The Lefty Boom

Craven

Your comments are fair enough and you have defined my posts and my reactions to certain other posts very accurately. I do love to play devil's advocate quite often just to counterbalance a couple of raging lefties.

I have nothing but contempt for extremism on either side. When you go beyond youthful idealism on the left into advocating anarchy and communism that is destructive extremism ---- thats why I have absolutely nothing but contempt for the political Chomsky and Gore Vidal. On the right----when you go beyond maintaining a strong military and the will to use that military in what the elected officials of the gov't consider the best interests of this country. When you go beyond social disagreement into bigotry and destructive hateful prejudice then that's extremism on the right. Both extremes right or left are destructive to this country and it's citizens.

Extremism and fanaticism should not be tolerated but how do you prevent them when the left will shout freedom of speech and freedom of expression are being lost. A surviving society must learn how to deal with extremism and fanaticism.
I'm in favor of the ACLU----as long as they represent all of society and not just the left as they appear to do now.

The idealism of the left is wonderful in a perfect world-----trouble is we live in a world that is bigoted, cruel, unjust , unfair, and uncivilized so I believe idealism has it's place but in most cases it should be put on the shelf for a while and real solutions should be put into play.

Take for example the ICC----now this has a grand objective of punishing all the truly despotic criminals in the world. Right now we have the World court in the Hague where they are trying to prosecute Slobodan Milosevic--it's very slow but it's working. What will the ICC do any differently. IMO opinion the only thing it will do is employ an army of attorneys and judges with an even bigger army of supporting staff. The first thing you must do before you can prosecute someone is apprehend them. Who is apprehending Taylor of Liberia? Who apprehended Idi Amin who lived in exile until he just died.

Every country has it's own judicial system---you all want the ICC to prosecute war criminals and I suspect you all would want GWB as the first to put on trial for illegally starting the war in Iraq----you would want this even before prosecuting Saddam. What you are saying by advocating signing on to the ICC is that our judicial system is not capable of prosecuting our own war criminals. What about LT. Calley of Mi Lai? In the same breath you will want a force to apprehend every war criminal that is indicted.
The UN will say AAAAhhhh we are fresh out of apprenhenders----why don't you do it USA?

Since we have declined to sign on to the idea of the ICC we are undermining the ICC-----why do we need it?
All it will do is make it easier for the political activists of the world to initiate frivolous suites against anyone they want to embarrass or perform character assassination on. It will become a political tool for every intransigent rogue nation in the world and some not so "Rogueish"

Instead let's apprehend the known practitioners of genocide and mass murder of which there are many roaming free in the world and try them in the Hague. We don't need a bigger and better circus.

0 Replies

You focused a lot on the ICC. Frankly i think it is the best international body we have produced and, no, I do not want to try Bush there.

I think Saddam might be a good start.

0 Replies

Dlowan wrote:

No, he wasn't - I just chose to ignore it!!!!! Twisted Evil

Gee bunny that was a nasty little face----what happened to your cigarette? Laughing

0 Replies

0 Replies

But Craven----please tell me why we need another court when we have the international court at the Hague.

0 Replies

Things like jurisdiction and such. The Hague only works with a war. I believe that the ICC could be used for things like Pakistan catching Osama and realizing that Osama hasn't clearly broken their laws and that the current political climate would make his trial there dangerous.

If Saudi Arabia then refused to prosecute him the ICC would ahve jurisdiction.

The Hague's jurisdiction seems to only be secured by warfare, but I need to study a bit more before I can state that as a rule.

0 Replies

Very complex topic of study, Crave -- most experts don't seem to be able to figure it all out.

0 Replies

Perception - who is the "you" who you say would wish to prosecute Bush before Saddam Hussein?

(The nasty face? For thinking we are fur brains! LOL!)

0 Replies

Dlowan
I well remember a flurry of extremism from the left prior and during the war comparing Bush to Hitler with narry a mention of Saddam being a mass murderer. Not from you Bunny but from the extreme left on this thread.

0 Replies

as you seem to think i am the main extreme left and i have never mentioned anything of the sort, i wonder just what you mean perception?

0 Replies

Disagreeing with Bush does not mean one favours Saddam. The Bush-Hitler parrallels are out there for all to see.

0 Replies

Craven

Why would the Court in the Hague be called the international Court if it didn't have jurisdiction all over the world.

I think the key is ---who does the indicting and then who actually has the will to do the apprehending.

0 Replies

I agree that thise two things are the most critical. That's one reason I like the less nebulous jurisdiction and implementation of the ICC.

It is young but if it can survice the American onslaught I think it will be a lasting institution.

0 Replies

perception wrote:

Why would the Court in the Hague be called the international Court if it didn't have jurisdiction all over the world.

History, perception, just and only history:

Quote:

The history of the Court traces back to 1899, when the first Hague Peace Conference was convened on the initiative of Tsar Nicholas II. The conference decided to establish a Permanent Court of Arbitration, to be based in The Hague. Later, in 1913, the Court took up residence in the Peace Palace (Vredespaleis) endored by Andrew Carnegie. It was not a court in the conventional sense, but was composed of experts in public international law appointed by the governments of the participating states. Its purpose was to mediate in conflicts between states that could not be settled through diplomatic channels. In 1922, the existing Permanent Court of Arbitration was joined by a new body established by the League of Nations, the Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ). As the foundation of the United Nations got under way in 1945, the establishment of an International Court of Justice (ICJ) was agreed, which would continue residing at the Peace Palace in The Hague. The ICJ came into operation in 1946, and its Statutes form part of the Charter of the United Nations.

The International Court of Justice in The Hague is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations (as laid down in Article 92 et seq. of its Charter). As such, it fulfils two functions: to decide on legal disputes between states, and to provide advisory opinions on questions of law presented to it by authorized international organizations. Only states may be parties in the cases brought before the Court.

And, when you read the last sentence, you'll find the most approiate answer to your question: only states can be brought to this court.

I sometimes think, too, that you (re-)act as a kind of advocatus diaboli.
Perhaps, you'll try be that to force others to do some further researches etc.

On the other hand, I think, it's a kind of 'foolish', to call e.g. a conservative government "left", because you don't like the country (France) and to agree with a strong left one (UK), because it's fits yourideas of allies.
(Or do you agree with:

Quote:

???]

Since you didn't answer my previous question about France, here's a summary of the political parties, forming the actual government and the presidency:

Quote:

THE UNION FOR FRENCH DEMOCRACY (UDF)
The UDF was formed in 1978 as an alliance of the Republican party (PR) and several small groups that advocated a move toward the political center. The Republican leader, Giscard d'Estaing, was president of France in the 1970s, and the party drew much of its strength from his personality. The centrist federation recently united in coalition with the RPR, and the coalition managed to defeat the Socialists soundly in the parliamentary elections of 1993.

THE RALLY FOR THE REPUBLIC (RPR)
The RPR was originally the Gaullist party, formed around the charisma of strong man Charles De Gaulle after his return to power in 1958. Although parties of the right are ideologically distinct from parties on the left, the Gaullist party is an excellent example of the factional nature of French parties based on loyalty to individual leaders. De Gaulle disdained political parties and had little to do with the founding of the party, but his prime minister, Georges Pompidou, encouraged a more carefully organized political party based on Gaullist principles of strong executive leadership, opposition to big government and socialism, control of budget deficits, and limits to the power of bureaucracy. The party rapidly gained support and survived De Gaulle's retirement when Pompidou became President of France. In 1974 the party was reorganized as the RPR under the leadership of Jacques Chirac who later became Prime Minister and eventually President in 1995. The party lost popularity during the 1980s as the Socialists gained power, but recently has regained strength in the parliamentary elections of 1993 and presidential election of 1995 at least partially because of its successful coalition with the UDF.

source: Open Directory Project, dmoz.org

0 Replies

Walter wrote:

Only states may be parties in the cases brought before the Court.

Good research Walter but you forgot to mention how it is that Slobodan Milosovic is now being tried for War Crimes-----he is an individual not a state.

0 Replies

perception

You are not sooo stupid as you want to appear, are you?

The trial against Milosevic et. al. are at the ICTY - International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslawia.

0 Replies

PODHORETZ has just written a little self aggrandizing commercial for the masters he serves, when you look right at it. Is that a surprise coming from a Fox employee? Confused

0 Replies

Walter -- I think Devil's Advocate is a perfect description of Perc's ambition; though he'd be under constant threat of disbarment by da boss... After all, a devil's advocate needs to be convincing... That's the problem...!

0 Replies

My mistake Walter----since the trial of Milosevic is located in the Hague I believed it to be a part of the IJ Court. The fact that the trial for Milosevic was established merely supports my contention that the recently established ICC is not needed.

The following is an excerpt from a book that deals with past and present prosecution of those indicted of war crimes:

"Noting the difficulties of war crimes trials, Bass says that there are indeed grave risks in carrying them out. They rely on foreign political will and military force. They also can interfere with substantive justice through technical acquittals or spark nationalist backlash in a defeated country".

This little paragraph identifies the substantial problems involved with apprehending and prosecuting indicted war criminals much better than I could. Please note the emphasis of the reliance on "FOREIGN POLITICAL WILL AND MILITARY FORCE.(sorry for the shouting).

I believe Charles Taylor of Liberia has been indicted for crimes against humanity and perhaps other crimes. Please give me your sequence of events and by whom to bring Mr Taylor to justice and prosecuted by the ICC

I realize that " War Crimes" trials do not tell the whole story about international criminals---- there is genocide and other crimes against humanity----but the problem still remains----who will indict these people and then apprehend them? How will the ICC change that?

Since the 402-page book was published late last year by Princeton University Press, it has earned favorable reviews in publications such as The New York Times Book Review, The New Yorker, The New York Review of Books, The Washington Post Book World, The Economist, Foreign Affairs and The New Republic. For more information, visit this Web site http://www.pupress.princeton.edu/titles/6925.htm
l

0 Replies

Walter wrote:

You are not sooo stupid as you want to appear, are you?

And this type of language fosters civil debate? Could this be just another example of liberals talking out of both sides of their mouth? I think most participants are fed up with ad hominems on both sides. Of course I would never expect such a learned gentleman such as you to admit a mistake or apologize. More likely just another example of "human nature"---see below.

0 Replies

The Lefty Boom

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know