The World Court.

[FromTheSouth]

I went online and grabbed on old Lincoln-Douglas High School Debate Topic.

RESOLVED:The United States ought to submit to the jurisdiction of an international court designed to prosecute crimes against humanity.

I disagree with the topic.

A just society must remain sovereignty in order to uphold the social contract it has made with it's people. Every nation has different laws, and these laws are a reflection of the values of the country. With the dichotomy between cultures, and set of laws made for the international community would inherently exclude any regard for the difference in cultures.

I contend, first, that a world court would endanger the sovereignty of individual nations. There is an issue now involving the UN's trying to try our detainees from the War on Terror. First of all, it would be prudent of me to mention that I am not thrilled with the way they are detained, but I don't see another method. Trying the detainees in front of the world court would open the proceeding to any lunatic who feels anger towards to United States. The cases would move from criminal trials to political sideshows. I have faith that we could run fair military tribunals, with outside observers, and actually get justice, both for the nation and the defendant.

We also need to remember that Americans have a right to trial by jury. That includes the President, and if he were ever charged with war crimes, he would be put on trial in front of scholars from nations. Some of these scholars would definitely be instructed by their national government to make the trail, shall we say, less than fair. This is how the UN works. Delegates, inspectors, peacekeepers....they all take direction from their government first, the UN body second.

Secondly, the UN can not be expected to run a world court. The UN fails at everything. Oil for food led to scandal. African aid never gets to the people. The body remains impotent in it's ability to enforce sanctions. Weapons inspectors are kicked out of nations with no resistance from the UN. What makes anyone think that they could run a world court at the Hague. The UN is a place where deals are struck (supposedly) and this deal making would derail the power of the court. Deals for acquittals would center around trade deals and military permissions. I do not foresee fair trials in a world court.

Also, we must remember the case of three American soldiers who accidentally killed two Spanish journalists in a fire fight. The world court wants to pull the US soldiers in front of a judge. These three soldiers face life in prison for an accident. The soldiers were fired upon, and returned fire once the target was isolated. There were journalists in between the two bodies, and apparently some stray fire hit two of them. That was a tragedy, but are we expected to believe that every bit of collateral damage is subject to the political whims of an impotent body that looks more for headlines than consensus?

 

[Razor]

RESOLVED:The United States ought to submit to the jurisdiction of an international court designed to prosecute crimes against humanity.

I disagree with the topic.

I'll go ahead and agree. It would be no fun if I chose to post and agree, right?

A just society must remain sovereignty in order to uphold the social contract it has made with it's people. Every nation has different laws, and these laws are a reflection of the values of the country. With the dichotomy between cultures, and set of laws made for the international community would inherently exclude any regard for the difference in cultures.

I think there's a saying I can use here..."A whole lot of people doing a wrong (or, in this case, holding a wrong principle) does not make that wrong right. It just means there are a bunch of bad people."

What I'm trying to say is, if a country is somehow breaking international law, their laws can't be very good to begin with. International law isn't very stringent to begin with. Don't mass murder, mmkay? If the United States were found guilty of an international law statute, I'd shit a duck.

I contend, first, that a world court would endanger the sovereignty of individual nations. There is an issue now involving the UN's trying to try our detainees from the War on Terror. First of all, it would be prudent of me to mention that I am not thrilled with the way they are detained, but I don't see another method. Trying the detainees in front of the world court would open the proceeding to any lunatic who feels anger towards to United States. The cases would move from criminal trials to political sideshows. I have faith that we could run fair military tribunals, with outside observers, and actually get justice, both for the nation and the defendant.

How would the UN giving an impartial foreign jury endanger the sovereignty of nations? Unless you're speaking of the sovereignty of nations to break established International Law. Then I would argue that there should be no such sovereignty.

We also need to remember that Americans have a right to trial by jury. That includes the President, and if he were ever charged with war crimes, he would be put on trial in front of scholars from nations. Some of these scholars would definitely be instructed by their national government to make the trail, shall we say, less than fair. This is how the UN works. Delegates, inspectors, peacekeepers....they all take direction from their government first, the UN body second.

In this case, the UN Criminal Court would not be in place of the American Federal Court. There would be two trials, I'm sure. One in front of the UN, in which the President would be found guilty or acquitted. Then another, separate trial in the United States for the President. You can flip flop the two if you're worried about the President's right to a speedy trial.

Also, I like how you're acting like the trial around the President wouldn't be full of background deals. The UN is not the only corrupt political body, FTS. I assure you.

Secondly, the UN can not be expected to run a world court. The UN fails at everything. Oil for food led to scandal. African aid never gets to the people. The body remains impotent in it's ability to enforce sanctions. Weapons inspectors are kicked out of nations with no resistance from the UN. What makes anyone think that they could run a world court at the Hague. The UN is a place where deals are struck (supposedly) and this deal making would derail the power of the court. Deals for acquittals would center around trade deals and military permissions. I do not foresee fair trials in a world court.

The efficiency of the UN to run Food for Oil or give out African Aid is immaterial to the case at hand. That has to do with transferring money, actually making demands and standing by them, the like. An international court deals with one thing and one thing only. Applying international law to a suspected criminal. The hardest part of logistics would be flying the dude in. Not even the UN could fuck that up.

Also, once again. Are you arguing that the President would get a fair trial in the United States? We have a government as corrupt, if not more so than, the UN.

Also, we must remember the case of three American soldiers who accidentally killed two Spanish journalists in a fire fight. The world court wants to pull the US soldiers in front of a judge. These three soldiers face life in prison for an accident. The soldiers were fired upon, and returned fire once the target was isolated. There were journalists in between the two bodies, and apparently some stray fire hit two of them. That was a tragedy, but are we expected to believe that every bit of collateral damage is subject to the political whims of an impotent body that looks more for headlines than consensus?

1) Did you just call the two lives of Spanish journalists "collateral damage?"

2) I fail to see the negative in a foreign body overseeing the actions of our military on foreign soil. It'd be one thing if American journalists were accidentally shot on American soil. This was a foreign incident, occurring on foreign soil. Who else but the UN to investigate?

 

[FromTheSouth]

I'll go ahead and agree. It would be no fun if I chose to post and agree, right?

Well, if we're going to be partners, maybe it would be a good idea.

I think there's a saying I can use here..."A whole lot of people doing a wrong (or, in this case, holding a wrong principle) does not make that wrong right. It just means there are a bunch of bad people."

What I'm trying to say is, if a country is somehow breaking international law, their laws can't be very good to begin with. International law isn't very stringent to begin with. Don't mass murder, mmkay? If the United States were found guilty of an international law statute, I'd shit a duck.

1. International law is a dynamic set of rules. What is legal today might not be tomorrow. Most of international law hasn't been written yet. Subjectiong ourselves to it now would be like signing a loan agreement before you knew the terms.

2. The UN security council is what is supposed to be handling breaches of international law. The sanctions they put on nations are the accepted measure. They don't work. So, we're supposed to turn this responsibility over to another branch of the same inefficient body? There is still no enforcement arm. I just think the UN is incapable.

How would the UN giving an impartial foreign jury endanger the sovereignty of nations? Unless you're speaking of the sovereignty of nations to break established International Law. Then I would argue that there should be no such sovereignty.

It wouldn't be a jury trial. It would be in front of foreign judges. And, how would one find a jury of his peers anyway when there are six billion candidates? It would take forever to find a fair jury. But, if we are going to have jury trials in the Hague, sign me up for the free trip to Switzerland. I have my passport ready.

In this case, the UN Criminal Court would not be in place of the American Federal Court. There would be two trials, I'm sure. One in front of the UN, in which the President would be found guilty or acquitted. Then another, separate trial in the United States for the President. You can flip flop the two if you're worried about the President's right to a speedy trial.

Why do we need to be so redundant? If the President orders the murder and rape of all the women in Ireland, I would like to think that we could competently punish him ourselves.

Also, I like how you're acting like the trial around the President wouldn't be full of background deals. The UN is not the only corrupt political body, FTS. I assure you.

Well, for one, the American trial would be after impeachment, and the opposing body would dig up plenty of evidence to convict him. The US House of Representatives is pretty good at that.

The efficiency of the UN to run Food for Oil or give out African Aid is immaterial to the case at hand. That has to do with transferring money, actually making demands and standing by them, the like. An international court deals with one thing and one thing only. Applying international law to a suspected criminal. The hardest part of logistics would be flying the dude in. Not even the UN could fuck that up.

Let's see. First, they would have to find fair judges who would be able to act outside of the whims of their government and act judiciously and fairly within a body of laws that aren't written yet. I can imagine there would be a bit of a logistical nightmare. And believe me, the UN could fuck that up.

Also, once again. Are you arguing that the President would get a fair trial in the United States? We have a government as corrupt, if not more so than, the UN.

Our government is nowhere near as corrupt at the UN. I don't remember our government taking cash deals from Saddam Hussein to avoid weapons inspectors.

1) Did you just call the two lives of Spanish journalists "collateral damage?"

Unfortunately. That's what they are though. You have to remove yourself from the emotions of the situation.

2) I fail to see the negative in a foreign body overseeing the actions of our military on foreign soil. It'd be one thing if American journalists were accidentally shot on American soil. This was a foreign incident, occurring on foreign soil. Who else but the UN to investigate?

Anyone. The UN condemned Israel for human rights violations because they defended themselves. Hamas was firing rockets from schools and mosques. Israel dropped over a million fliers, sent out hundreds of thousands of texts, and made phone calls to evacuate the area, a week ahead of time, and then bombed the sites that Hamas were using as bases. What other body condemns someone for telling another country where and when they were going to be attacked. According to the UN, D-Day was a human rights violation. Give me a fucking break. I think the UN should be disbanded, the building destroyed, and the leaders hung by their toes for all of their failures.

 

[Felderino]

It wouldn't be a jury trial. It would be in front of foreign judges. And, how would one find a jury of his peers anyway when there are six billion candidates? It would take forever to find a fair jury. But, if we are going to have jury trials in the Hague, sign me up for the free trip to Switzerland. I have my passport ready.

Just a quick correction the Hague is the capital city of the Netherlands it's not in Switzerland, easy mistake to make though not many people have even heard of it everyone thinks Amsterdam is the capital.

 

[Razor]

Well, if we're going to be partners, maybe it would be a good idea.

I view ourselves as a more of a "Deuces Wild" pairing. Like John Cena and Orton being forced to partner up. Only without the fierce animosity and constant threat of brain damage.

1. International law is a dynamic set of rules. What is legal today might not be tomorrow. Most of international law hasn't been written yet. Subjectiong ourselves to it now would be like signing a loan agreement before you knew the terms.

But the legal boundaries aren't going to drastically change overnight. It's not going to go from "Mass murder is okay if you have a really, really good reason" to "No mass murdering. Even if you have the best reason in the world."

2. The UN security council is what is supposed to be handling breaches of international law. The sanctions they put on nations are the accepted measure. They don't work. So, we're supposed to turn this responsibility over to another branch of the same inefficient body? There is still no enforcement arm. I just think the UN is incapable.

...Then add an enforcement arm? Make it a coalition of troops from the members of the Security Council, and make the use of said troops based solely on the 4/5 vote of the veto wielding members. That way if the US wants to do anything with the troops they'll actually have to get China or Russia to agree. Good luck with that.

It wouldn't be a jury trial. It would be in front of foreign judges. And, how would one find a jury of his peers anyway when there are six billion candidates? It would take forever to find a fair jury. But, if we are going to have jury trials in the Hague, sign me up for the free trip to Switzerland. I have my passport ready.

Isn't that how the War Crimes Tribunal was held for the Nazis? How about the war crimes trial that was taking place recently? I would think a trial with a judicial panel would be more impartial than a trial with a jury of people directly affected by the accused.

Why do we need to be so redundant? If the President orders the murder and rape of all the women in Ireland, I would like to think that we could competently punish him ourselves.

Sure, a nation that is firmly set in the ideas of justice. What about a country like one of the many warlord run countries in Africa? We can't exactly trust the jury to accurately convict the warlord when they are too afraid for their lives.

Well, for one, the American trial would be after impeachment, and the opposing body would dig up plenty of evidence to convict him. The US House of Representatives is pretty good at that.

And the UN investigators couldn't do the job as well as the US House of Representatives?

Let's see. First, they would have to find fair judges who would be able to act outside of the whims of their government and act judiciously and fairly within a body of laws that aren't written yet. I can imagine there would be a bit of a logistical nightmare. And believe me, the UN could fuck that up.

The US would have to find a judge and jury that wasn't seething to criminally indict the President. How do you find an impartial judge and jury in the United States for the President of said country?

Our government is nowhere near as corrupt at the UN. I don't remember our government taking cash deals from Saddam Hussein to avoid weapons inspectors

Iran/Contra is pretty damned close.

Unfortunately. That's what they are though. You have to remove yourself from the emotions of the situation.

I'm just arguing a poor choice of words.

Anyone. The UN condemned Israel for human rights violations because they defended themselves. Hamas was firing rockets from schools and mosques. Israel dropped over a million fliers, sent out hundreds of thousands of texts, and made phone calls to evacuate the area, a week ahead of time, and then bombed the sites that Hamas were using as bases. What other body condemns someone for telling another country where and when they were going to be attacked. According to the UN, D-Day was a human rights violation. Give me a fucking break. I think the UN should be disbanded, the building destroyed, and the leaders hung by their toes for all of their failures.

Well, that wouldn't help anything. We could, you know, throw our weight around the UN and get an enforcement arm with the billions and billions we send to them. We could then set up international laws that are fair and equal. Then we can go and get the warlord that is committing mass genocide and haul him in front of a war crimes tribunal. Unless you'd like to trust the very people that are shit-afraid of him to try him in court.