Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Left Wing Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: thames_sider who wrote (5530)	4/12/2002 10:17:50 AM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 6089

but it's designed to try crimes against humanity, genocide and terrorism. It covers what the court decides to call crimes against humanity, genocide, or terrorism. Some Europeans and many third world governments called the US involvement in Vietnam a crime against humanity. Oh, and at least 75% of its constituents are certified by the US as free democratic states. Places like Canada, UK, Germany, Australia... feel better? A little bit but that's still no guarantee. European courts (and sometimes American courts particularly when dealing with drugs) have acted when they had no authority because no crime was committed in their jurisdiction. The Pinochet case provides a good example of this. Of course Pinochet was actually involved in abuse of human rights, but not in Spain. Better hope Ashcroft loves you. And his successors. Oh, boy, won't the next Hoover love these powers. Ashcroft's powers have more checks and balances then this court will have. Your argument seems to be that America can trust an international body a lot more then it can trust its own government because this new body will supposedly be dominated by free democratic states. I'm not sure that it will be, but even if it is last time I checked the US was a free democratic state. Tim