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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (88842)	4/1/2003 3:29:38 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Actually, I see no more reason that an international court would have made the case, assuming it was there to be made. Regardless, there is no reason to impair US sovereignty or the constitutional order by surrendering jurisdiction to an international court. As far as "any international oversight" goes, when there is sufficient consensus among the Anglophone nations, I would be happy to join a confederation of the UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, maybe some others. But that hasn't arrived yet, and I would prefer to see how that went before going very far in overriding US sovereignty.......

To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (88842)	4/1/2003 3:30:59 PM
From: aladin	Respond to of 281500

Jacob, The ICC could have? What? Found someone guilty without clear evidence? Manufactured evidence to fit a political theory? Closer to the event when I was in school there was a fair amount of 'evidence' that the coup was backed by ITT and that some members of the admin and CIA had looked the other way. Earlier emails on this thread indicate it was all over copper mining (as opposed to an application of the wire :-). Its never clear that any political committee or politically motivated trial is actually looking for truth. John