2
   

US must accept the International Court of Justice!

 
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Sep, 2006 12:04 am
Re: US must accept the International Court of Justice!
Solve et Coagula wrote:
For the sake of International Human rights, the US and all other countries must accept the International Court of Justice... otherwise there is no guarantee that torture and other acts against humanity will be stopped!!!

What do you think?

best wishes from Switzerland

What the hell are " International Human rights " ?

The US are sovereign and will remain so.

We will not accept any alien control.
David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Sep, 2006 12:07 am
joefromchicago wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
I believe the US has told the ICC to "suck it."

Not in so many words (although John Bolton may have said that recently -- I don't know), but then the real question isn't whether the US has told the ICC to "suck it," but rather whether the US should tell the ICC to "suck it."

It SHUD,
and we shud withhold financial support
from the UN and evict them from America.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Sep, 2006 05:20 am
Re: US must accept the International Court of Justice!
OmSigDAVID wrote:
Solve et Coagula wrote:
For the sake of International Human rights, the US and all other countries must accept the International Court of Justice... otherwise there is no guarantee that torture and other acts against humanity will be stopped!!!

What do you think?

best wishes from Switzerland

What the hell are " International Human rights " ?


They are another way of referring to "natural rights" or "God-given rights".

The terms are interchangeable.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Sep, 2006 08:03 am
Re: US must accept the International Court of Justice!
OmSigDAVID wrote:
What the hell are " International Human rights"?

The rights the US chose, over the objections of its allies, as the legal basis for trying and convicting the Nazi leadership of Germany. America's World War II allies would all have preferred a quick and simple court martial.

OmSigDAVID wrote:
The US are sovereign and will remain so.

While that's true, America chose in 1946, as a souvereign nation, to author, ratify, and push other countries to ratify, the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Hence, the US is bound by its own treaty now. This is entirely consistent with America's souvereignity.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Sep, 2006 03:03 pm
Re: US must accept the International Court of Justice!
Thomas wrote:
OmSigDAVID wrote:
What the hell are " International Human rights"?

The rights the US chose, over the objections of its allies, as the legal basis for trying and convicting the Nazi leadership of Germany. America's World War II allies would all have preferred a quick and simple court martial.
In other words,
Roosevelt 's minions did whatever they felt like doing,
and used brute force to impose it.



OmSigDAVID wrote:
The US are sovereign and will remain so.

While that's true, America chose in 1946, as a souvereign nation, to author, ratify, and push other countries to ratify, the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Hence, the US is bound by its own treaty now. This is entirely consistent with America's souvereignity.

Thank u.
It is good to encounter someone who is able to reason.

Perhaps we shud reconsider partcipation in that treaty.
David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Sep, 2006 03:07 pm
Re: US must accept the International Court of Justice!
oralloy wrote:
OmSigDAVID wrote:
Solve et Coagula wrote:
For the sake of International Human rights, the US and all other countries must accept the International Court of Justice... otherwise there is no guarantee that torture and other acts against humanity will be stopped!!!

What do you think?

best wishes from Switzerland

What the hell are " International Human rights " ?


They are another way of referring to "natural rights" or "God-given rights".

The terms are interchangeable.

Thank u, Oralloy.
Thay shud use THOSE terms.
As far as I can see,
EVERY right is a human right.
David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Sep, 2006 03:10 pm
Re: US must accept the International Court of Justice!
Thomas wrote:
OmSigDAVID wrote:
.


If I may inquire, Thomas:
is German a fonetic language ?

In other words,
is it spelled the same way that it is pronounced ?
David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Sep, 2006 11:07 am
I must add
that the international court shud be ended,
in that it constitutes a dangerous step toward
a one-world government that wud inevitably
degenerate into a despotism because of the
fundamental nature of human psychology
( the psychology of politicians ).

Because of technological innovations of
microsurveillance, on land and from above,
as well as more powerful weapons
that r now available to the most modern armies,
overthrowing that government wud be impossible.
It wud be like our grandchildren living under
communism or nazism FOREVER.
In effect,
we wud be the ancestors of the Borg.


The way to avoid this while we still have the opportunity
to do so, is to be acutely aware of the adversarial nature
of the relationship between government and the individual
and continually resist expansion of government jurisdiction.

David
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Sep, 2006 12:53 pm
Re: US must accept the International Court of Justice!
OmSigDAVID wrote:
If I may inquire, Thomas:
is German a fonetic language ?

For the most part, it is. Certainly more so than English, though probably less so than Italian and Spanish.

OmSigDAVID wrote:
I must add that the international court shud be ended, in that it constitutes a dangerous step toward a one-world government

Suppose America had already renounced the treaty. On what basis could it invade Iraq and try Saddam Hussein in court? (I assume that, unlike me, you were in favor of the invasion.)
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Sep, 2006 02:30 pm
Re: US must accept the International Court of Justice!
Thomas wrote:
OmSigDAVID wrote:
If I may inquire, Thomas:
is German a fonetic language ?

For the most part, it is. Certainly more so than English, though probably less so than Italian and Spanish.
Thank u for that information, Thomas.

OmSigDAVID wrote:
I must add that the international court shud be ended, in that it constitutes a dangerous step toward a one-world government

Suppose America had already renounced the treaty.

On what basis could it invade Iraq and try Saddam Hussein in court?
(I assume that, unlike me, you were in favor of the invasion.)

I supported the 2nd invasion
because Bush was too stupid to finish the job the first time,
leaving intact a homicidal maniac with a grudge against us,
and vast oil wealth with which to make the necessary arrangements
to wreak wicked vengeance upon us, when he got around to it.

I expected that at some uncertain time in the future,
he 'd do something like sail a little boat toward a major American
port city ( like mine, for example ) and detonate it either remotely
or on a timer. One Pearl Harbor was enuf; I don 't feel a need
for nuclear Pearl Harbors.

With all respect, u had no reason to be ill-at-ease
regarding Saddam, as he was indifferent toward Germany
( so far as I am aware ). U did not throw him out of Kuwait; we DID.
I don 't think he liked that; ( his ex-mistress told of how he WEPT
over his military misadventures in Kuwait, at our hands ).



As to the treaty:
we have waged many wars during the last 200 years of American history.
So far as I know, we did not need that treaty for any of them.
A decision by the President with Congressional support
was all that was required to get the job done.

In regard to TRYING him,
possibly we might have treated him the same as Manuel Noriega,
or we cud simply have killed him as part of the war.
Indeed, W made several unsuccessful attempts
to bomb Saddam to death, during the war.


In any event, ( reiterating my thoughts of an earlier post )
this court represents a dangerous step toward
a ONE-WORLD GOVERNMENT, which wud inevitably
degenerate into a successful and permanent despotism,
of progresively more totalitarian dimensions,
beyond our present ability to imagine,
simply because they 'd be ABLE to do it,
and future politicians ( possibly not yet born )
wud choose to remake the society of the world
in the image of their own philosophy,
as did Stalin, Hitler, and the Japanese.

This is, and has always been, basic human nature
and future politicians can be trusted to fulfill it,
if they possibly CAN.
In the past,
it was difficult enuf to stop this by overthrowing
such governments which had weapons inferior
to what the evolution of technology will give them,
and inferior means of surveilling and controlling
their subject populations.
With new techniques of microsurveillance,
and those which will undoubtedly be invented in the future,
overthrowing such governments will be IMPOSSIBLE.

When my country got started,
in support of ratifying the Constitution,
it was argued that if the citizens did not like
government under this system,
they had enuf power in their own hands
to overthrow the government,
and in this spirit,
the First Congress in 1789,
capped the maximum size of the US Army
at 840 men; ( Congress has since changed its mind about that )
whereas citizens' private militia were estimated at 500, 000.

Accordingly, the argument of the Federalists
was essentially: * try it; u 'll LIKE it; if not, u can remove it. *
That is no longer true.
I see from the Military Channel on Time-Warner Cable
that our soldiers are almost about to be provided with
bulletproof body armor and soon they will have machine guns
that, from many gun barrels, can fire a million rounds per minute.

That 's fine against fanatical, deranged Moslems overseas,
but in the face of such armament in the hands of government,
how can we POSSIBLY overthrow the government ??
I do not believe that we can,
tho this was a cornerstone of the Republic,
as set forth by the Founders in the Federalist Papers.

So if government decides on no more elections,
then we can only say: OK, no elections.
U just anything u want with us, government;
from now on, the people will exist for the benefit of government.

I hope u will forgive my rambling.

The subject of living in personal freedom
is one that I deem to be of great importance.
David
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 10/19/2019 at 01:25:01