Irish History lesson
Salman bin Hamad
> On Thu, 06 Jun 2002 22:36:36 -0400, Power Ranger
> <Power...@wherever.whatever> wrote:
>
> >Jim Walsh wrote:
>
> >> Weird. Great Britain has abandoned the use of force as a tool for
> >> keeping Northern Ireland in the United Kingdom. Nothing would make
> >> Great Britain happier than to have Ireland united as one country.
> >
> >You got the whole cause-effect totaly wrong.
> >British military supress Northern Islander to such a degree that Northern Irelander can no longer
> >fight for their cause.
>
> Who exactly are "Northern Islander" or "Irelander"
The Rathlin dialect of Irish is possibly extinct and a dialect whether
it exists or not without an army is a waste of time as a national
patriotic notion, they might have a hotel though, that has to count
for something.
There is only one China under heaven and only one Ireland. Rathlin is
our Taiwan, we will take it by force if we have to. Rathlin Island is
the largest producer of OEM computer products in Ireland, or it might
be 'flints' I'm not sure. Cattle with sea sickness they have a
monopoly on more or less.
>
> No. BTW, Northern Ireland is ALREADY part of Great Britain. The
> question is whether it will STAY part of Great Britain, and the
> answer, long term, is NO.
Northern Ireland has never been part of Great Britain. Ireland has
never been part of Great Britain as it is commonly understood, the
concept of 'The British Isles' might work at a 'celtic' or cultural
level though.
The Scots, Welsh, Manx, Irish and the 'others' are not so alien as all
that. The English are a pain in the arse but they are not from Mars.
They might not be kin but they are kith.
Duke of URL
"Féachadóir" <Féach@d.óir> wrote in message
news:4409guc1gn7eu9d6e...@4ax.com...
> Scríobh Richard :
>
> >Hmm. There is far too much rubbish being posted here. Anybody looking
> >to try and understand the Northern Irish situation should look
> >elsewhere from this thread.
>
> Or indeed, from this newsgroup
Or from people who crosspost to totally unrelated uninvolved uninterested
newsgroups.
<Richard & Feechydor now Blocked...>
des Kaisers Haarpracht
wrote:
>Or from people who crosspost to totally unrelated uninvolved uninterested
>newsgroups.
><Richard & Feechydor now Blocked...>
That was indeed a good one.
Gavin Bailey
Robert, (Auld Bob), Peffers
"Richard" <rjb_u...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:617dfed5.02061...@posting.google.com...
> Hmm. There is far too much rubbish being posted here. Anybody looking
> to try and understand the Northern Irish situation should look
> elsewhere from this thread.
Div ye no ken wi aa maun bi oan ae Scots newsgroup ben this airt o thi wab?
Wir no wantin afu muckle o yir clishmaclaiver aboot Norn Iron nor, aiblins,
thi Republic naither ben oor ain newsgroup. Div ye no ken yir postin intil
soc.culture.taiwan,soc.culture.china,soc.culture.scottish iz weel iz
soc.culture.irish wi yir posts. Trim yir heiders min.
--
Aefauldlie, (Scots for Sincerely),
Auld Bob Peffers,
b...@peffers50.freeserve.co.uk
Web Site, *The Eck's Files*
http://www.peffers50.freeserve.co.uk/
Robert, (Auld Bob), Peffers
"Féachadóir" <Féach@d.óir> wrote in message
news:4409guc1gn7eu9d6e...@4ax.com...
> Scríobh Richard :
>
> >to try and understand the Northern Irish situation should look
> >elsewhere from this thread.
>
>
> An Féachadóir - Lig futh agus cluinfidh na clocha thú!
> Read the SCI FAQ: http://www.geocities.com/welisc/ifaq
Frae Auld Bob Peffers:
Aye! that maun bi whit Ah said ben anither threed.
KateH
> "Féachadóir" <Féach@d.óir> wrote ...
> > Scríobh Richard :
> > >Hmm. There is far too much rubbish being posted here. Anybody looking
> > >to try and understand the Northern Irish situation should look
> > >elsewhere from this thread.
> >
> > Or indeed, from this newsgroup
> > --
That maun bi tha threed where everybody else said........
"Wha?"
Kate(hiya there, Bob!)H :)
Sally
NI. I've read and read. When and why did it begin. Before the Lord
Protector Cromwell about 1604. One of the English kings wanted to
unite all of the isles into one country. The fact that he was more
than a little heavy handed trying to subdue to people of Ireland,
raised the anger to fever pitch and this one object has been going on
ever since. The Protestant Reformation and planting Protestants in one
small area in the NE corner of the country changed the on going battle
into a sectarian battle. There is more than a little inbred hatred at
work in the country. What is presented in American press is that the
English soldiery in NI is trying to separate the Protestant from the
Roman Catholic battlers from destroying each other. Never mind that
there are political groups who are fomenting the on going battles. So
how can it be stopped? Allow both sides an equal number of weapons in
a closed area and see who is the last man standing? No! Appeal to
their innate good sense? Haven't seen that has happened.
The battlers seem to enjoy the bloodshed. The general population is
the victim.
Every time someone from one side dies or is injured or property
destroyed, they blame the opposition and so it goes. I don't think
there is an answer. The only answer wold be both sides agree to the
only way of ending is by saying Ok, from here on we stop and mean it.
Can you see that happening?
Lachie Macquarie
<b8bcd929.02061...@posting.google.com> and displaying the
suave and sophisticated disposition of Archibald Leach, Sally
<esd...@worldnet.att.net> sgrìobh,
>"KateH" <hock...@innw.nospam.net> wrote in message
>news:<uga6sga...@corp.supernews.com>...
>> Robert, (Auld Bob), Peffers wrote
>> > "Féachadóir" <Féach@d.óir> wrote ...
>> > > Scríobh Richard :
>> > > >Hmm. There is far too much rubbish being posted here. Anybody looking
>> > > >to try and understand the Northern Irish situation should look
>> > > >elsewhere from this thread.
>> > >
>> > > Or indeed, from this newsgroup
>> > > --
>> > Aye! that maun bi whit Ah said ben anither threed.
>>
>> That maun bi tha threed where everybody else said........
>> "Wha?"
>> Kate(hiya there, Bob!)H :)
>I'm a Yank - trying to understand all that makes the problem today in
>NI. I've read and read. When and why did it begin. Before the Lord
>Protector Cromwell about 1604. One of the English kings wanted to
>unite all of the isles into one country.
This would be one year after the ascension to the throne of our very own
Jamsie the Sixth, the death of that fine English Queen, Elizabeth and
the Union of the Crowns?
>The fact that he was more
>than a little heavy handed trying to subdue to people of Ireland,
>raised the anger to fever pitch and this one object has been going on
>ever since. The Protestant Reformation and planting Protestants in one
>small area in the NE corner of the country changed the on going battle
>into a sectarian battle. There is more than a little inbred hatred at
>work in the country. What is presented in American press is that the
>English soldiery in NI is trying to separate the Protestant from the
>Roman Catholic battlers from destroying each other.
You would be correct in saying British soldiery, there have of course
been Welsh and Scots regiments serving in NI. Remember Britain does not
equate with England nor vice versa.
>Never mind that
>there are political groups who are fomenting the on going battles. So
>how can it be stopped? Allow both sides an equal number of weapons in
>a closed area and see who is the last man standing? No! Appeal to
>their innate good sense? Haven't seen that has happened.
>The battlers seem to enjoy the bloodshed. The general population is
>the victim.
>Every time someone from one side dies or is injured or property
>destroyed, they blame the opposition and so it goes. I don't think
>there is an answer. The only answer wold be both sides agree to the
>only way of ending is by saying Ok, from here on we stop and mean it.
>Can you see that happening?
--
Lachie Macquarie, Bod an Deamhan--smaoineachadh miannach.
Sally
Relative relationships between the parts of "Britian" It was James
VI/I who would like the whole of the islands to be Great Britian. It
may have come to pass by conquering and law, but from what I hear -
and I have been reminded more than once - each segment of the islands
is still their own entity, even though the Parliament is in London.
Now Scotland will soon have a fine new building for their Parliament.
Who is next? I do read!
Alan Smaill
> Relative relationships between the parts of "Britian" It was James
> VI/I who would like the whole of the islands to be Great Britian.
No -- he wanted the biggest island to be Great Britain.
The English parliament was not keen on this idea.
--
Alan Smaill email: A.Sm...@ed.ac.uk
Division of Informatics tel: 44-131-650-2710
Edinburgh University
Lachie Macquarie
Eh?
James was Scots not English.
Great Britain is and always will be, a geographical term for Wales,
England and Scotland, the island of Great Britain, great distinguishing
it from Brittany in France. Ireland could never be part of Great
Britain. It is, however, quite correct to describe GB and Ireland and
associated smaller islands as the British Isles.
It is not the English Army it is the British Army.
Who is next?????? I do read????????
Now where has Chutney Mary gone?
--
Lachie Macquarie,
Ni bhéarfainn broim dreólín ar dhuilleog cuillin agus is beag an puth gaoth é sin!
Sally
> esd...@worldnet.att.net (Sally) writes:
>
> > Relative relationships between the parts of "Britian" It was James
> > VI/I who would like the whole of the islands to be Great Britian.
>
> No -- he wanted the biggest island to be Great Britain.
>
> The English parliament was not keen on this idea.
Would you care to point me to something I can read on the subject. J.
D. Mackie is my source in my statement - did he abridge to go on to
other subjects?
Sally
Sally
Yes, James VI of Scotland "not yet 12 years old when he began his
active reign, early in 1578" his bracket dates are 1567-1625. James
was 21 in 1567 and that seems to be the date of his accession to the
English throne as James I. I am quoting J. D. Mackie "A History of
Scotland" (Penguin edition) beginning pg 164
Chutney Mary - "Grey's Chutney"? Mincemeat?
Your bourishness is lost, sorry "Old chap"
S Viemeister
> Yes, James VI of Scotland "not yet 12 years old when he began his
> active reign, early in 1578" his bracket dates are 1567-1625. James
> was 21 in 1567 and that seems to be the date of his accession to the
> English throne as James I. I am quoting J. D. Mackie "A History of
> Scotland" (Penguin edition) beginning pg 164
>
Are you _quite_ sure that's what Mackie says?
You have James being 'not yet 12 in 1578', then '21 in 1567' and seem to
claim 1567 as the year he became King of England! He took the throne of
England in 1603.
Alan Smaill
I'd think that Mackie knew what was going on, even if he wasn't clear.
The King James bible, published after James was King of England, has a
dedication to him as King of (Great?) Britain, Ireland, and France; so
that makes Ireland a separate kingdom from Britain.
This is also the title used in other places for the monarchs in the
17th century.
I like Michael Lynch's "Scotland: A new history", Pimlico 1991,
but it's not really explicit on this.
What about Linda Colley's "Britons"?
I haven't read it, but probably someone can tell us if it
says what "GB" meant at the time, as I'd expect.
Sally
Thank you Alan, If these books are only pubished over there, looks
like I would have to order them or see if I can find them when I'm
over there. Sally
Helen Ramsay
"Sally" <esd...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:b8bcd929.02061...@posting.google.com...
<snip>
> >
> > I like Michael Lynch's "Scotland: A new history", Pimlico 1991,
> > but it's not really explicit on this.
Scotland : a new history
by Michael Lynch
Out of Print--Limited Availability
From our Marketplace Sellers
Used: There are 5 used copies here
http://www.abebooks.com/ has 11 used copies
> >
> > What about Linda Colley's "Britons"?
> > I haven't read it, but probably someone can tell us if it
> > says what "GB" meant at the time, as I'd expect.
Also at www.amazon.com
Britons: Forging the Nation 1707-1837
by Linda Colley
List Price: $17.95
Our Price: $17.95
http://www.abebooks.com/ has 30 used copies available from various
places.
>
> Thank you Alan, If these books are only pubished over there, looks
> like I would have to order them or see if I can find them when I'm
> over there. Sally
As you can see Sally, you won't have to wait until you go over there:)
Cheers, Helen
Lachie Macquarie
<b8bcd929.02061...@posting.google.com> and displaying the
suave and sophisticated disposition of Archibald Leach, Sally
<esd...@worldnet.att.net> sgrìobh,
Sally, I find it very difficult to follow what your argument, your
assertions seems to contradict.
With the Union of the Crowns, when James was 38, he became King of
England and Wales, this was most definitely, 24 March 1603, I cannot
imagine Mackie getting that wrong? James was born in 1566 and became
King of Scots, in 1567 after his mother Mary, Queen of Scots was forced
to abdicate. Then Stirling, Buchanan and the Four Regents. He believed
completely in the Divine Right of Kings and was paid the most wonderful
of offhand compliments by Henri of Navarre, that he was the "wisest fool
in Christendom".
James did want the Scotland to be more fully integrated with England and
Wales, presumably that is your inference to Great Britain? However the
Scots hung onto their own parliament for another104 years.
Apologies for appearing boorish. My off hand reference was to my, then,
impending visit to Chutney Mary.
www.chutneymary.com
Rex fuit Elizabeth: nunc est regina Jacobus—"Elizabeth was King: now
James is Queen".
--
Lachie Macquarie,
"Norway, too, has noble wild prospects; and Lapland is remarkable for prodigious
noble wild prospects. But, Sir, let me tell you, the noblest prospect which a Scotsman
ever sees, is the high road that leads him to England!"
Robert, (Auld Bob), Peffers
It is rather like the Pres Bush war on, *Terrorism*, that a large chunk of
the World sees as a war against Islam. This effect is also seen in Israel
ATM too. I wonder if Pres Bush is ready to go down in history as the guy who
started several hundred years of killing? His latest granting of, what is
effectively, *Open Season*, on Sadam and Iraq is sure to help make it so.
Seriously though! Killing for revenge is guaranteed to kick off a cycle that
will repeat itself over and over again for a very long time. Sadly it could
all have been avoided by the use of the proper international court
proceedings. Instead of that we witness Bush pulling the USA out of these
international proceedings. That will just turn more people against the USA.
Sally
That is precisely what I'm very afraid of - that Our pres is not very
'smart' his speeches certainly show that! One thing to appeal to the
masses and another to make real decisions based upon knowledge - so
far hasn't appeared.
Tom Billings
> Frae Auld Bob Peffers:
> It is rather like the Pres Bush war on, *Terrorism*, that a large chunk of
> the World sees as a war against Islam.
As long as people are willing to believe that the most coarsely
extreme elements of any religion form the real image of that
religion, they'll agree with you. That would be like characterizing
Christianity in the light of the Bob Jones who led people to their
deaths in Jonestown, Guyana. Many moslems realize that the
islamists do not speak for them in matters of faith. That is why
many good moslems in Afghanistan readily support hunting the
wahabbi extremists from their country.
When the communications links to moslem countries multiply
beyond the ability of their governments to control information
flow, this will change regimes along with cultures. Not surprisingly,
both islamists, openly, and arab governments, covertly, work to
keep these links from developing.
Many on the left, here and in Europe, don't want to see this,
but others are coming around. It is notable that a few on the
left are now willing to oppose those intellectual freedoms they
often defended throughout the last 70 years, in order to oppose
the US. Habits are often indicative of true motivations. Their
choices give a good idea of what much of the 'leftover left'
really have had for motivations all along.
> This effect is also seen in Israel
> ATM too. I wonder if Pres Bush is ready to go down in history as the guy who
> started several hundred years of killing?
If we get good policy that acts in a manner consistent with
the expectations of the cultures we are facing (the only
unforgivable sin in the Middle East is weakness), while
defending the industrial freedoms the islamists have been
pounding away at for the last 12 years, (their bete noir
seems to be intellectual freedoms, though they dislike
free markets and democracy as well, whenever these in
turn support intellectual freedoms) we should wrap it up in
10 years or so. If we'd started in 1995, when we learned
who was behind the *first* WTC attack, we'd be much
farther along today. Bad vision in our leadership costs
both lives and dollars! If we lose focus, it could develop
into a 30 years war.
> His latest granting of, what is
> effectively, *Open Season*, on Sadam and Iraq is sure to help make it so.
The removal of another government which is now an islamist
sanctuary and provides funding and encouragement for those who
have struck both the US and our allies, is something the Arab nations
will expect of a superpower that is not weak. Again, in the Middle
East, the only unforgivable sin is weakness. Other states providing
sanctuary, such as Lebanon, today, will be given pause once Iraq's
regime is removed. I doubt each will go to the wire in defending
islamists as time goes on. Saadam will be another good object lesson.
> Seriously though! Killing for revenge is guaranteed to kick off a cycle that
> will repeat itself over and over again for a very long time.
If we were interested only in revenge, then we could simply use
nukes, and be done with it. Since we aren't interested in revenge,
we take a longer and more costly (to us) course. Remove the
governments of sanctuary states, and support those industrial
freedoms opposed by scriptural literalists. Note that our own
scriptural literalists are still going to be a problem, though a bit
weakened by the heaven sent gaffe Fallwell & Roberts made,
just after 9/11. That effect won't last forever, but it will keep them
from undercutting Bush for at least from 9/14 till December 2004.
> Sadly it could
> all have been avoided by the use of the proper international court
> proceedings.
We have no expectation of "proper" international court proceedings
in a world where jurists would be appointed by governments often
opposed to many of the industrial freedoms we defend.
> Instead of that we witness Bush pulling the USA out of these
> international proceedings. That will just turn more people against the USA.
The USA has *always* had most of the oligarchies of the world
at least looking sideways at it, even when we were told they wanted
to be friends. This is a normal condition for any State which defends
freedoms, which freedoms will undermine the positions of these
oligarchies. Both present oligarchs and would-be oligarchs on the
left have always been cool when we were focused, and brought
out the knives when we lose our focus on defending industrial freedoms.
Regards,
Tom Billings
Robert, (Auld Bob), Peffers
Wales and N. Ireland also have devolved parliaments. Only England is without
a parliament of her own and this is unlikely to happen soon. They, the
English, have attempted to hijack the UK parliament at Westminster as their
own and have even tried to stop UK MPs from Scotland taking part in debates
they considered to be English. There is no such thing as an , *English*,
only debate in the UK parliament. If it takes place at Westminster it is a
UK matter in the UK parliament. The reason we will not soon see an English
parliament is that England does not get a block grant for funding but is
funded as, *The UK*. This means she is able to overspend while everyone else
has to live within their block grant. It also means we all pay for UK
funding and thus we all subsidise England. We will not soon see an English
Parliament.
Robert, (Auld Bob), Peffers
> "Robert, \(Auld Bob\), Peffers" <b...@peffers50.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in
message news:<aet0tm$6n2$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk>...
> > "Sally" <esd...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> > news:b8bcd929.02061...@posting.google.com...
> > > "KateH" <hock...@innw.nospam.net> wrote in message
> > news:<uga6sga...@corp.supernews.com>...
> That is precisely what I'm very afraid of - that Our pres is not very
> 'smart' his speeches certainly show that! One thing to appeal to the
> masses and another to make real decisions based upon knowledge - so
> far hasn't appeared.
Let's face it the job of President depends on the advisors behind the
president. Bush seems to have a bunch of manipulators behind him. I do not
for one minute think the things he is doing are all his own ideas. Strikes
me that Rumsfeld has far too much pull and my opinion of him is rather low.
How can you place any trust in a guy who used, *The suspects*, and, *these
men are dangerous terrorists*, in the same sentence. Either they are
suspected terrorist or they are terrorists but they cannot be both. Rumsfeld
effectively convicted them as guilty men while calling them suspects. The
USA may be fooled but the rest of the World are not.
Don't get me wrong here for I am not D@ve. I am not saying the terrorists
should get off. What I am saying is that it is wrong to treat them as guilty
without a fair trial and it is wrong to label suspects as guilty.
Bush is just dim enough to allow such as Rumsfeld to manipulate him. There
are signs though that the USA is waking up to what is going on. Voices are
beginning to be raised.
MacRobert
paused to reflect but wrote anyway:
>On Thu, 20 Jun 2002 17:46:24 +0100, "Robert, \(Auld Bob\), Peffers"
><b...@peffers50.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Sadly it could
>>all have been avoided by the use of the proper international court
>>proceedings.
>
>I am appalled at the naivety of those who favor the idea of an international
>court under the management of the United Nations. Nothing -- not even
>Islamic fundamentalism -- threatens self-determination and individual
>freedoms more than the UN's attempt to establish One World Government by
>incrementally setting up the institutions that make it possible. You will
>rue the day the UN ever succeeds in extending its powers over your country
>and your personal freedoms.
>
>MacHamish Mór
Radical. Right-wing extremist. Anti-Progressive nationalist
reactionary obstructionist. The Raybanis have taken note...
Jim Walsh
> "MacHamish" <rus...@concentric.net> wrote in message
> news:s363iu03eakb7o7ai...@4ax.com...
> : On Thu, 20 Jun 2002 17:46:24 +0100, "Robert, \(Auld Bob\), Peffers"
> : <b...@peffers50.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> :
> : >Sadly it could
> : >all have been avoided by the use of the proper international court
> : >proceedings.
> :
> : I am appalled at the naivety of those who favor the idea of an
> : international court under the management of the United Nations.
> : Nothing -- not even Islamic fundamentalism -- threatens
> : self-determination and individual freedoms more than the UN's attempt
> : to establish One World Government by incrementally setting up the
> : institutions that make it possible. You will rue the day the UN ever
> : succeeds in extending its powers over your country and your personal
> : freedoms.
>
> I'm fairly concerned that many people, including President Bush have
> apparently misunderstood the nature and limitations of the International
> Criminal Court. If you'll bear with me, I'd like to quote the answers to
> concerns raised with the Prime Minister's official spokesman by
> journalists in the UK:
Bush opposes the new International Court because a substantial part of his
support comes from Know-Nothing, knee-jerk right-wingers. To them, as the
previous example shows, if it has something to do with the UN, it is
automagically bad.
I appreciate your posting Mr. Blair's relatively clear and wise words,
but they are not going to be persuasive to idiots who actually thing an
attack on American liberties by "black UN helicopters" is a plausible
possibility nor to Bush who is fully aware that his election and
re-election depends on support from those idiots.
> -------....
> Asked about the protection which British troops would be afforded, the
> PMOS said that they would be protected under the 'complimentarity
> principle'. That meant that where national law was judged to complement
> international law, then a case could be investigated and adjudicated at
> a national level rather than an international level. Consequently, if a
> country had a proper system for looking into cases and was able to
> adjudicate at a national level, then the ICC would not intervene.
BTW. I wish that the US had something to fear from a UN established
court, and that the US couldn't do anything to stop it.
For example, I wish Truman had been tried for the "Crime Against
Humanity" of dropping the second atomic bomb on Japan.
And I wish that Kissinger and Nixon had been tried for the Christmas
Bombing of North Vietnam.
Love, Jim
-----------== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----= Over 100,000 Newsgroups - Unlimited Fast Downloads - 19 Servers =-----
Mike MacKinnon
"MacRobert" <MacR...@th.hoose> wrote in message
news:3d21baf...@basic.bs.webusenet.com...
people, Dubya is now saying, 'We will kill anyone we like in any way we like
and if you don't like it, we'll kill you! And what's more, because we have
lots of weapons and a population of sheep, we will continue to do what the
hell we like without recompense!'
If the US is so convinced that it is the world's peacemaker, what are they
scared of? Do they feel that the War Crimes Tribunal should apply to
everyone except themselves, or is it that the US administration is quite
prepared to commit war crimes in pursuit of their goals.
I think we should be told!!
M
J.Rossa McMahon
> support comes from Know-Nothing, knee-jerk right-wingers. To them, as the
> previous example shows, if it has something to do with the UN, it is
> automagically bad.
stayed in the negotiations, as the US still does, just to try to influence
the ICC formation. He had little intention of having the Charter ratified at
home. Both were probably wise - witness many of the goings-on in Afghanistan
(e.g. 40 dead at a wedding). Now I'm not saying, with my little information
and no evidence, that the US soldiers involved were acting in a manner that
was completely unreasonable, but such military escapades leave themselves
open to charges at the ICC were it to have a vigorous prosecutor.
Nevertheless, Prof. Hilaire McCoubrey wrote an excellent article on the
defence of superior orders (ICLQ) in which he said that innocent mistakes,
or actions based on innocently-followed misinformation, would carry a
defence.
> BTW. I wish that the US had something to fear from a UN established
> court, and that the US couldn't do anything to stop it.
Also, Prof. Schabas (currently of NUI Galway) is one of the leading
academics on the ICC, human rights and Islamic jurisprudence. He noted, in
his book on the ICC, the irony that those involved in forming and ratifying
the Charter (e.g. Current signatories and the likes of the US and Israel)
are those least likely to ever be subject to its proceedings.
J.Rossa McMahon
"MacHamish" <rus...@concentric.net> wrote:
>> Nevertheless, Prof. Hilaire McCoubrey wrote an excellent article on the
>> defence of superior orders (ICLQ) in which he said that innocent mistakes,
>> or actions based on innocently-followed misinformation, would carry a
>> defence.
>
> I don't find this particularly mollifying. So far as I know, Prof.
> McCoubrey will not be sitting in judgment of any cases brought before the
> ICC.
Indeed. He's dead.
>>> BTW. I wish that the US had something to fear from a UN established
>>> court, and that the US couldn't do anything to stop it.
>> Also, Prof. Schabas (currently of NUI Galway) is one of the leading
>> academics on the ICC, human rights and Islamic jurisprudence.
>
> Human rights and Islamic jurisprudence? Isn't that an oxymoron?
Well, I would have thought so. Though he has written separate books on the
topics, I'm not sure if their contents overlap at all.
>> He noted, in
>> his book on the ICC, the irony that those involved in forming and ratifying
>> the Charter (e.g. Current signatories and the likes of the US and Israel)
>> are those least likely to ever be subject to its proceedings.
>
> No doubt written in a tone of deep resignation and regret.
If you mean regret that the US won't be dragged before it - no. Regret that
a court with consensus-based jurisdiction is doomed - yes. Though, it must
be remembered, the UN Security Council can put any case to the ICC, even if
it involves non-signatory states, under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter.
J.Rossa McMahon
"MacHamish" <rus...@concentric.net> wrote:
> There is no need for an International Criminal Court. Milosevic went on trial
> without the existence of the ICC. A special court to adjudicate these matters
> can be convened whenever it is needed.
True. Though look at how difficult it was to bring him before it. Look at
how difficult the prosecutions are. And the costs and expertise would be
managed in a significantly better manner if it were a standing, permanent
court.
Incidentally, when the ICC issued warrants against twins involved in the
Yugoslavian goings-on, the wrong twins were brought to the Hague. This sort
of problem occurs with ad-hoc tribunals.
> If a permanent court is established, it can easily be abused by those with an
> agenda. It can indict whomever its bureaucratic managers choose.
Possible, but unlikely if it is run like a true court. And it would be eager
to establish a good reputation. And if the prosecutor wants to start an
investigation on his/her own behalf, she needs the approval of a pre-trial
chamber of 3 judges.
> The indicted may never come to trial, but the indictment has a lasting effect,
> especially if those who are indicted happen to be apprehended outside the
> boundaries of their home country.
But this is already happening! Arrest warrants against Congolese
ex-ministers from European countries (Belgium quite likes to issue arrest
warrants for their name and shame value).
> Forget it. It's a bad idea.
Only if you think the US, China and Russia are trustworthy to take care of
all future security issues.
Sally
A year ago, I think, Mr. Bush was speaker at a University graduation.
He started off his speech "You "C" students (medium grade between A
and D to pass) can rise to become president as I did." Not too many
days ago, Mr. Bush said "he states how he feels and thinks." Does
this sound like a man of superior education and knowledge of any
subject? Do you think he may undestand anything about International
Court - or its ramifications? Just as I can read British press on
line, so too can you read American press on line. Try searching on
"American Newspapers" and see what you find to read!
Jim Walsh
> On Tue, 02 Jul 2002 23:13:32 +0800, Jim Walsh <jimw...@ebtnet.net>
> wrote:
>>Bush opposes the new International Court because a substantial part of
>>his support comes from Know-Nothing, knee-jerk right-wingers. To them,
>>as the previous example shows, if it has something to do with the UN, it
>>is automagically bad.
............
> The idiot here is you, Mr. Walsh. Perhaps you're too young and
> inexperienced in the ways of politics to understand the ramifications.
> I'll tell you.
My guess is that I am older than your father. I was born on September 25,
1943.
> Governmental entities never stay the same in terms of their powers and
> influence. Nor do they ever shrink.
Well, that is silly. The Soviet Union shrank, eh? The dictatorship in
Spain shrank.
> The present system of convening a special court for special situations
> such as the Milosevic affair has worked perfectly well. The UN's move
> to establish a permanent court is an example of what I've said above.
> Ever more power, ever more jurisdiction.
My hopes is that they will succeed.
Jim Walsh
>> > BTW. I wish that the US had something to fear from a UN established
>> > court, and that the US couldn't do anything to stop it.
>> Also, Prof. Schabas (currently of NUI Galway) is one of the leading
>> academics on the ICC, human rights and Islamic jurisprudence. He noted,
>> in his book on the ICC, the irony that those involved in forming and
>> ratifying the Charter (e.g. Current signatories and the likes of the US
>> and Israel) are those least likely to ever be subject to its
>> proceedings.
>
> A year ago, I think, Mr. Bush was speaker at a University graduation. He
> started off his speech "You "C" students (medium grade between A and D
> to pass) can rise to become president as I did." Not too many days ago,
> Mr. Bush said "he states how he feels and thinks." Does this sound like
> a man of superior education and knowledge of any subject? Do you think
> he may undestand anything about International Court - or its
> ramifications? Just as I can read British press on line, so too can you
> read American press on line. Try searching on "American Newspapers" and
> see what you find to read!
If this is your polite way of saying that Bush is an ignoramus, I agree.
MacRobert
paused to reflect but wrote anyway:
>IMPEACH EARL WARREN!!! Oh wait, he's already dead.
Point me toward the graveyard, I have a shovel.
MacRobbert
Turlough
Sally wrote:
> A year ago, I think, Mr. Bush was speaker at a University graduation.
> He started off his speech "You "C" students (medium grade between A
> and D to pass) can rise to become president as I did." Not too many
> days ago, Mr. Bush said "he states how he feels and thinks." Does
> this sound like a man of superior education and knowledge of any
> subject? Do you think he may undestand anything about International
> Court - or its ramifications?
I think he knows about as much as he has to, and that's why he's
protecting us from this international lunacy. You can poke fun at him
all you want, but just remember, in America, *any* native born citizen
may become President...and that's the way we want it. We scoff at the
inbred, so called royalty and their pretentious nonsense.
> Just as I can read British press on line, so too can you read American
> press on line. Try searching on "American Newspapers" and see what you
> find to read!
Take a crack at the New York Times, Washington Post, or any big city
newspaper. You'll get all the news you need...
Turlough
Jim Walsh
> Sally wrote:
>
>> A year ago, I think, Mr. Bush was speaker at a University graduation.
>> He started off his speech "You "C" students (medium grade between A and
>> D to pass) can rise to become president as I did." Not too many days
>> ago, Mr. Bush said "he states how he feels and thinks." Does this
>> sound like a man of superior education and knowledge of any subject? Do
>> you think he may undestand anything about International Court - or its
>> ramifications?
>
> I think he knows about as much as he has to, and that's why he's
> protecting us from this international lunacy.
George Bush in less than two years, destroyed the federal surplus built so
painfully thru the 8 years of Clinton. And you think he is "protecting"
you?
> You can poke fun at him
> all you want, but just remember, in America, *any* native born citizen
> may become President...and that's the way we want it. We scoff at the
> inbred, so called royalty and their pretentious nonsense.
Well, George Bush isn't just "any American". He is the son of a President
and became wealthy by taking charity from big businesses that wanted
favors from his father.
If you want to make the "anyone can be President" you are MUCH better
pointing at Clinton, who rose from a dis-advantaged family to become
President.
Or Prime Minister Blair, whose rise from ordinary circumstances show that
he is neither royal nor full of pretentious nonsense.
Mike MacKinnon
> There is quite another interpretation that goes like this: the US will
put
> its treasury, its weaponry, and the lives of its military at the disposal
of
> those who are threatened by Islamic fundamentalism, terrorism, or any
other
> anti-democratic force, that threatens our Western way of life and the
> democratic institutions that we and others have struggled so mightily to
> establish.
I would disagree to a certain extent. The US government will put it's
weaponry etc. at the disposal of whom it is IN THEIR INTEREST to protect! I
seem to remember people like Ho Chi Minh coming to the US in 1945 and asking
for help in making Vietnam a democracy, but he was turned down because it
was thought it was not in the US interest to have a democratic Vietnam. We
all know what happened next.
>
> >If the US is so convinced that it is the world's peacemaker, what are
they
> >scared of? Do they feel that the War Crimes Tribunal should apply to
> >everyone except themselves, or is it that the US administration is quite
> >prepared to commit war crimes in pursuit of their goals.
>
> The US isn't "scared" of anything. It very wisely refuses to put its
> citizens under the jurisdiction of this World Court which will be
> administered by non-elected bureaucrats from a gaggle of nations, many of
> which are governed by corrupt and undemocratic regimes and which, in many
> cases, also harbor envy and resentment of the successful institutions that
> have made the US and the western democracies so prosperous and powerful
>
Granted, but if the US DOES back the tribunal, then there should be no
hiding place for war criminals. In any case, there tribunal is held at Den
Haag and conforms to the tenets of western law. That's why there are trials.
> >I think we should be told!!
>
> To what country do weaker populations turn when threatened with hegemony?
> Answer: the USA. What country provides the vast majority of the
resources
> to combat aggression, hunger, and genocide when these things rear their
ugly
> heads. Answer: the USA. Is the USA the world's policeman? Yes, because
> other nations and the UN rely on the USA to fill that role. It is not a
> role that the USA necessarily chooses. It falls to the USA by default.
No
> other nation has the resources or the will to do it. Are there other
member
> states of the UN that resent the role the USA plays in these situations?
> Certainly. During the Cold War era, they consisted mostly of communist
> regimes. There is still some of that coming from Cuba, North Korea, and
the
> Republic of China.
Jim, you seem to think that everyone always agreed with US policy during the
Cold War. They didn't! Even your own people didn't! I honestly believe that
if you set yourself up as the world's policeman, you must fulfill that role
whether it is in your national interest or not.
But nowadays it is those decidedly undemocratic regimes
> of the Muslim world, such as Iraq, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, ect. These
> nations are members of the UN. Nothing they would like better than to see
> US citizens hauled before the World Court. They would count it as a great
> propaganda victory. They would extol it to their oppressed people as an
> example of their great puissance on the world stage. Is that what you
want,
> Mike?
>
>
Of course not. I do believe however, that war criminals should be hunted
down and punished and that the war crimes tribunal, being non governmental,
is the best way to do it. I don't particularly want to see anyone in the war
crimes court, but it should have the power to try suspected war criminals,
whatever their nationality.
I think this whole discussion revolves around the political pluralism in
Europe and the lack of it in the US. In Europe there are loud pro and anti
voices in any political debate, from the extreme left to the extreme right.
(Comre to think of it, there's not much difference between the extreme left
and tight!) In the US political arena, this is singularly missing. A healthy
democracy needs a dissenting voice, no matter how crazy that voice is.
M
> MacHamish Mór
Mike MacKinnon
"Turlough" <turlo...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:3D225BC5...@excite.com...
>
>
> Sally wrote:
>
> > A year ago, I think, Mr. Bush was speaker at a University graduation.
> > He started off his speech "You "C" students (medium grade between A
> > and D to pass) can rise to become president as I did." Not too many
> > days ago, Mr. Bush said "he states how he feels and thinks." Does
> > this sound like a man of superior education and knowledge of any
> > subject? Do you think he may undestand anything about International
> > Court - or its ramifications?
>
> I think he knows about as much as he has to, and that's why he's
> protecting us from this international lunacy. You can poke fun at him
> all you want, but just remember, in America, *any* native born citizen
> may become President...
Come come! Surely you mean 'any native born citizen who is male, white and
is backed by millions of dollars'?
and that's the way we want it. We scoff at the
> inbred, so called royalty and their pretentious nonsense.
>
So do I, but I also scoff at the above presidential notion!
Lesley Robertson
> On Tue, 02 Jul 2002 18:56:05 +0100, "J.Rossa McMahon" <ro...@dol.ie>
wrote:
>
> > Both were probably wise - witness many of the goings-on in Afghanistan
> >(e.g. 40 dead at a wedding). Now I'm not saying, with my little
information
> >and no evidence, that the US soldiers involved were acting in a manner
that
> >was completely unreasonable, but such military escapades leave themselves
> >open to charges at the ICC were it to have a vigorous prosecutor.
>
>
Maybe they'd be more careful if they thought they'd get more than a slap on
the wrist.... The War Crimes Court would pay them no attention if the US
legal system handled the matter.
Lesley Robertson
Lesley Robertson
> On 2/7/02 9:02 pm, in article el14iukf6sieoansl...@4ax.com,
> "MacHamish" <rus...@concentric.net> wrote:
>
> > There is no need for an International Criminal Court. Milosevic went on
trial
> > without the existence of the ICC. A special court to adjudicate these
matters
> > can be convened whenever it is needed.
>
> True. Though look at how difficult it was to bring him before it. Look at
> how difficult the prosecutions are. And the costs and expertise would be
> managed in a significantly better manner if it were a standing, permanent
> court.
>
a start. Look at how much easier it would be to sort out the Ruwanda mess if
there was an established court for trying genocide cases. It's an obvious
place to indite folk such as Saddam Hussein, Arafat and Sharon as well as
Mullah Omar and bin Laden (although not as much fun as dumping them in open
cages in Cuba).
> Incidentally, when the ICC issued warrants against twins involved in the
> Yugoslavian goings-on, the wrong twins were brought to the Hague. This
sort
> of problem occurs with ad-hoc tribunals.
And other courts.
>
> > If a permanent court is established, it can easily be abused by those
with an
> > agenda. It can indict whomever its bureaucratic managers choose.
>
> Possible, but unlikely if it is run like a true court. And it would be
eager
> to establish a good reputation. And if the prosecutor wants to start an
> investigation on his/her own behalf, she needs the approval of a pre-trial
> chamber of 3 judges.
>
And with the scrutiny that this one's going to be under, they'll not get
away with much. The press are going to be watching them very carefully.
Lesley Robertson
Jim Walsh
> "MacHamish" <rus...@concentric.net> wrote in message
> news:mq14iusjevqmilpfr...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 02 Jul 2002 18:56:05 +0100, "J.Rossa McMahon" <ro...@dol.ie>
> wrote:
>>
>> > Both were probably wise - witness many of the goings-on in
>> > Afghanistan (e.g. 40 dead at a wedding)...but such military escapades
>> > leave
>> >themselves open to charges at the ICC were it to have a vigorous
>> >prosecutor.
>>
>> Indeed!!
>>
> Maybe they'd be more careful if they thought they'd get more than a slap
> on the wrist.... The War Crimes Court would pay them no attention if the
> US legal system handled the matter.
> Lesley Robertson
I am generally pro-defendant. There are too many things called crimes (why
can't I smoke grass if I want to?), and too many prosecutors willing to
build careers on the prosecution of harmless folks.
But, for once in my life, I am glad that they are opening up a new court,
and criminalizing a whole range of behavior. The prosecutors and judges
will need the wisdom of Solomon and the selfless courage of Samson.
I wish them all the best in the world.
Jim Walsh
about the following:
>> I think he knows about as much as he has to, and that's why he's
>> protecting us from this international lunacy. You can poke fun at him
>> all you want, but just remember, in America, *any* native born citizen
>> may become President...
>
> Come come! Surely you mean 'any native born citizen who is male, white
> and is backed by millions of dollars'?
Well (1) native born is a condition set in the Constitution, so unless we
amend it (and I am in favor of doing so) that will certainly be true.
(2) As yet the US has not elected a woman. There are several reasons for
this, the most pressing of which is that we don't have the parliamentary
system, which is MUCH better at picking leaders. Anyway, it is
embarrassing that England, India and other democracies have gotten past
this gender discrimination but the USA has not.
(3) The word "white" is more difficult to deal with. First of all, it
doesn't have a definition. My ancestors were perceived as non-white for
centuries and someone who shares my ancestry has been elected President.
At the time of his election, however, "people of my ancestry" were not
considered white.
(4) The nominee of either major party is going to be backed by hundreds
of millions of dollars (not merely millions). The only solution for that
is to amend the Constitution to say that the contribution of money to a
political candidate is not "speech", and therefore free.
BTW, Bill Clinton rose from conditions at least as "dis-advantaged" as
any President since Nixon.
J.Rossa McMahon
<turlo...@excite.com> wrote:
> I think he knows about as much as he has to, and that's why he's
> protecting us from this international lunacy. You can poke fun at him
> all you want, but just remember, in America, *any* native born citizen
> may become President...and that's the way we want it. We scoff at the
> inbred, so called royalty and their pretentious nonsense.
But they don't run the most powerful country in the world. Or any country
for that matter.
Off topic - also in America *any* native born citizen can be arrested
without charge, transferred to the military and detained at will "until the
end of hostilities", even though the country is not technically at war - and
meanwhile, he has zero civil liberties and cannot consult his lawyer. Land
of the free, indeed.
> Take a crack at the New York Times, Washington Post, or any big city
> newspaper. You'll get all the news you need...
They are good newspapers, but not great ones.
J.Rossa McMahon
> I think he knows about as much as he has to, and that's why he's
> protecting us from this international lunacy. You can poke fun at him
> all you want, but just remember, in America, *any* native born citizen
> may become President...and that's the way we want it. We scoff at the
> inbred, so called royalty and their pretentious nonsense.
Maybe I'm missing something here, but isn't this soc.culture.irish? Thus,
the royalty are not relevant to Ireland... The Irish are hardly royalists,
you know.
J.Rossa McMahon
Robertson" <l.a.ro...@tnw.tudelft.nl> wrote:
Indeed, the ICC can only prosecute a case where a domestic legal system has
failed to act, or is incapable of acting, or where the trial was a sham.
Then again, is the ICC ever going to say a US or EU court is incapable of
trying someone, or operated a sham trial? An African court on the other
hand...
Jim Walsh
I don't think that it is all that certain that the US would prosecute its
own War Criminals. Lieutenant Calley was nearly not prosecuted, and it is
likely that his orders came from higher ups who were not prosecuted even
though they may well have been more guilty than he was.
The events described by the former Senator Kerry (I hope I am spelling his
name right) should have been looked at more closely. It is possible that
he or some of his men were war criminals.
There is no the slightest doubt in my mind that President Nixon, Secretary
of State Kissinger and some of the other members of the Nixon
administration were war criminals.
They undoubtedly ordered bombing runs in Cambodia in violation of both US
and international law. And they were at least careless, if not indifferent
to the civilian deaths that resulted. That and the so-called Christmas
bombing of Hanoi were both war crimes by most definitions. And, of course,
the "domestic legal system" (i.e., the US court system) "failed to act".
Jim Walsh
> Off topic - also in America *any* native born citizen can be arrested
> without charge, transferred to the military and detained at will "until
> the end of hostilities", even though the country is not technically at
> war - and meanwhile, he has zero civil liberties and cannot consult his
> lawyer. Land of the free, indeed.
Indeed. Well said.
BTW, we have not seen the end of this story. It is early days yet. My
guess is that the Bush Administration is going to end up paying big civil
damages for wrongful imprisonment, etc.
I only wish there were some way to make Bush pay out of his own pocket.
Offonmyown
without charge, transferred to the military and detained at will "until
the end of hostilities", even though the country is not technically at
war - and meanwhile, he has zero civil liberties and cannot consult his
lawyer. Land of the free, indeed<<
Absolute bullshit. Any citizen found fighting against the US in a foreign
army, yes, not "any" US citizen.
Offonmyown
and international law. <
There was no violation of US law, nor is it against international law to bomb
an enemy using another country as a base for aggression.
ian-s...@blueyonder.co.uk
MacR...@th.hoose (MacRobert) :
Soon to appear on a menu near you,
"Prime rib of Juicy Justice" !
-- The Despicable Stewart
-- Perfidious Alban
-- http://www.scs.informer.ukgateway.net
Offonmyown
pointing at Clinton, who rose from a dis-advantaged family to become
President.<
Yes, democracy is not a perfect system, ,just the best one, so that a sleaze
like Clinton was elected even after his Jerry-Springer-like appearance with
Hillary to talk about his affair with Jennifer Flowers. After this bizarre
performance he got an astonishing 43% of the popular vote.
Mike MacKinnon
"Offonmyown" <offon...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020703074340...@mb-fz.aol.com...
It's amazing how many people professed to hating Clinton and got mightily
pissed off when he was re-elected. It must be a problem being right all the
time!
M
J.Rossa McMahon
pan.2002.07.03.10...@ebtnet.net, "Jim Walsh"
<jimw...@ebtnet.net> wrote:
>> Indeed, the ICC can only prosecute a case where a domestic legal system
>> has failed to act, or is incapable of acting, or where the trial was a
>> sham. Then again, is the ICC ever going to say a US or EU court is
>> incapable of trying someone, or operated a sham trial? An African court
>> on the other hand...
>
> I don't think that it is all that certain that the US would prosecute its
> own War Criminals. Lieutenant Calley was nearly not prosecuted, and it is
> likely that his orders came from higher ups who were not prosecuted even
> though they may well have been more guilty than he was.
I know. The point is that the US, and other developed countries, are never
going to be questioned by the ICC in their capacity to try people - the
likelihood is that the ICC would not pursue cases while domestic authorities
assured them they were handling the matter.
Furthermore, pardons could make the whole thing moot. E.g. Nixon pardoned
someone (can't remember his name - US soldier in Vietnam) who was convicted
and sentenced to imprisonment in the US for his part in a massacre in
Vietnam. Were that to happen now, the ICC couldn't act anyway.
J.Rossa McMahon
"Offonmyown" <offon...@aol.com> wrote:
Ah, hello. Have you been watching the news? Jose Padilla? US Citizen -
accused of plotting a dirty bomb, evidence suggests he did no more than talk
about it. Found fighting against the US in a foreign army? Where's the
evidence. Even if he was involved with al Qaeda, it's a terrorist network,
not an army.
Citizenship is not something granted or stripped at the whim of the
government.
Jim Walsh
1. The President of the USA not only lied to Cambodia about the bombing,
he also lied to the US Congress and the US people. That sort of lying is
not legal and it undermines democracy. (How can people wisely judge
whether to re-elect the government if it doesn't know the truth about what
the government is doing.)
If it were legal under US law to bomb Cambodia, why would the President
lie about it? He lied because he knew it was illegal.
2. Only the US Congress has the power to declare war. Not only did the US
Congress NOT declare war on Cambodia, it did not declare war on North
Vietnam. The main reason for lying to Congress about what they were doing
in Cambodia was that Congress might not approve and further it might well
withdraw authority to fight in Vietnam, too.
3. Speaking purely of international law, nothing done clandestinely is
legal.
Jim Walsh
>> I don't think that it is all that certain that the US would prosecute
>> its own War Criminals. Lieutenant Calley was nearly not prosecuted, and
>> it is likely that his orders came from higher ups who were not
>> prosecuted even though they may well have been more guilty than he was.
>
> I know. The point is that the US, and other developed countries, are
> never going to be questioned by the ICC in their capacity to try people
> - the likelihood is that the ICC would not pursue cases while domestic
> authorities assured them they were handling the matter.
You may be right. I hope you are wrong. It would do the USA a great deal
of good to have a top official convicted of crimes against humanity.
> Furthermore, pardons could make the whole thing moot. E.g. Nixon
> pardoned someone (can't remember his name - US soldier in Vietnam) who
> was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment in the US for his part in a
> massacre in Vietnam. Were that to happen now, the ICC couldn't act
> anyway.
I thought the ICC could act in the case of sham prosecutions. Wouldn't
such a pardon be an argument that the prosecution was a sham?
Lieutenent Calley.
Jim Walsh
You are convicting him even he hasn't even been charged. Did you ever
hear of "innocent until PROVEN guilty"?
Besides EVEN the guilty have (and should have) all of those rights.
Jim Walsh
Well said, but let me go farther.
Suppose Joe Blow is picked up. Suppose Bush says "Joe Blow was a member of
a foreign nation's army, and was fighting against the USA.
From this, the logical conclusion is to charge him with treason, if he is
a US citizen. It is NOT permissible to hold him, indefinitely, in a
military prison. Nor is it permissable to deny him access to his lawyer.
BTW, Bush has always been a closet fascist. He has just come out of the
closet.
J.Rossa McMahon
pan.2002.07.03.13....@ebtnet.net, "Jim Walsh"
<jimw...@ebtnet.net> wrote:
>> Furthermore, pardons could make the whole thing moot. E.g. Nixon
>> pardoned someone (can't remember his name - US soldier in Vietnam) who
>> was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment in the US for his part in a
>> massacre in Vietnam. Were that to happen now, the ICC couldn't act
>> anyway.
>
> I thought the ICC could act in the case of sham prosecutions. Wouldn't
> such a pardon be an argument that the prosecution was a sham?
One would think so, but the Charter does not deal with the issue, leaving
the presumption open that a pardon does not render the prosecution a sham.
Academics seem to believe this anyway.
Lachie Macquarie
<B948878E.128A%ro...@dol.ie> and displaying the suave and sophisticated
disposition of Archibald Leach, J.Rossa McMahon <ro...@dol.ie> sgrìobh,
--
Lachie Macquarie, Bod an Deamhan--smaoineachadh miannach.
J.Rossa McMahon
"MacHamish" <rus...@concentric.net> wrote:
>> True. Though look at how difficult it was to bring him before it. Look at
>> how difficult the prosecutions are. And the costs and expertise would be
>> managed in a significantly better manner if it were a standing, permanent
>> court.
>
> If it were a standing, permanent court, there would be pressures on the
> prosecutors to bring more cases to justify its existence. It would become a
> growing bureaucracy answering to no higher power other than the bureaucrats
> who make up the UN leadership. That seems a bit incestuous to me.
Why will it necessarily feel under pressure to bring cases to justify its
existence? Do you think this happens with any legal system?
> Furthermore, it would soon need its own international police force with the
> authority to operate across national boundaries to apprehend the accused.
> I'm not sure that would be a good thing. It would be another step toward
> the surrender of sovereignty to an un-representative, un-elected world
> governing body.
That's rather getting ahead of things. Even if that were to happen
eventually, it's some way off.
> On the other hand, I do think there are certain special cases that should be
> prosecuted. Milosevic and the other Serbs who committed genocide and rape
> in the former Yugoslavia, for example. The only reason Milosevic was
> brought to trial is that NATO pounded his regime out of existence, and his
> former subjects turned against him. In spite of that, some of the accused
> perpetrators of the Serbian atrocities are still at large, (Mladic?), and,
> so far as I know, there have been no trials of leaders on the other side of
> those conflicts who committed atrocities of their own.
That is one of the main criticisms of the ICC - that the ICTR and ICTY
currently sitting in the Hague are Victors' Courts, and that no powerful
developed nation would ever be brought before the ICC. I'm inclined to agree
with that prediction.
>>> If a permanent court is established, it can easily be abused by those with
>>> an
>>> agenda. It can indict whomever its bureaucratic managers choose.
>>
>> Possible, but unlikely if it is run like a true court. And it would be eager
>> to establish a good reputation. And if the prosecutor wants to start an
>> investigation on his/her own behalf, she needs the approval of a pre-trial
>> chamber of 3 judges.
>
> Who are the prosecutors?
> Who are the judges? Where do they come from?
> What are their qualifications? What are their personal ideologies? Who
> appoints them? Do they answer to a constituency?
There are accurate, direct, simple answers to all of these questions. It is
not as if the UN or the ICC has 'dodged' them. See Article 36 of the Rome
Statute - http://www.un.org/law/icc/statute/romefra.htm
J.Rossa McMahon
"MacHamish" <rus...@concentric.net> wrote:
>>> The idiot here is you, Mr. Walsh. Perhaps you're too young and
>>> inexperienced in the ways of politics to understand the ramifications.
>>> I'll tell you.
>>
>> My guess is that I am older than your father. I was born on September 25,
>> 1943.
>
> You guess wrong. My father, were he still alive, would be old enough to be
> your father. It must be so since I was born two years before you.
Although born in 1979, I don't feel at all arrogant in saying this sort of
thing is very childish.
Please, no-one should be calling other people idiots, or young or
inexperienced. Such condescension is not constructive.
Sally
> Sally wrote:
>
> > Yes, James VI of Scotland "not yet 12 years old when he began his
> > active reign, early in 1578" his bracket dates are 1567-1625. James
> > was 21 in 1567 and that seems to be the date of his accession to the
> > English throne as James I. I am quoting J. D. Mackie "A History of
> > Scotland" (Penguin edition) beginning pg 164
> >
> Are you _quite_ sure that's what Mackie says?
> You have James being 'not yet 12 in 1578', then '21 in 1567' and seem to
> claim 1567 as the year he became King of England! He took the throne of
> England in 1603.
As sure as a direct quote from Dr. Mackie's book on the history of
Scotland, Since he was professor at Glasgow Scottish History & Lit.
James VI dates 1567-1625 see pg 168 and the whole machinations thru
172. (1567 date of birth would make him eleven years old)King of
England 1603-1625 according to my Websters. Does that help my gaff!?
Musta been counting on my fingers again LOL
Sally
> "Sally" <esd...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:b8bcd929.02062...@posting.google.com...
> > "Robert, \(Auld Bob\), Peffers" <b...@peffers50.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in
> message news:<aet0tm$6n2$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk>...
> > > "Sally" <esd...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> > > news:b8bcd929.02061...@posting.google.com...
> > > > "KateH" <hock...@innw.nospam.net> wrote in message
> > > news:<uga6sga...@corp.supernews.com>...
> snip
> > That is precisely what I'm very afraid of - that Our pres is not very
> > 'smart' his speeches certainly show that! One thing to appeal to the
> > masses and another to make real decisions based upon knowledge - so
> > far hasn't appeared.
> Frae Auld Bob Peffers:
> Let's face it the job of President depends on the advisors behind the
> president. Bush seems to have a bunch of manipulators behind him. I do not
> for one minute think the things he is doing are all his own ideas. Strikes
> me that Rumsfeld has far too much pull and my opinion of him is rather low.
> How can you place any trust in a guy who used, *The suspects*, and, *these
> men are dangerous terrorists*, in the same sentence. Either they are
> suspected terrorist or they are terrorists but they cannot be both. Rumsfeld
> effectively convicted them as guilty men while calling them suspects. The
> USA may be fooled but the rest of the World are not.
>
> Don't get me wrong here for I am not D@ve. I am not saying the terrorists
> should get off. What I am saying is that it is wrong to treat them as guilty
> without a fair trial and it is wrong to label suspects as guilty.
>
> Bush is just dim enough to allow such as Rumsfeld to manipulate him. There
> are signs though that the USA is waking up to what is going on. Voices are
> beginning to be raised.
"Auld Bob" - I'm on your side - Mr. Prez has poor handlers and listens
to too much simplistic garbage. Mr. Rumsfeld is feeling his oats as
the saying goes and keep your head down until the blast passes over.
Hopefully it won't start a war that cannot be won. I've always thought
that only a fool would do something to start another war on the basis
of the weapons now available and the technology to delver them. Looks
like the US has spawned that fool. Terrifying
MacRobert
paused to reflect but wrote anyway:
>Served with the chef's own special sauce, creme du maggotte.
>
If you're looking for a job you'll have to ask da chef.
MacR
MacRobert
paused to reflect but wrote anyway:
>On Wed, 03 Jul 2002 16:10:57 +0800, Lesley Robertson wrote:
>
>
>> "MacHamish" <rus...@concentric.net> wrote in message
>> news:mq14iusjevqmilpfr...@4ax.com...
>>> On Tue, 02 Jul 2002 18:56:05 +0100, "J.Rossa McMahon" <ro...@dol.ie>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> > Both were probably wise - witness many of the goings-on in
>>> > Afghanistan (e.g. 40 dead at a wedding)...but such military escapades
>>> > leave
>>> >themselves open to charges at the ICC were it to have a vigorous
>>> >prosecutor.
>>>
>>> Indeed!!
>>>
>> Maybe they'd be more careful if they thought they'd get more than a slap
>> on the wrist.... The War Crimes Court would pay them no attention if the
>> US legal system handled the matter.
>> Lesley Robertson
>
>I am generally pro-defendant. There are too many things called crimes (why
>can't I smoke grass if I want to?), and too many prosecutors willing to
>build careers on the prosecution of harmless folks.
>
>But, for once in my life, I am glad that they are opening up a new court,
>and criminalizing a whole range of behavior. The prosecutors and judges
>will need the wisdom of Solomon and the selfless courage of Samson.
>
>I wish them all the best in the world.
>
>Love, Jim
>
Sluuuuuurrrp.
charles liu
Let's see... If someone is eligable for pardon, then it must mean the
case has been prosecuted locally and yielded a conviction. I believe
ICC did address this, that it prosecutes only cases that is not
prosecuted on national level (ie. the Pinoches of the world).
ICC's jurisdiction does not trump national jurisdiction.
"J.Rossa McMahon" <ro...@dol.ie> wrote in message news:<B948DBEF.1359%ro...@dol.ie>...
J.Rossa McMahon
1a73ee29.0207...@posting.google.com, "charles liu"
<charl...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> Let's see... If someone is eligable for pardon, then it must mean the
> case has been prosecuted locally and yielded a conviction. I believe
> ICC did address this, that it prosecutes only cases that is not
> prosecuted on national level (ie. the Pinoches of the world).
>
> ICC's jurisdiction does not trump national jurisdiction.
Indeed.
But look at your own point. If a state prosecutes, in a full and fair
manner, and then pardons - does this not, in effect, put it in the same
position - as far as the international community is concerned - as the state
who has held a sham trial? One has manipulated the judiciary, the other has
simply ignored it.
Therefore, the ICC didn't address it.
Jim Walsh
wrote:
>If it were a standing, permanent court, there would be pressures on the
>prosecutors to bring more cases to justify its existence. ...
This is an argument for abolishing the "permanent" County Prosecutor's
office in (whatever) county you live. Do you recommend abolishing the
County Prosecutor's office?
Jim Walsh
wrote:
>On Wed, 03 Jul 2002 18:59:44 +0800, Jim Walsh <jimw...@ebtnet.net> wrote:
>
>>There is no the slightest doubt in my mind that President Nixon, Secretary
>>of State Kissinger and some of the other members of the Nixon
>>administration were war criminals.
>
>Are you the same guy who wrote the following in another sub-thread with the
>same subject as this one?
>
>>You are convicting him even he hasn't even been charged. Did you ever
>>hear of "innocent until PROVEN guilty"?
>
>Hmmm.
>
>MacHamish Mór
1. The OTHER guy was defending the fact that [whatever-his-name-is]
was being held in military prison and being denied access to his
lawyer.
2. Kissinger is a free man and he has the right to be free until he is
convicted and sentenced.
Get it now? Hmmmmm.
"I don't have any doubts that XXX is guilty of a crime" is NOT the
same as saying, "XXX is not entitled to due process of law".
INNOCENT
news:ruu6iugkm2lhaq11c...@4ax.com:
but best of all would be a check running to 6 figures
> before the dot and any number above zero for the first digit. What
> are our chances?
>
> MacHamish Mór
Elaine Goldberg
The Despicable Stewart wrote:
>It's not a "till" as such. It's an old oil
> drum, with the lid cut off, filled with
> water and stocked with pirhanas, into
> which they put the money.
>Steakhouse speciality : "Fish - No
> Fingers" !
What! No fish fingers? I suppose this means there's no carnal
knowledge, either.
I had a sneaking suspicion that Bren guy was making the whole thing up
when he was trying to besmirch the reputation of our Duck in another
thread!
Elaine
Jim Walsh
> On Wed, 03 Jul 2002 09:15:35 +0800, Jim Walsh <jimw...@ebtnet.net>
> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 03 Jul 2002 04:03:45 +0800, MacHamish wrote:
>>> Governmental entities never stay the same in terms of their powers and
>>> influence. Nor do they ever shrink.
>>
>>Well, that is silly. The Soviet Union shrank, eh? The dictatorship in
>>Spain shrank.
>
> To put it more precisely, they collapsed under their own weight after
> years of doing exactly what I said, assuming ever more powers. It's a
> shame it took so many years and cost so many lives.
Quoting you, "Nor do they ever shrink."
However, they shrank. So, I guess you will soon be posting, "When I posted
that they never shrink, it was a mistake. They do sometimes shrink, or
more precisely collapse under their own weight. The idea that change in
governmental entities is always in one direction is and was false."
Love, Jim
P.S. I know better than to actually think you will admit a mistake.
Jim Walsh
> On Thu, 04 Jul 2002 10:01:36 +0800, Jim Walsh <jimw...@ebtnet.net>
> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 03 Jul 2002 16:46:29 GMT, rus...@concentric.net (MacHamish)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>If it were a standing, permanent court, there would be pressures on the
>>>prosecutors to bring more cases to justify its existence. ...
>>
>>This is an argument for abolishing the "permanent" County Prosecutor's
>>office in (whatever) county you live. Do you recommend abolishing the
>>County Prosecutor's office?
>
> No. The prosecutors and the judges are elected by the citizens of the
> county. They can be booted or re-elected to office, depending on how
> the citizens perceive their performance.
I didn't say anything about judges, but please tell us how your principle
applies to the US Supreme Court. And I guess you are NOW proposing that
the Federal District Attorneys (who are permanent and therefore
experiencing pressures to bring more more cases ot justify their
existence).
If you mean that the UN should consist of elected representatives, I
agree. I look forward to the day when instead of being appointed by the
President, the US representative is elected by the people of the USA.
If you mean that 'election' is the only procedure that can put a check on
the powers of a standing permenant court, then I suppose that you are
proposing to abolish the US Supreme Court.
Jim Walsh
> On Thu, 04 Jul 2002 01:53:01 GMT, rus...@concentric.net (MacHamish)
> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 03 Jul 2002 18:59:44 +0800, Jim Walsh <jimw...@ebtnet.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>There is no the slightest doubt in my mind that President Nixon,
>>>Secretary of State Kissinger and some of the other members of the Nixon
>>>administration were war criminals.
>>
>>Are you the same guy who wrote the following in another sub-thread with
>>the same subject as this one?
>>
>>>You are convicting him even he hasn't even been charged. Did you ever
>>>hear of "innocent until PROVEN guilty"?
>>
>>Hmmm.
>>
>>MacHamish Mór
>
> 1. The OTHER guy was defending the fact that [whatever-his-name-is] was
Padilla
> being held in military prison and being denied access to his lawyer.
>
> 2. Kissinger is a free man and he has the right to be free until he is
> convicted and sentenced.
>
> Get it now? Hmmmmm.
>
> "I don't have any doubts that XXX is guilty of a crime" is NOT the same
> as saying, "XXX is not entitled to due process of law".
>
> Love, Jim
>
>
> -----------== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Uncensored Usenet News
> ==----------
> http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> -----= Over 100,000 Newsgroups - Unlimited Fast Downloads - 19 Servers
> =-----
--
Mike MacKinnon
> On Wed, 03 Jul 2002 08:01:39 GMT, "Mike MacKinnon"
> <mikema...@pgpower.com> wrote:
>
> >
SNIP
> >>
> >> That's not what he's saying at all, except in your distorted
perception.
> >> There is quite another interpretation that goes like this: the US will
> >put
> >> its treasury, its weaponry, and the lives of its military at the
disposal
> >of
> >> those who are threatened by Islamic fundamentalism, terrorism, or any
> >other
> >> anti-democratic force, that threatens our Western way of life and the
> >> democratic institutions that we and others have struggled so mightily
to
> >> establish.
> >
> >I would disagree to a certain extent. The US government will put it's
> >weaponry etc. at the disposal of whom it is IN THEIR INTEREST to protect!
>
> It's not particularly revealing of anything. All governments act
primarily
> out of self-interest. So do individuals. There are exceptions, however.
> What was the US's self-interest in trying to prevent the slaughter of
> Muslims in the Balkans recently?
I honestly believe that the west acted in concert on this one. The TV tapes
of the atrocities being commited demanded that any consciencious state try
to stop it.
>
> >I
> >seem to remember people like Ho Chi Minh coming to the US in 1945 and
asking
> >for help in making Vietnam a democracy, but he was turned down because it
> >was thought it was not in the US interest to have a democratic Vietnam.
We
> >all know what happened next.
>
> Mike, you're ignoring the context. WW II had just ended in 1945. The
US's
> resources were committed to rebuilding a shattered Europe through the
> Marshall Plan. This after spending billions of dollars and committing the
> lives of its military personnel to helping the Allies defeat Nazi Germany,
> the Axis countries, and Japan. The US was in no position to be all things
> to all people at that point. Additionally, communism wasn't viewed with
> quite the concern it came to have during the Cold War years. Given the
fact
> that communism as practiced by the USSR, the PRC, North Korea, and Cuba
> proved to be such a devastating and oppressive anti-freedom force in the
> world, there should be some gratitude coming the US's way for leading the
> Cold War to a conclusion, at least in terms of the USSR.
I think there is gratitiude from most people who were held under thrall by
these regimes. There is also a feeling, however misconceptualised, that one
form of drudgery has just been replace by another, state capitalism replaced
by laissez faire capitalism.
Certainly, the
> people of Eastern Europe were happy to see the Berlin Wall come down and
the
> rebirth of self-determination in the formerly communist countries of the
> Soviet Bloc.
I hate to say this, but there's a hell of a lot of 'Ossies' who would rather
see the wall going back up. They see the current unemployment situation as
too high a price to pay for 'Anschluss.' They remember that even though they
were under the boot of a fascist regime, they still had jobs, didn't go
hungry and could heat their houses. That is not the case nowadays.
Whether these people are right or wrong is irrelevant. The seed of
discontent has been planted and a lot of these people blame the US and UK
for their predicament.
>
> >>
> >> >If the US is so convinced that it is the world's peacemaker, what are
> >they
> >> >scared of? Do they feel that the War Crimes Tribunal should apply to
> >> >everyone except themselves, or is it that the US administration is
quite
> >> >prepared to commit war crimes in pursuit of their goals.
> >>
> >> The US isn't "scared" of anything. It very wisely refuses to put its
> >> citizens under the jurisdiction of this World Court which will be
> >> administered by non-elected bureaucrats from a gaggle of nations, many
of
> >> which are governed by corrupt and undemocratic regimes and which, in
many
> >> cases, also harbor envy and resentment of the successful institutions
that
> >> have made the US and the western democracies so prosperous and powerful
> >>
> >Granted, but if the US DOES back the tribunal, then there should be no
> >hiding place for war criminals. In any case, there tribunal is held at
Den
> >Haag and conforms to the tenets of western law. That's why there are
trials.
>
> Where do you get the idea that the US would harbor war criminals from
other
> nations?
Post WWII?
>
SNIP for brevity
> >No
> >> other nation has the resources or the will to do it. Are there other
> >member
> >> states of the UN that resent the role the USA plays in these
situations?
> >> Certainly. During the Cold War era, they consisted mostly of communist
> >> regimes. There is still some of that coming from Cuba, North Korea,
and
> >the
> >> Republic of China.
> >
> >Jim, you seem to think that everyone always agreed with US policy during
the
> >Cold War. They didn't! Even your own people didn't! I honestly believe
that
> >if you set yourself up as the world's policeman, you must fulfill that
role
> >whether it is in your national interest or not.
>
> Well, again, it's not earth shattering to hear the not everyone agreed
with
> US policy during the Cold War. I'm sure the leaders of the USSR didn't
> agree with it. Nor would anyone who thinks communism is the answer to the
> world's problems.
I would say that the USSR and their client states, including the PRC
are/were not communist. I think that they practice(d) a form of corrupt
state capitalism and were nothing more than tinpot dictators, no better or
worse than your average, US backed leader of a South American banana
republic. The only difference was scale. I know that sounds very blase, but
the fact is that if you kill 10% of 1m or 10% of 10m, the people are still
dead.
The fact that it wasn't, and isn't, still isn't obvious
> to some people, in spite of the devastation communism has left in its
wake.
> And I'm well aware that there was a very vocal group in the US who
protested
> against the Viet Nam war. I was among them. Public outcry is the
commonly
> accepted reason the war wasn't seen through to a victory. Tell me, what
was
> the US's national interest in resisting the spread of communism?
The Domino Theory and the threat to far east oil supplies.
I'll ask
> again, what was the US's national interest in helping to stop the genocide
> of Muslims recently in the Balkans? Remember, sir, that was a NATO
> supported action.
Answered this one already.....
>
> >But nowadays it is those decidedly undemocratic regimes
> >> of the Muslim world, such as Iraq, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, ect.
These
> >> nations are members of the UN. Nothing they would like better than to
see
> >> US citizens hauled before the World Court. They would count it as a
great
> >> propaganda victory. They would extol it to their oppressed people as
an
> >> example of their great puissance on the world stage. Is that what you
> >want,
> >> Mike?
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Of course not. I do believe however, that war criminals should be hunted
> >down and punished and that the war crimes tribunal, being non
governmental,
> >is the best way to do it. I don't particularly want to see anyone in the
war
> >crimes court, but it should have the power to try suspected war
criminals,
> >whatever their nationality.
>
> Where do you get the idea that the war crimes tribunal would be non
> governmental? The UN IS governmental in its own right. And it is
certainly
> very political.
>
I'm afraid that I must take a stance here on behalf of western law. If we
assume that most of the judges would be western based, then we must assume
they would be fair. Any other assumption denies confidence in the rule of
law. And should these judges be outnumbered by others of a, shall we say,
nation unknown for it's adherence to lawful statutes, then we should assume
that these judges would let their objections to any political interference
be known. The law must be seen to non political, especially in this case. I
would not back the court if it was shown to be overly political. But until
then..........
> >I think this whole discussion revolves around the political pluralism in
> >Europe and the lack of it in the US. In Europe there are loud pro and
anti
> >voices in any political debate, from the extreme left to the extreme
right.
> >(Comre to think of it, there's not much difference between the extreme
left
> >and tight!) In the US political arena, this is singularly missing. A
healthy
> >democracy needs a dissenting voice, no matter how crazy that voice is.
>
> Well, there isn't any doubt that politics has evoloved quite differently
in
> the US compared to Europe. Fixing the shorcommings of European government
> was the starting point of the US's Founding Fathers. We don't have the
> multiplicity of parties for one thing. My impression is that the right is
> all but dead in the UK.
No, NuLab are in power. They could hardly be called 'left wing' by anyone!
Therefore, all that's left to debate the issues is
> various flavors of the left. But anyway, you're wrong in saying that
there
> is no political debate in the US. There is plenty of it that you aren't
> aware of because you aren't close enough to the situation. Granted, our
> left isn't as left as yours and our right is to the right of yours, but
> there is far more debate between Democrats and Republicans over here than
> you're imagining. It often gets quite bitter, even at the state and local
> levels.
But isn't this debate about welfare mothers etc? My experience of US
political debate is that it is a debate on technicalities and not policies.
Both parties back welfare, for example, it's just that the Democrats seem to
think that people on welfare should be able to live on the handout while the
Republicans don't! OK, maybe that's a bit over simplistic, but you know what
I mean!
M
PS, I'm enjoying this!
Lesley Robertson
> On 3/7/02 5:46 pm, in article jlr5iucf20m9o5dj7...@4ax.com,
> "MacHamish" <rus...@concentric.net> wrote:
>
> > If it were a standing, permanent court, there would be pressures on the
> > prosecutors to bring more cases to justify its existence. It would
become a
> > growing bureaucracy answering to no higher power other than the
bureaucrats
> > who make up the UN leadership. That seems a bit incestuous to me.
>
> Why will it necessarily feel under pressure to bring cases to justify its
> existence? Do you think this happens with any legal system?
>
I doubt very much whether there will be a shortage of cases....
Lesley Robertson
J.Rossa McMahon
"MacHamish" <rus...@concentric.net> wrote:
> No. The prosecutors and the judges are elected by the citizens of the
> county. They can be booted or re-elected to office, depending on how the
> citizens perceive their performance.
You see, there is more than one way to do something. To me, as an Irish law
student, the notion of elected prosecutors or judges is abhorrent, and seems
very open to abuse. But it works for you! So, I don't see any problem with
the ICC structure.
J.Rossa McMahon
"Jim Walsh" <jimw...@ebtnet.net> wrote:
> 2. Kissinger is a free man and he has the right to be free until he is
> convicted and sentenced.
I would have thought he was a war criminal, but I saw him speak at UCC
earlier this year and he made some very good points - mainly that it was not
a black and white situation, and that he might now regret some of the
choices they made, but that the choices were made in the best interests of
those concerned.
J.Rossa McMahon
pan.2002.07.04.06...@ebtnet.net, "Jim Walsh"
<jimw...@ebtnet.net> wrote:
> If you mean that the UN should consist of elected representatives, I
> agree. I look forward to the day when instead of being appointed by the
> President, the US representative is elected by the people of the USA.
People barely care to vote in their local and national elections. In
Ireland, and much of the EU, MEP elections are a joke. I can't see UN
elections working any time soon.
Jim Walsh
> Scríobh J.Rossa McMahon :
> Did he mention that he was just following orders?
Or that he has been repeatedly caught lying about what he did?
--
Turlough
"J.Rossa McMahon" wrote:
> You see, there is more than one way to do something. To me, as an
> Irish law student, the notion of elected prosecutors or judges is
> abhorrent, and seems very open to abuse. But it works for you! So, I
> don't see any problem with the ICC structure.
How is *elected* more open to abuse than *appointed?* Doesn't the
appointed fellow feel he must be loyal to the philosophies and leanings
of his sponsor? Isn't the elected fellow more apt to be scrutinized by
the public, especially by members of the other political parties he
defeated, and tend to follow the letter of the law more carefully to
avoid scandal or criticism?
Turlough
J.Rossa McMahon
<turlo...@excite.com> wrote:
> How is *elected* more open to abuse than *appointed?* Doesn't the
> appointed fellow feel he must be loyal to the philosophies and leanings
> of his sponsor?
Quite simply, no. Once appointed (which is done after nominees are referred
to the government by the Judicial Appointments Board) it is very hard to
remove a judge - I think you need 2/3 approval by both houses of the
Oireachtas. Granted, governments will tend to appoint judges sharing their
philosophies (this is not always the case however). But then, a government
should be entitled to do that - if you elect one government and endorse
their policies, you should want to see that reflected in the legal system
(but not in such a manner that they exert direct control over judges).
Honestly, I wouldn't trust people to elect judges. What if a candidate were
to campaign about his like for the death penalty? A judge that must be
reelected must constantly keep in mind what his constituency will think of
his decisions. This can only be a bad thing.
> Isn't the elected fellow more apt to be scrutinized by
> the public, especially by members of the other political parties he
> defeated, and tend to follow the letter of the law more carefully to
> avoid scandal or criticism?
Do you think that judges who follow the letter of the law avoid scandal or
criticism? Witness the recent case in the US of the constitutional challenge
to the 'under God' swear-thingy. Republicans got right out on Capitol Hill
and proclaimed their disgust at the judiciary - as did many other Americans.
But he followed the letter of the law? Now, what if a judge who would rule
the other way was elected - what then happens to the constitution?
Jim Walsh
>>>>>If it were a standing, permanent court, there would be pressures on
>>>>>the prosecutors to bring more cases to justify its existence. ...
>>>>
>>>>This is an argument for abolishing the "permanent" County Prosecutor's
>>>>office in (whatever) county you live. Do you recommend abolishing the
>>>>County Prosecutor's office?
>>>
>>> No. The prosecutors and the judges are elected by the citizens of the
>>> county. They can be booted or re-elected to office, depending on how
>>> the citizens perceive their performance.
...............................
>>If you mean that 'election' is the only procedure that can put a check
>>on the powers of a standing permenant court, then I suppose that you are
>>proposing to abolish the US Supreme Court.
>
> Not at all. See above. The US Supreme Court exists for a very
> different purpose than the ICC.
Any difference in purpose is irrelevant.
> It is primarily an appellate court, not a criminal court.
Well, it rarely sits as a trial court, but that is also irrelevant. It is
under pressure to justify its existence, with the result that it expands
the sorts of cases it can hear, and it pushes its nose more and more into
the opperations of the other branches.
> As the last court of appeal, it does indeed "put a check on" the state
> and federal courts below it. In addition, its jurisdiction is limited
> to certain types of cases, especially those in which an interpretation
> of the US Constitution is involved. It is also limited in terms of
> geography; i.e., it has no jurisdiction outside the boundaries of the
> USA and its territories.
Norreiga appealed his illegal extradition, trial and imprisonement. Guess
that the US Supreme Court decision (against him) meant that it can decide
whether to punish criminals who commit crimes in other nations.
Do you think that the US Supreme Court has jurisdiction over the prisoner
held in the US Military base on Cuba?
> The ICC, OTH, would have
> jurisdiction over the entire World, even people of non-member and
> non-ratifying countries. You're wasting your time and mine with these
> ridiculous attempt to analogize my position. Not one has been valid, so
> let's stick to the subject.
None of what you wrote remotely distinquishes the US Supreme Court from
the ICC. They are both standing permanent courts "with pressure" on the
prosecutors to bring more cases.
You don't really believe what you said, so you are not willing to apply it
to the US Supreme Court.
[Hint: I appreciate the cute little "law lessons" you slip into your
posts. They don't ad anything to your logic or evidence but they do plump
up your posts.]
Mike MacKinnon
> On Thu, 04 Jul 2002 08:12:50 GMT, "Mike MacKinnon"
> <mikema...@pgpower.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"MacHamish" <rus...@concentric.net> wrote in message
> >news:tgb6iukqi02q99i9k...@4ax.com...
> >> On Wed, 03 Jul 2002 08:01:39 GMT, "Mike MacKinnon"
> >> <mikema...@pgpower.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
SNIP
I'm going to give this one an ending as my views are slightly left of centre
and yours are not. We are, I think, caught in a circular discussion. I will
enjoy going back to this however, when we meet up at Tate!
M
charles liu
in conviction and sentence? How about just 1? Remember grants of
pardon are separate from the trials, and there must be something to
pardon from. ICC certainly did not address remedy portion of trails,
only that they be tried (and according to you ICC is vague on
"sham-ness" of trials.)
"J.Rossa McMahon" <ro...@dol.ie> wrote in message news:<B9496122.1537%ro...@dol.ie>...
J.Rossa McMahon
"MacHamish" <rus...@concentric.net> wrote:
> Media reports have it that The US wants immunity for diplomats and millitary
> forces when they are involved in peacekeeping missions on behalf of, or
> endorsed by, the UN. It doesn't seem an unreasonable request. Why do the
> other members resist the idea? That would seem to say the court is already
> political.
Why immunity for UN endorsed soldiers? The Irish state endorses its army,
that doesn't mean they're immune from prosecution before the Irish courts.
One of the main points about the ICC is practically no immunity is to be
made available.
J.Rossa McMahon
pan.2002.07.05.06....@ebtnet.net, "Jim Walsh"
<jimw...@ebtnet.net> wrote:
> Norreiga appealed his illegal extradition, trial and imprisonement. Guess
> that the US Supreme Court decision (against him) meant that it can decide
> whether to punish criminals who commit crimes in other nations.
They can - the doctrine of universal jurisdiction.
des Kaisers Haarpracht
wrote:
>> You see, there is more than one way to do something. To me, as an
>> Irish law student, the notion of elected prosecutors or judges is
>> abhorrent, and seems very open to abuse. But it works for you! So, I
>> don't see any problem with the ICC structure.
>
>How is *elected* more open to abuse than *appointed?* Doesn't the
>appointed fellow feel he must be loyal to the philosophies and leanings
>of his sponsor?
Does he?
>Isn't the elected fellow more apt to be scrutinized by
>the public, especially by members of the other political parties he
>defeated, and tend to follow the letter of the law more carefully to
>avoid scandal or criticism?
Or is he just in the pocket of the grouping with the most financial
resources to fund his election campaign? Does it confuse justice with
popularity?
Gavin Bailey
Elaine Goldberg
Mike wrote:
>I'm going to give this one an ending as
> my views are slightly left of centre and
> yours are not. We are, I think, caught in
> a circular discussion. I will enjoy going
> back to this however, when we meet up
> at Tate!
Oh, no! You're planning to talk 'politics' at the Tate House? I
thought we were going to play music!
Actually, Mike...... MacHamish doesn't think he'll be able to join us,
however we have several months to try to persuade him to change his
mind. A lot of things can change between now and next April.
Elaine
Jim Walsh
Which refutes your previous description of the US Supreme Court having
territorially limited jurisdiction. Please indicate you no longer view the
US Supreme Court's jurisdiction as limited territorially.
Jim Walsh
> I disagree. How many examples can you find where a sham trial results in
> conviction and sentence?
You have mistated the condition. The procedure is not excused from being
sham because part of it wasn't a sham.
And I don't need to find a past example. The ICC is not about the past. It
is specifically reserved to future cases, or so I understood.
So, suppose the ICC is gettign ready to prosecute Mr. X of Country Y.
Country Y prepares what looks like a real trial, and there is a
conviction, after which Mr. X is pardoned.
I am not prepared to say, based on these facts, that the ICC would not
consider the PROCESS to be a sham.
> How about just 1? Remember grants of pardon are separate from the
> trials, and there must be something to pardon from.
BTW, although Nixon was pardoned by Ford, Nixon went to his grave claiming
he didn't commit any crimes. And he was certainly never convicted of any.
Pardon before trial (even before the filing of charges) are unusual but
not impossible.
Jim Walsh
How is *elected* more open to abuse than *appointed*?
I am not aware of any well-done research that shows elected judges to be
more or less impartial and fair than appointed judges.
I am not aware of any evidence that corruption is more (or less) common
with elected judges than with appointed judges.
As for me, I think elections make more sense. What is wrong with trusting
the people?
Jim Walsh
> On Fri, 05 Jul 2002 10:38:17 +0100, "J.Rossa McMahon" <ro...@dol.ie>
> wrote:
>
>>On 5/7/02 5:15 am, in article
>>qa7aiugkbgro96t05...@4ax.com, "MacHamish"
>><rus...@concentric.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Media reports have it that The US wants immunity for diplomats and
>>> millitary forces when they are involved in peacekeeping missions on
>>> behalf of, or endorsed by, the UN. It doesn't seem an unreasonable
>>> request. Why do the other members resist the idea? That would seem
>>> to say the court is already political.
>>
>>Why immunity for UN endorsed soldiers? The Irish state endorses its
>>army, that doesn't mean they're immune from prosecution before the Irish
>>courts.
>
> The difference is that they are subject to Irish courts, not an
> international court.
The point is that soldiers are NOT normally immune from prosecution by
their ultimate commanders. In the case of peace-keeping, the ultimate
commander is the UN. So, having peace-keepers prosecuted by the ICC is
similar to having Irish soldiers prosecuted by Ireland.
>>One of the main points about the ICC is practically no immunity is to be
>>made available.
>
> I think the US government is rightfully concerned that US citizens will
> be the target of politically motivated prosecutions. It isn't against
> the idea of a world court.
Well that is silly. Bush and his right-wing-jerk supporters are against
the "world" anything.
> It simply wants some protections in
> situations where the US is called upon, as it always is, to participate
> in peacekeeping actions. That doesn't seem unreasonable to me. It
> should apply to all countries that are involved in UN sponsored
> peacekeeping actions.
No. It should not.
MacRobert
paused to reflect but wrote anyway:
>On Fri, 05 Jul 2002 21:47:58 +0800, MacHamish wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 05 Jul 2002 10:38:17 +0100, "J.Rossa McMahon" <ro...@dol.ie>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On 5/7/02 5:15 am, in article
>>>qa7aiugkbgro96t05...@4ax.com, "MacHamish"
>>><rus...@concentric.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Media reports have it that The US wants immunity for diplomats and
>>>> millitary forces when they are involved in peacekeeping missions on
>>>> behalf of, or endorsed by, the UN. It doesn't seem an unreasonable
>>>> request. Why do the other members resist the idea? That would seem
>>>> to say the court is already political.
>>>
>>>Why immunity for UN endorsed soldiers? The Irish state endorses its
>>>army, that doesn't mean they're immune from prosecution before the Irish
>>>courts.
>>
>> The difference is that they are subject to Irish courts, not an
>> international court.
>
>The point is that soldiers are NOT normally immune from prosecution by
>their ultimate commanders. In the case of peace-keeping, the ultimate
>commander is the UN. So, having peace-keepers prosecuted by the ICC is
>similar to having Irish soldiers prosecuted by Ireland.
>
Actually national forces remain under the direct C & C of their own
commanders. Nor does the UN have the moral or legal authority of a
nation over individual peace-keepers, as you so obviously wish it did.
Most telling is your desire to see soldiers punished for, of all
things, attempting to moderate violence! Put yourself among the
starry-eyed globalists, Mr. Walsh, good luck on your expanding search
for a Bigger Brother.
Stephen
Mike MacKinnon
> On Fri, 05 Jul 2002 07:50:54 GMT, "Mike MacKinnon"
> <mikema...@pgpower.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"MacHamish" <rus...@concentric.net> wrote in message
> >news:2n4aiuojspc4vv1u0...@4ax.com...
> >> On Thu, 04 Jul 2002 08:12:50 GMT, "Mike MacKinnon"
> >> <mikema...@pgpower.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"MacHamish" <rus...@concentric.net> wrote in message
> >> >news:tgb6iukqi02q99i9k...@4ax.com...
> >> >> On Wed, 03 Jul 2002 08:01:39 GMT, "Mike MacKinnon"
> >> >> <mikema...@pgpower.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >
> >SNIP
> >
> >I'm going to give this one an ending as my views are slightly left of
centre
> >and yours are not. We are, I think, caught in a circular discussion. I
will
> >enjoy going back to this however, when we meet up at Tate!
>
>
> MacHamish Mór
You better believe it!!!
M
J.Rossa McMahon
pan.2002.07.05.13....@ebtnet.net, "Jim Walsh"
<jimw...@ebtnet.net> wrote:
> As for me, I think elections make more sense. What is wrong with trusting
> the people?
They can't be trusted, that's what's wrong. Democracy is the worst system,
apart from all the others.
J.Rossa McMahon
>> They can - the doctrine of universal jurisdiction.
>
> Which refutes your previous description of the US Supreme Court having
> territorially limited jurisdiction. Please indicate you no longer view the
> US Supreme Court's jurisdiction as limited territorially.
It wasn't me that said their jurisdiction was limited territorially.
MacRobert
<mikema...@pgpower.com> paused to reflect but wrote anyway:
>
>"MacHamish" <rus...@concentric.net> wrote in message
>> It's always more fun to hold these discussions over a pint or six :)
>>
>> MacHamish Mór
>
>You better believe it!!!
>
>M
>
>
Listen to the pair of you, all talk and no tickets...
MacRobert