothing.... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
Guest American Woman Posted September 25, 2011 Report Posted September 25, 2011 Without an International Criminal Court, the Nazis would have never been put to trial for Crimes Against Humanity because they created the laws in their country and made it legal to exterminate the Jews, "Gypsies", homosexuals, political dissidents, etc. My comment was that it shouldn't be part of the U.N. - so scrapping the UN wouldn't mean scrapping the ICC. So really, that was my only point. Quote
wyly Posted September 25, 2011 Report Posted September 25, 2011 The International Criminal Court should not be part of the UN. The other things you mention are appropriate, but it's not a legal system - nor should it be. All countries are not equally fit to make judgments, just as all jury candidates are not equally fit for jury duty. the ICC is not part of the UN The ICC operates at the highest standard, someone who lives in a county that still has a death penalty, a country that doesn't punish war criminals, commits acts of terrorism, illegal wars has no business criticizing the ICC....oh! on 2nd thought you maybe right the US is not fit to take part in the international judicial system... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
Guest American Woman Posted September 25, 2011 Report Posted September 25, 2011 the ICC is not part of the UN Thanks for telling me what I already knew. Look back, I'm not the one who said it was - I'm the one who said it shouldn't be, so scrapping the UN wouldn't mean scrapping the ICC. :rolleyes: Quote
cybercoma Posted September 25, 2011 Report Posted September 25, 2011 (edited) the ICC is not part of the UN That's my mistake. I was under the impression that the ICC was part of the UN system. It's not and neither is INTERPOL. I thought via the Rome Statute it was, but this treaty recognized the CPI/ICC as independent. Edited September 25, 2011 by cybercoma Quote
wyly Posted September 25, 2011 Report Posted September 25, 2011 That's my mistake. I was under the impression that the ICC was part of the UN system. It's not and neither is INTERPOL. I thought via the Rome Statute it was, but this treaty recognized the CPI/ICC as independent. independent impartial and operating at the highest judicial standard possible anywhere...it's no wonder countries like the US, russia, israel and china want nothing to do with it wouldn't look good having their people charged with crimes against humanity or aggression.... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
cybercoma Posted September 25, 2011 Report Posted September 25, 2011 I don't think it has anything to do with them being "worried". There's a good philosophical reason not to support the CPI/ICC. The Court threatens the sovereignty and democracy of Nation-States by imposing a law external to their democratic institutions. It should only be used when the crimes are so heinous that they truly would be a crime against humanity, such as the systematic attempt to wipe out an entire culture or race. Quote
Scotty Posted September 25, 2011 Report Posted September 25, 2011 the israel, US, canadian right wing love the un when it benefits them Which is when, exactly? Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
Scotty Posted September 25, 2011 Report Posted September 25, 2011 democracys don't or shouldn't have veto's, it's not the poor and weak that have a veto in the UN An organization primarily made up of dictators can't be considered a democracy. Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
Scotty Posted September 25, 2011 Report Posted September 25, 2011 (edited) Without an International Criminal Court, the Nazis would have never been put to trial for Crimes Against Humanity because they created the laws in their country and made it legal to exterminate the Jews, "Gypsies", homosexuals, political dissidents, etc. You mean we would have had to shoot them under military law instead of hanging them under civilian law? Awwwwww. Edited September 25, 2011 by Scotty Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
cybercoma Posted September 25, 2011 Report Posted September 25, 2011 You mean we would have had to shoot them under military law instead of hanging them under civilian law? Awwwwww. Why even have criminal courts in Canada? We could just allow the cops to lock up anyone for life if they believe they've committed a crime. In the United States, jurisdictions that have the death penalty could just save money by allowing the cops to execute anyone they suspect of a capital crime. Quote
TimG Posted September 25, 2011 Report Posted September 25, 2011 There's a good philosophical reason not to support the CPI/ICC. The Court threatens the sovereignty and democracy of Nation-States by imposing a law external to their democratic institutions.Personally, I think people who think that the US and other democratic states should joing the ICC are naive because they assume they will always agree with its rulings. Courts should never be out of the the reach of democratic institutions. Quote
Guest American Woman Posted September 25, 2011 Report Posted September 25, 2011 I don't think it has anything to do with them being "worried". There's a good philosophical reason not to support the CPI/ICC. The Court threatens the sovereignty and democracy of Nation-States by imposing a law external to their democratic institutions. Agreed. Quote
wyly Posted September 25, 2011 Report Posted September 25, 2011 I don't think it has anything to do with them being "worried". There's a good philosophical reason not to support the CPI/ICC. The Court threatens the sovereignty and democracy of Nation-States by imposing a law external to their democratic institutions. It should only be used when the crimes are so heinous that they truly would be a crime against humanity, such as the systematic attempt to wipe out an entire culture or race. good reason? 118? countries and all the leading democracies are members and have no issues, there is no threat to sovereignty...avoiding ICC membership is all about non-members avoiding exposing themselves to criticism, being exposed for war crimes, crimes against humanity, crimes of aggression... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
Guest American Woman Posted September 25, 2011 Report Posted September 25, 2011 good reason? 118? countries and all the leading democracies are members and have no issues, there is no threat to sovereignty...avoiding ICC membership is all about non-members avoiding exposing themselves to criticism, being exposed for war crimes, crimes against humanity, crimes of aggression... Yes, good reasons. What the majority of countries do, whether they have issues or not, doesn't set the standard for "right" or "wrong;" nor is membership necessarily one or the other. We are not them, they are not us, so we don't all base our decisions on the same criteria - and the U.S. definitely doesn't base its actions on what the majority think/do. So speculate all you like, but your declaration that there are no issues, that there is no threat to their sovereignty, doesn't make it true. Quote
cybercoma Posted September 25, 2011 Report Posted September 25, 2011 good reason? 118? countries and all the leading democracies are members and have no issues, there is no threat to sovereignty...avoiding ICC membership is all about non-members avoiding exposing themselves to criticism, being exposed for war crimes, crimes against humanity, crimes of aggression... You're right. They can avoid criticism by not joining, but I'm not wrong about their reasons for not joining. Also, I'm not saying I support their reasons for not joining. The state is sovereign. If an organization that's outside of the nation-state is allowed to make decisions regarding the policies and decisions of that nation-state, then how is it not a threat to sovereignty? The very definition of sovereignty as that the state and only the state can make decisions regarding its own affairs. The CPI/ICC, for all of its good intentions, contradicts that sovereignty and says that there is a power outside of the sovereignty of the state that you have to answer to and that's the "global community". In my opinion, it serves an important purpose, as the example with the Nazis shows. If a state decides that it's going to create laws that allow them to systematically exterminate a particular race or culture, then that's a crime that affects the entire planet and the sovereignty of that state ought to be challenged. So, let's be clear that any decision or action by the CPI/ICC challenges the sovereignty of the states they indict. In some cases, there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. However, some States are philosophically opposed to this. The United States, given their revolutionary history, is the obvious example. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.