Re:Re:It's not just Bowie, or is it?

2003-06-29 Thread Ibrahim Dughlas-gani
- Original Message - From: Steve Sloan II [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sunday, June 29, 2003 10:54 am Subject: Re:It's not just Bowie, or is it? Jeroen van Baardwijk wrote: I think it's rather odd that you have such mistrust of your government. After all, the people in your

Re:Re:It's not just Bowie, or is it?

2003-06-26 Thread Jan Coffey
--- Jeroen van Baardwijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At Stardate 20030626.0014, Jan Coffey wrote: That has nothing to do with the concept of trial by jury. The jury system doesn't have any more safeguards against an innocent man being convicted than our system has. Your system has

Re:Re:It's not just Bowie, or is it?

2003-06-25 Thread Jeroen van Baardwijk
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.

Re:Re:It's not just Bowie, or is it?

2003-06-25 Thread Jeroen van Baardwijk
At Stardate 20030625.2101, Jan Coffey wrote: This is exactly why the US is staying out of the ICC. The regulations are not sufficient to guarentee that they will not be abused. Can you guarantee that someone who is given a trial by jury in the US will be given a *fair* trial? Can you

Re:Re:It's not just Bowie, or is it?

2003-06-25 Thread Jan Coffey
--- Jeroen van Baardwijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At Stardate 20030625.2101, Jan Coffey wrote: This is exactly why the US is staying out of the ICC. The regulations are not sufficient to guarentee that they will not be abused. Can you guarantee that someone who is given a trial