John Kerry at the debate

Did anyone catch the topic of the international court? How Kerry wants to join this world organization. So foriegn courts can put our soldiers on trial. WTF! Obviously this is against our constitution and one step closer to one World Government.

[edit on 4-10-2004 by COMMON SENSE]

[edit on 4-10-2004 by COMMON SENSE]

Could you try to post without the caps-lock on?
It's considered shouting in a forum environment and is in poor form.
If you click the "edit" button up there, you can fix that.

Thx.

Ummm� I see you are new.

Welcome to the boards. Is your CAPS lock glued down? Why are you yelling at everyone?

This is a discussion board not a personal broadcast medium.

John Kerry brought up the issue of the ICC or The International Criminal Court. I don�t remember if he fully supported it. Someone else will know.

Perhaps you could explain your conclusions as to why it is against the US constitution to enter into a treaty with other countries and enforce them?

Nobody is forcing anything upon your sovereignty. To be against the principles of the ICC says a lot about a country though.

First off, what is with all these new people flooding the board with anti-Kerry stuff?

Secondly, I don't believe in much of what the democrats say, but I do believe in this. If we are interacting with the rest of the world, then we need to play by their rules. If we commit atrocities in another country, then that country or the world court should be able to try those soldiers. If the soldier commits an atrocity in America, then America should try them.

[edit on 4-10-2004 by Jamuhn]

While I'm not big on the idea of the ICC, if Bush had joined the ICC PRIOR to the Iraq war, then went to the UN, and told them part of his goals were to go get Saddam so he could be put on trial, I am betting he would have had a lot more support at the UN for going in there.

Oh well, hindsight is 20-20.

As far as Kerry saying it, Who gives a damn. Don't like his opinion, wait a week... it'll change.

You think it is right for a foriegn possibly even communist organization to put american citizens on trial?

Yes. There is a difference between fighting a war and violating human rights. If we do such to citizens of the world, we should be bound by the trials of the citizens of the world.

You are afraid of the NWO, I am afraid of American imperialism.

Originally posted by COMMON SENSE
You think it is right for a foriegn possibly even communist organization to put american citizens on trial?

It's only in the case of "war crimes" and can only be done by Countries (not organisations) who sign onto the treaty.

Countries signing the treaty know that their soldiers could be prosecuted and so will be less likely to commit war crimes.

Countries that do not sign the treaty are sending a message that either they are guilty of them, support them or fear that they are capable of them and so want to insulate themselves.

What is your objection to having your citizens held to a worldwide standard of behaviour when it comes to war?

It seems that not even the Geneva Conventions have influence and they are the "law of the land" in the US.

Alright so lets go and join all world organizations, then we will see how are rights are then.

Originally posted by COMMON SENSE
Alright so lets go and join all world organizations, then we will see how are rights are then.

The US is already a member of just about every international organisation you can think of, in fact, they started most of them. The rule of law is actually supported by them, not undermined as you seem to think.

You're exposing yourself as very ill informed. To put it mildly.

Someone please correct me if I am wrong, but it was my understanding that the World court is not one nation trying the citizens of another, but rather an international organization setup to try War Crimes. Correct?

So it would actually be impossible for a, say communist government, to try citizen of the US. Rather it would be the international community punishing those who violate international law.

Did I get that right?

Yes, you are right. Cant you see are freedom and rights are getting better and better? I did not state that it was a singular foriegn government, and if I did I miss spoke. So in this international organization, how many delegates are communists?

[edit on 4-10-2004 by COMMON SENSE]

Phreak: As far as I know there are complexe rules for the composition of the court and it is an organisation set up by the treaty that individual countries sign onto. I think it is an agency of the UN, but not sure on that.

An individual country has to follow a procedure within the framework of the treaty to bring a "case" to the court. I don't know if they need sponsors or need to vote as they do in the UN, or if it's like a private citizen taking another to court.

PS: I though Joseph McCarthy was dead?

The reason for the ICC is benevolent in nature, it was formed in 1998 and it is to prosecute those that commit crimes against humanity, war crimes and genocide, most of US allies had joint the ICC, Clinton agreed with the nature of the court but could not agree with what the court defined as crimes, so it rejected the agreement.

The reason for not agreed with it was that the ICC could overrides our Constitution and Bill of Rights, and also misused can come from the court.

For more information about the reason as why under the ICC US can be prosecute link to the below link, very interesting. Now that I have read it I truly understand why the US opposed to it.


writ.news.findlaw.com...

Nice find Marge.

I was not aware of some of the things discussed in there. I'd have to look into it a lot more to form a solid opinion at this point (look at the text of the treaty etc.).

But since it's a done deal for Canada and I do not fear prosecution under any of the definitions of war crimes, genocide, or crimes against humanity I'll do it later.

Hey Marge thanks for the info.

In a way I have to agree with bush not signing the agreetment It is not for the best interest of the US.