I doubt most Europeans, Africans, Canadians, Russians, Japanese, etc., know or care what the ICC is. It's immaterial.
It's whether or not the governments of those countries understand what it's about and whether or not it is in their countries best interests to be involved in such a charade as the ICC.
georgeob1 wrote:dagmaraka wrote:Most Americans, on average, have no clue what ICC is.
How well do you know it? Do 'most Europeans' know any better?
"Most Americans" clearly understand that government depends on the consent of the governed - the fundamental principle of our democracy. We don't consent to the ICC.
<edited for clarity>
But we don't elect our courts (some judges yes, but not all). A court system is not meant to be a democratic institution. If it were so, we would not have courts at all but continue with lynch parties and whatnot.
'We'? I know many Americans that indeed do. I cannot vouch for this, I saw no public opinion results, but back at home there is certainly way more debate and coverage about ICC than I have encountered here. Just my impression. It is good to be well informed, or at least somewhat informed about something before it's rejected. I studied ICC quite a bit, it is in my field.
Gotta go to work now, back later.
Quote:Mostly I value democracy. I don't consent to being ruled or judged by others, not democratically accountable to me. I am willing to fight to preserve that. I think this point is one in which, on average, Americans differ from Europeans.
This is key, I think.
Europeans seem to want to hand everything to the government to solve.
Americans, on the other hand, see both the need
and the dangers of using government to solve problems.
JustWonders wrote:This is key, I think.
Europeans seem to want to hand everything to the government to solve.
Americans, on the other hand, see both the need and the dangers of using government to solve problems.
No offense, but that's bunk. I would say that Europeans see the value of cooperation and feel a greater responsibility for bringing less industrialized countries under the rule of law.
FreeDuck wrote:georgeob1 wrote:dagmaraka wrote:Most Americans, on average, have no clue what ICC is.
How well do you know it? Do 'most Europeans' know any better?
"Most Americans" clearly understand that government depends on the consent of the governed - the fundamental principle of our democracy. We don't consent to the ICC.
<edited for clarity>
But we don't elect our courts (some judges yes, but not all). A court system is not meant to be a democratic institution. If it were so, we would not have courts at all
but continue with lynch parties and whatnot.
[/b]
The last bolded quote can be used to answer the last post written by JW.
FreeDuck wrote:JustWonders wrote:This is key, I think.
Europeans seem to want to hand everything to the government to solve.
Americans, on the other hand, see both the need and the dangers of using government to solve problems.
No offense, but that's bunk. I would say that Europeans see the value of cooperation and feel a greater responsibility for bringing less industrialized countries under the rule of law.
No offense taken. I would say there are a couple of developing stories that will shed light on this discussion. :wink:
FreeDuck wrote:
But we don't elect our courts (some judges yes, but not all). A court system is not meant to be a democratic institution. If it were so, we would not have courts at all but continue with lynch parties and whatnot.
I don't know where you live or what is your understanding of criminal matters, but in our legal system for criminal offenses Judges preside over trials, but do not pass judgements. Judgements are reserved for juries of one's peers. Moreover the judges are subject to judicial review and either elected or confirmed by democratic processes - not appointed by committees of various governments.
Not all trials are by jury. It is a right, but not a necessity.
We also don't elect juries. They are chosen by judges and lawyers after being called to service pretty much randomly. They are not accountable if their decisions are wrong.
The points you make about judicial review are also relevant to the ICC. It's not a free-wheeling viligante court that is accountable to no-one.
What is your point????
The judicial procedures established for the ICC are more like those that prevail in cintinental Europe than those in the English system which we use. There are significant differences, though you appear to be arguing otherwise.
Besides the question is moot. The United States is not a signatory to the Treaty of Rome establishing the ICC. The treaty has not been reviewed and ratified by our Senate and it therefore does not apply to us - notwithstanding the claims of signatory nations that it does indeed apply - merely because they said so. Indeed this involuntary jurisdiction was one of the central reasons for our rejection of this ill-conceived treaty. (Our negotiations had been at an impasse for some time when, perhaps impulsively, President Clinton initialled the treaty late in his second term. He never bothered to submit it to Congress for ratification, and it is exceedingly unlikely that the U.S. Senate would ever ratify such a treaty -under any circumstances. President Bush rejected the treaty soon after he took office. For the U.S. it is a dead letter.)
Our government has attempted to evade confrontations over the matter through bilateral arrangements with signatory nations. Perhaps some day there will come a confrontation in which the ICC will arrest and/or claim jurisdiction over some official of our government. We shall see what unfolds. By our law and historical tradition we should consider such an action a hostile act meriting retaliation. We fought a revolution to achieve self-governance and escape the authoritarian rule of Europeans. There is no reason to reverse that now.
FreeDuck wrote:JustWonders wrote:This is key, I think.
Europeans seem to want to hand everything to the government to solve.
Americans, on the other hand, see both the need and the dangers of using government to solve problems.
No offense, but that's bunk. I would say that Europeans see the value of cooperation and feel a greater responsibility for bringing less industrialized countries under the rule of law.
It is true that Europeans have long shown a strong inclination to uplift the unfortunate peoples of other lands and impose their own superior laws and governance on lesser peoples. However that fact does not require that we subject ourselves to these inclinations. Indeed this country was founded by people seeking to escape just that. I think your concept of what constitutes bunk it a bit off. the mark
georgeob1 wrote:What is your point????
My current point is that which I wrote in my post a few posts up, that courts are not democratic institutions.
What's yours?
georgeob1 wrote:FreeDuck wrote:JustWonders wrote:This is key, I think.
Europeans seem to want to hand everything to the government to solve.
Americans, on the other hand, see both the need and the dangers of using government to solve problems.
No offense, but that's bunk. I would say that Europeans see the value of cooperation and feel a greater responsibility for bringing less industrialized countries under the rule of law.
It is true that Europeans have long shown a strong inclination to uplift the unfortunate peoples of other lands and impose their own superior laws and governance on lesser peoples. However that fact does not require that we subject ourselves to these inclinations. Indeed this country was founded by people seeking to escape just that. I think your concept of what constitutes bunk it a bit off. the mark
More bunk. Am I getting closer to the mark?
I think that the notion that the principal difference between Americans and Europeans is simply a matter of big government vs. small government is bunk. That's all I was saying. You are reading a little too much into it, I think.
georgeob1 wrote: We fought a revolution to achieve self-governance and escape the authoritarian rule of Europeans. There is no reason to reverse that now.
errr, wasn't it actually the Brits?
In which case, how does this
george said
Quote:The judicial procedures established for the ICC are more like those that prevail in cintinental Europe than those in the English system which we use.
assist in any point you're trying to make?
georgeob1 wrote:It is true that Europeans have long shown a strong inclination to uplift the unfortunate peoples of other lands and impose their own superior laws and governance on lesser peoples.
and this is different from the current U.S. plan for Iraq how?
(assuming that anyone thinks Iraquis are lesser peoples)
Yes a bit different. We do plan to leave. We had to fight hard to get rid of the British.
georgeob1 wrote:Yes a bit different. We do plan to leave. We had to fight hard to get rid of the British.
You don't think the Iraquis are fighting hard to get rid of you?
Some Iraquis. Others are like the UEL.
The fighters are not all Iraqis and most Iraqis are not fighting.
