--- Jorpho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > 1) The US population believes that our system works becouse of the 3
> > branches. We would not want to have any one or two of these branches
> without
> > the others. The ICC is one branch without the others. This concerns us
> > greatly, we do not feel (and I speek for myself and a few others, but I
> > believe my words to be true for the majority) that having a Judicial
> without
> > the other two is a good thing. It would have more power than it should
> and
> > would not be balance. Therefore the ICC is scarry to us and looks like
> the
> > first step on a slipery slope twards an orwelian future we do not want.
>
> It occurs to me, would the laws of an international criminal court really
> change that often?
The ability to change is more important than the frequency.
> There is a very wide variety of activities and a very
> wide variety of potential crimes in the United States, and all of it is
> changing at a rapid pace.
As is true in any country.
But the importatnt feature is being able to tweek laws when one of two
possibilities is found.
1) The letter of the law is such that it inadvertantly makes something
illegal and that is unjust. (In CA we have a law that talks to the "intent
vs. the letter" which resolves much of this) No law system is perfect.
Systems which don't use context free grammers have "bugs" so you know that a
system which does use a context free grammer will have bugs.
2) Someitmes criminals find a way to work around the letter of the law
("intent vs. the letter" will not resolve this) in these cases the laws much
be changed to close the gap, to fix the "law back door".
> But when we are talking about war crimes that
> lead to the mass slaughter of hundreds or thousands of people, is the
> situation not somewhat more clear-cut?
You would think so, but the US disagrees on some of the proposed laws
specificaly becouse of particular bugs, but more specificaly becouse of how
such "bugs" are adressed in the ICC.
It looks as if mass slaughter is not all that is covered.
War situations like a whole vilage (men women and children) all acting as
combatants in a war zone. Under the ICC it is unclear wheather or not such a
vilage is a) civilians, b) unlaufull combatants, c)enemy combatants, d) none
of the above.
Since such situations are not adressed specificaly they would have to be
worked through. this would require the other 2 branches.
In addition, the US is not prepared (at this time) to work through such
issues as it (the US) would mostlikely be the defendent in most of these
cases.
Further more the US definition of a war crime ~does not~ fit the difinition
held in some countries.
The absence of the other two branches and a representative way of determining
the law, is troubeling specificaly becouse of this.
> The need for a legislative and
> executive branch might thus be somewhat less pressing.
aCTUALY I would argue that it is the exact oposite, war law would be much
more intricate and cificult specificaly beoucse we are talking about lawful,
and unlauful ways to KILL PEOPLE.
The opinoins on this would vary greater than talking about whether or not
Killing is unlauful.
=====
_________________________________________________
Jan William Coffey
_________________________________________________
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com
[Sponsored by:]
_____________________________________________________________________________
The newest lyrics on the Net!
http://lyrics.astraweb.com
Click NOW!
