You have yet to refute any thing I have posted or to uphold any thing except your parochial and incorrect vision of a non US court having jurisdiction over Bushs' alleged crimes.
They do have jurisdiction if THEIR laws say they do. It is the same with US courts. Granted, enforcement of any decision is a problem. To claim that a Spanish court has no jurisdiction over someone that (by THEIR definition) has harmed them is just as stupid as saying US courts don't have that same right. On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 8:59 AM, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote: > > Your point??? Given the background that less than 1/3 of the > countries have agreed to the complusory clause, that the assumption > was it would be universal but was not, and that all nations can > withdraw at their whim, in terms of the ICJ being an standard for > "international Law" it is NOT.. Very telling is the courts have no > enforcement powers, the UNSC has by design... > > Further here are some ICJ cases you might read... It is clear that > even to the ICJ, International warrants and NOT an established > principle... Please less verbage and more source documents... > > http://www.amun.org/uploads/Handbooks/IAA_07_ch9.pdf > > >>> Charges brought by Congo against France seem to stem from the ruling in > a previous case, Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) v Belgium. This case, > much like the current one, challenged the legality of Belgian law concerning > universal jurisdiction, and raised broader concerns about the jurisdiction > of national courts over international crimes, especially if they are > committed outside the territorial boundaries of the court in question. > Though the Court decided that the Belgium warrant for the DRC Foreign > Minister infringed upon the diplomat’s immunity, the decision resolved > little, and never settled the issue. Congo’s filing of this application > re-introduces the idea of international legal jurisdiction. > > On Apr 10, 6:10 pm, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 4:00 PM, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Some source documents... Please note compulsory here is and always > > > has been OPTIONAL... And states may end that feature at their > > > whim... Like your defining sex as not sex... > > > > I did NO SUCH THING.... That statute was written or at the very least > > approved as written by congress. I did NOT originate the DC definition. > > > > Just what does this have to do with the point.... The US was or was not, > > until Reagans withdrawal by executive order, under compulsory compliance > ??? > > did the conviction predate his withdrawal ?? > > > > My point is made. It is you that is trying to introduce the rest.. > > > > > > > > > Nowhere in this discussion have you stated or implied that relative > > > FEW countries covered... Or that feature which allows states to end > > > the compulsory feature... Facts are hard things... And you misuse > > > them > > > > >http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1079/is_v86/ai_4076208/ > > > > > >>> When the President Truman signed the U.S. declaration accepting > the > > > World Court's optional compulsory jurisdiction on August 1, 1946, this > > > country expected that other states would soon act similarly. The > essential > > > underpinning of the UN system, of which the World Court is a part, is > the > > > principle of universality. Unfortunately, few other states have > followed our > > > example. Fewer than one-third of the world's states have accepted the > > > Court's compulsory jurisdiction, and the Soviet Union and its allies > have > > > never been among them. Nor, in our judgment, has Nicaragua. Of the five > > > permanent members of the UN Security Council, only the United States > and the > > > United Kingdom have submitted to the Court's compulsory jurisdiction. > > > > > Our experience with compulsory jurisdiction has been deeply > > > disappointing. We have never been able to use our acceptance of > > > compulsory jurisdiction to bring other states before the Court but > > > have ourselves been used three times. In 1946 we accepted the risks of > > > our submitting to the Court's compulsory jurisdiction because we > > > believed that the respect owed to the Court by other states and the > > > Court's own appreciation of the need to adhere scrupulously to its > > > proper judicial role would prevent the Court's process from being > > > abused for political ends. Those assumptions have now been proved > > > wrong. As a result, the President has concluded that continuation of > > > our acceptance of the Court's compulsory jurisdiction would be > > > contrary to our commitment to the principle of the equal application > > > of the law and would endanger our vital national interests. > > > > > On Apr 10, 5:35 pm, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Truman signed it. August 26, 1946 > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 3:29 PM, dick thompson < > [email protected] > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > The answwer is that the main question was never answered at all. > When > > > did > > > > > the US ever sign onto the ICJ? If we never signed on then why > should > > > we be > > > > > subject to what it claims. It is like the last part of the Geneva > > > > > Convention. We never signed it. Congress never approved it. Why > then > > > > > should we be held to it. The earlier parts, yes, we signed them. > Same > > > with > > > > > the ICJ. We never signed it. Congress never approved it. Why > should > > > we > > > > > ever care what they claim. And the reasons for not signing it I > > > mentioned > > > > > before. Until those questions are answered fully and completely > and > > > those > > > > > points taken into consideration, then we should just tell them to > STFU. > > > > > > > Mark wrote: > > > > > > > We covered this before.......... sorry you can't respond on point. > > > > > > > When Dick was asked exactly which question I did not answer in full > he > > > did > > > > > not address it at all, so I assume that to be an admission that i > did > > > answer > > > > > it. > > > > > > > Now you post a reverse order time line that PROVES my point and do > not > > > > > address the fact that it does so. > > > > > > > Now you are off on yet another tangent. It is fine to use multiple > > > types of > > > > > examples to make a point on topic. It is NOT kosher to grab at one > of > > > the > > > > > lesser supportive examples and try to change the base subject of > the > > > debate > > > > > to THAT example which on its own will not stand up. > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 2:56 PM, jgg1000a <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > >> >>> You then started on ENTITIES, not people > > > > > > >> No I said your claimed facts were false, which had to do with > first > > > > >> open rejection of a ICJ or UN Judgment.... Again had you limited > > > > >> your claim to "the ICJ judged against Reagan and the US in 1986" > it > > > > >> would have been factual... Instead you included attack-dog > verbage > > > > >> which included false claims... > > > > > > >> That you are unable to admit or understand this simple point is > > > > >> telling... > > > > > > >> On Apr 10, 4:26 pm, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >> > Response one: > > > > > > >> > Someone has to. > > > > > > >> > TWO: > > > > > > >> > They have the right to reach internationally on affairs they > think > > > > >> > affect or affected their interests in any way. > > > > > > >> > Gee, the US does just that as well. > > > > > > >> > THREE: > > > > > > >> > Should they ??? No. He has not made a single overt or covert > move > > > > >> > outside his borders that did not include an invitation of > another > > > (the > > > > >> > affected) sitting sovereign government. That would be the US > method > > > > >> > and why the Spanish feel they have a right to act. > > > > >> > FOUR: > > > > > > >> > If I'm not mistaken the US does not consider six men (Che had > > > resigned > > > > >> from > > > > > > >> > ALL Cuban service) talking politics and basicallly starving in > the > > > > >> outback > > > > >> > to be a reasonable threat... in this case there is no point to > be > > > made > > > > >> by > > > > >> > you. As far as some of the other excursions made by Cuba during > > > their > > > > >> > "foreign travels", those soldiers were on loan to the Soviet > > > bloc.... Is > > > > >> the > > > > > > >> > US responsible for UN actions ?? > > > > > > >> > And as far as deserving to be convicted... what difference does > it > > > > >> make... > > > > >> > the first to openly ignore the UN was indeed, you guessed it, > the US > > > > >> under > > > > >> > Raygun Ronnie, when he unilaterally pulled the US from the ICJ > > > > >> jurisdiction > > > > > > >> > AFTER being convicted and an 18 billion dollar (still unpaid) > > > verdict > > > > >> > was rendered for war crimes............ > > > > > > >> > How soon the right points fingers forgetting they paved the way. > > > > > > >> > I see NO waffling in any of my very direct answers to direct and > ON > > > > >> TOPIC > > > > >> > (unlike yours) questions. > > > > > > >> > And up until and including that reply we were discussing heads > of > > > state > > > > >> and > > > > >> > he mistakenly threw Che into the mix... I reminded him Che was > not > > > part > > > > >> of > > > > >> > the Cuban Gov. when in Bolivia etc. > > > > > > >> > You then started on ENTITIES, not people pulling a Gaar and > trying > > > your > > > > >> best > > > > >> > to make it suit some imagined topic that was simply NOT being > > > discussed > > > > >> > regardless of your interpretation. > > > > > > >> > On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 2:15 PM, jgg1000a <[email protected] > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > >> > > Mark reread the thread.... Dick asked you if effect does the > Us > > > have > > > > >> > > the right to "try" a foreign leader and then issue an arrest > > > > >> > > warrant... To this question you did an Obama and refused to > > > answer > > > > >> > > directly... And that is the core topic of this thread... > In > > > one > > > > >> > > post, in making a point, you added a false fact that > > > > > > >> > > >>> the first to openly ignore the UN > > > > > > >> > > which you altered after the fact to in effect > > > > > > >> > > >>> the first to openly ignore a ICJ judgment > > > > > > >> > > Now I show even that anti-American dig is plainly false what > do > > > you > > > > >> > > do??? You claim if effect any comment about your false your > dig > > > is > > > > >> > > NOT part of this thread, so any disabusing of your "off-topic" > > > > >> > > statement is now out of bounds... Egads man, do you have no > > > > >> > > shame??? If the "the US was first to do it" was off topic, > why > > > did > > > > >> > > you YOU TYPE IT? If however it was part of a valid reply > that > > > was on > > > > >> > > topic, then questioning your claimed facts IS ON TOPIC... > > > > > > >> > > You are seeking to have your insult and deny my claim of you > > > claiming > > > > >> > > false facts all at the same time... Was you insult on > topic??? > > > If > > > > >> > > yes, admit your claim was false, if not apologize for being > off > > > > >> > > topic... Very simple really. After all, we are here for > honest, > > > > >> > > open and civil debate here are we not??? > > > > > > >> > > On Apr 10, 3:30 pm, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >> > > > again gaar, you sidestep the original issue. > > > > > > >> > > > On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 1:27 PM, plainolamerican > > > > >> > > > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > > >> > > > > ouch!!! > > > > > > >> > > > > On Apr 10, 2:09 pm, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >> > > > > > Further examples as I twist the knife into your false > > > claim's > > > > >> back... > > > > >> > > > > > Openly ignoring ICJ judgements is relatively common > starting > > > > >> from > > > > >> > > > > > 1951.... > > > > > > >> > > > > > Non-Compliance with the International Court of Justice > > > > > > >> > > > > > Andrew Srulevitch > > > > >> > > > > > Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish > > > Organizations > > > > >> > > > > > July 8, 2004 > > > > > > >> > > > > > Tomorrow the International Court of Justice will issue > its > > > > >> > > non-binding > > > > >> > > > > > advisory opinion on Israel’s Security Fence. How might > > > Israel > > > > >> react > > > > >> > > > > > to an adverse decision? Detonate a nuclear device? > Attack > > > the > > > > >> > > > > > enemy? Send 350,000 civilians into the > > > > ... > > > > read more » > > > -- Mark M. Kahle, , www.filacoffee.com --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
