Re: [Sovereignty v. global justice [was... Mohammed gets Miranda]]
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"
[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
On 19 Feb 2001, LUIS VILDOSOLA wrote:
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.
A crime is any act, or in some cases failure to act, which causes physical damage to a person or their property, makes use of said property, or breaks a public trust without prior permission by all involved. A crime is a violation of the responce 'No'. ____________________________________________________________________ Before a larger group can see the virtue of an idea, a smaller group must first understand it. "Stranger Suns" George Zebrowski The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
At 06:32 PM 2/19/01 -0600, Jim Choate wrote:
On 19 Feb 2001, LUIS VILDOSOLA wrote:
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.
A crime is any act, or in some cases failure to act, which causes physical damage to a person or their property, makes use of said property, or breaks a public trust without prior permission by all involved.
A crime is a violation of the responce 'No'.
No Jim, you don't handle masochism at all. Crime is any *nonconsensual* interaction. ....... "What company did you say you were from, Mr. Hewlett?" ---Walt Disney to Bill Hewlett eetimes 22.01.01 p 32
LUIS VILDOSOLA said:
Before you can judge an act to be a crime against humanity. I'd like to know what acts can be identified as crime,
According to the UN http://www.un.org/law/icc/statute/elements/elemfra.htm Which illustrates that a crime is a legal wrong as defined by the sovereign. Otherwise, what Jim said. I could add some legalese, but who wants that.
This is not to question the merit of such an enterprise but to question the means ...corruption.
Your questions regarding semantics are highly relevant. The ICC is tangled up in definitions of "the crime of aggression" at the moment. As far as the definition of humanity, I'm not going to bite that. Many nations feel that it will be used by the few, or the many, as a political vehicle. Others fear the Court will extend it's subject matter jurisdiction after gaining acceptance. The last 3 signatures before the Dec. 31 deadline were....Iran...Israel...US (Clinton on his way out - but don't look for it getting past the Senate. The US Military is violently opposed.) In the realm of lunatic possibilities, I can think of several areas where there might be an interest in extending the Court's subject matter jurisdiction to include other common denominators of criminality, according to the majority world viewpoint, but I question if this would be undertaken. Finding base emotional common denominators are easy, (using children as shields, for example) but notions of criminality, and viewpoints regarding the application of justice are anything but universal. Since the traditional place of the sovereign is between the individual and other nation-states, many view the ICC's "directness" as a significant encroachment on sovereignty, and some say it's meant to be a restraint on progress of a revolutionary nature. (ie corruption: make unfounded allegations against a rebel leader, a foreign military force in residence, etc.) Cypherpunks illustrate the importance of a "sheltering sovereign," and how ideas can mature, take tangible form, and spread to other nation-states, especially in a networked society. Many of the ideas put forth in this forum would benefit from a criminal nation-state, a misnomer that includes a spectrum running from liberty/tax havens to terrorist harbors. So, in my naive view, anything that is viewed as an encroachment on sovereignty (or asylum) has some relevance here. [The ICC is a very politicized topic. I've been chewing at both ends of the pro/con stick, which are equally sensational in nature. I'm certainly no expert in foreign relations, or the ICC, so I encourage anybody interested in this issue to do the same, and form their own opinion.] A:mee
participants (4)
-
Aimee Farr -
David Honig -
Jim Choate -
LUIS VILDOSOLA