At Stardate 20030622.2116, Jan Coffey wrote:
> >No, it is those who are recognising the ICC who are saying that that > >particular flavor of international law should apply to them. Just becouse > >the US doesn't go along with something doesn't seggest that they believe > >that they should be exempt. > > Actually, they did say that. The US was willing to accept the ICC, but only > if no US serviceman would ever have to stand trial there. And they made a > very clear threat about what they would do if an American *would* be put on > trial there.
Strange offers are made when the other side of the table will not listen to reason.
Excuse me? What the US said was: "if you put an American on trial at the ICC, we will invade The Netherlands to free him". That's not an *offer*, that's a *threat*. And a threat against one of America's own *allies*, even. How can we trust someone who threatens his own friends?
> I wouldn't have to prove that US troops did *not* stick those civilians > under the bridge. Thanks to the principle of "innocent until proven > guilty", the burden would be on me to prove that those troops *did* round > up and kill those civilians. No proof, no conviction.
But the way the ICC is set up, they would not recieve a trial by their peers. Without that we do not beleive that IUPG works.
Then you really need to study how things are done in other countries. I'll use The Netherlands as an example: we don't have trial by jury here, but people are still considered innocent until proven guilty. In every civilised country in the world, people are considered innocent until proven guilty -- and I bet that most of those countries don't have trial by jury.
The difference is that over here we leave decisions about guilty/not-guilty to people who have actually been trained to do this (the judges), not to a small group of people who usually have never even seen the inside of a Law School, let alone graduated from one.
Really, I don't understand why anyone would want to leave such decisions to a bunch of untrained amateurs. After all, when you're feeling sick, who would you turn to for the diagnosis: a trained professional (a physician) or a small group of "peers" who haven't had extensive medical training?
> Maybe arrogance is considered a good thing in the US, but if you come over > here I recommend you leave the arrogance at home. It is not appreciated on > this side of the Atlantic.
You see, it would be unethical for an american to do something so unamerican.
What's unethical about showing respect for the customs and traditions of people in other countries when you visit that country? To go back to my Thailand example: why would it be unethical for an American couple to refrain from walking hand in hand there, when they know that such behaviour is frowned upon there?
When a Muslem friend invites you to a mosque, do you leave your shoes at the door (as you're supposed to), or do you walk into the mosque with your shoes on, stating that "I'm no Muslem, so I don't have to respect and follow this custom"?
Jeroen van Baardwijk
_________________________________________________________________________ Wonderful-World-of-Brin-L Website: http://www.Brin-L.com
[Sponsored by:] _____________________________________________________________________________ The newest lyrics on the Net!
http://lyrics.astraweb.com
Click NOW!
