| This Month's Best | Best Active | Best Inactive | Pick a Creator | Pick a Category | All |
| New Survey | Replies | Users | Search | Chat | Forum | Feedback | Statistics | Customize | Help |
| Type | Created | Category | Creator | Sort | Votes | Hides | Rating | |
| multiple | 3-Aug-1998 | politics/religion | daver | unsorted | 47 | 8 | 52.1% |
|
| User | Comment |
|---|---|
| reality | posted 3-Aug-1998 4:27pm I hadn't really heard of it, I assume it has something to do withthe quandry between the US and Scotland and those terrorists and that Pan Am flight. I think it is a good idea. I also like the idea of a functioning world government as opposed to the UN, which is pretty much powerless unless they choose to send troops (and I don't think everyone has an equal say, or even a proportional say). |
| ron2112 | posted 3-Aug-1998 4:38pm I guess it's a good idea, although it will be very difficult to set it up in such a way that it is unquestionably impartial in all cases. What I don't understand is, doesn't the UN already have the authority to set up tribunals for these types of cases? |
| Timmi | posted 3-Aug-1998 4:47pm World Government Now. |
| lisashea | posted 3-Aug-1998 5:03pm Great idea. I think laws, just like trade, should become more and more international. As people hop country borders more and more, it's hard to remember, "OK, in Ireland I can do X, but in England I can only do Y, and then in France ..." |
| bpersei | posted 3-Aug-1998 5:13pm I think that it sounds like a good idea, but because I don't have a TV or get a newspaper, I don't really know much about it. I would imagine that some countries would get offended by having some large, international court intercede with their political/judicial system(s). |
| steve | posted 3-Aug-1998 6:15pm I am appalled that the US Administration had to argue against it, and had to make up this lame-ass excuse about our involvement in peacekeeping operations as a reason for our objections (Britain? Canada? France? These are not countries that don't get involved in peacekeeping operations.) when the real reason is that the jackasses, er, I mean, Republicans in Congress have basically said that they want the UN to have total authority to punish anyone in the world except us because, well, because we say so. |
| bill | posted 3-Aug-1998 6:38pm New World Order Human Rights for All |
| seven | posted 4-Aug-1998 6:46am One step closer toward a global government. "War criminals" is a pretty silly term. |
| Jody | posted 4-Aug-1998 9:35am I think it's a good idea, but the challenge is, as always, that not everybody (particularly internationally) agrees on what is and is not a crime, what degree of seriousness to assign to a crime, and what is an appropriate punishment for a crime. |
| jhim | posted 4-Aug-1998 1:43pm What would be *really* interesting is a court system to take entire countries to court for collective acts of violence, political bullying, ecological abuse, poor taste, or the introduction of really bad all-girl music groups to the world's delicate ecosystem. |
| BadtzMaru | posted 5-Aug-1998 10:55am It's an idea which should have been implemented long ago. Ditto everything Steve, Timmi, & Bill said. |
| jjg | posted 5-Aug-1998 5:03pm Where's the prison going to be? Who's going to make up the laws? Who is going to enforce the laws? Who is going to act as the police force? Where is the money going to come from? How much national sovereignty do we need to give up? Are we going to force countries to join? These are just a few questions every government will be asking. World government won't happen. It's a poor idea from idealists. Just remember folks, there are a billion chinese and only 270 million Americans. Whose voice is louder in, I assume, a democratic world government. You ready to give up the bonuses of living in North America? I'm not. |
| Resy | posted 12-Aug-1998 11:16pm don't think it would work...who would house the convicted? |
| daver | posted 13-Aug-1998 7:58am I'm torn on this issue...on one hand, I don't like the idea of war criminals getting off on legal technicalities (or simply not being prosecuted at all). On the other hand, this effectively hands over a large chunk of sovereignty from individual countries to the UN, and I'm not sure that the UN will do a better job than the individual countries. On the gripping hand, the current version of this proposal specifically excludes countries with an adequate court system from the ICC's jurisdiction. (And just what is an "adequate" court system?) Overall, I'd say no, it's a good but unworkable idea. **ron2112: Yes they do...the ICC is intended to save them from having to convene a tribunal every time. **jjg and Resy: The prison would be in the Hague... |
| phi | posted 13-Aug-1998 8:48pm And I think it's strange that international criminals are generally tried in US courts. |
| seth | posted 17-Aug-1998 6:54pm I need more information before I can form an opinion. Under what circumstances would this court have jurisdiction? What would the enforce? |
If you'd like to vote and/or comment on this survey, please Sign On
| This Month's Best | Best Active | Best Inactive | Pick a Creator | Pick a Category | All |
| New Survey | Replies | Users | Search | Chat | Forum | Feedback | Statistics | Customize | Help |