![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
The "big guy" on the
block doesn't have to be a bully if he doesn't want to. If someone runs up and kicks him in the groin he does. It would be a small price to pay if it will bring more justice to the world Spoken like someone with zero chances of being charged by the ICC. and I don't think the US will have much trouble defending itself in juridical matters. Its not beating the trumped up BS cases that concerns us, its dealing with them over and over again that is of concern. I really don't see what the US is so afraid of An endless string of baseless ICC suits filed by both our enemies and a few non-enemies (Belgium). That it was even brought in the first place is proof enough of what the ICC would look like. How does this case disproove that only valid, strong cases will have any chance of survival in the ICC? Because if it was brought in the ICC instead of Belgian courts, US lawyers would have had to represent Gen. Franks in the hearings that eventually dismissed the charges. Former State Department legal advisor Monroe Lei: snip That's two opinions, if I had the time or inclination I'm sure I could find two disenting opinions. "The list of due process rights guaranteed by the Rome Statute are, if anything, more detailed and comprehensive than those in the American Bill of Rights No one is arguing that the ICC would be locking up US military personnel, just that the ICC would give a venue for US enemies to engage in "legal warfare", requiring US lawyers to be in a constant state of defending our citizens. The US was dragged into the Yugoslavia conflict, but who became the target for the anti-war crowd? That's right the "big guy on the block". Such a case would hardly qualify for an ICC prosecution unless there was evidence of serious human rights violations. Who would decide if there was sufficient evidence? AMICC list a series of polls that show US public opinion in favor of ICC to hover around 61-66%. I don't know who AMICC is, but polls don't mean much to me. The overwhelming response of US citizens in the form of letters to their congressman oppsing the ICC were enough to convice both parties that the US should not support the ICC. BUFDRVR "Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips everyone on Bear Creek" |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
The joke called TSA | Spockstuto | Instrument Flight Rules | 58 | December 27th 04 12:54 PM |
Sick Boeing Joke. | plasticguy | Home Built | 0 | April 1st 04 03:16 PM |
On Topic Joke | Eric Miller | Home Built | 8 | March 6th 04 03:01 AM |
Europe as joke | Cub Driver | Military Aviation | 165 | November 8th 03 10:45 PM |
American joke on the Brits | ArtKramr | Military Aviation | 50 | September 30th 03 10:52 PM |