Before you can judge an act to be a crime against humanity. I'd like to know what acts can be identified as crime, where is humanity and how are both these ideas brought together. This is not to question the merit of such an enterprise but to question the means of it's corruption. "Aimee Farr" <aimee.farr@pobox.com> wrote:
[I refrained from posting yab, but Declan's latest Politech "FC: U.N. hopes to shut down accused Rwandan journalist's web site" gigged me.]
Phillip H Zakas said:
hmm. does this mean le/intelligence agencies will soon need to have a warrant to perform wiretaps on overseas communications? And if no warrant, can collected evidence eventually be disallowed if foreign suspects are brought to us courts? slippery slope.
Or, no slope ... according to some people's opinions of the International Criminal Court. Many say we will be yielding our sovereignty, our Constitution, and our procedural protections to this Court. (ICC advocates, on the other hand, are quick to point out concord between the ICC and the
US
Constitution: http://www.wfa.org/issues/icc/usconst.html .)
The ICC is an international court, judging _individuals_, not nation-states, in regard to: "the crime of genocide; crimes against humanity; war crimes; and the crime of aggression." Many have expressed concern over subsequent extensions of the Court's subject matter jurisdiction. One commentator stated that even if a nation is not a party to the Rome Statute, the ICC can still investigate a crime within that nation according to ICC rules. [I haven't read all the documentation, and I'm not about to, so I can't say about such nuances....]
Yet another ill wind for criminal nation-states, sheltering sovereigns, and putative techrepublics.
A:mee
____________________________________________________________________ Get free email and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1