Int'l Court hearings on separation fence to begin Feb. 23

[Scurrilous]

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/373970.html

<snip>

"The International Court of Justice, asked to give its opinion on the legality of an Israeli-built security barrier in Palestinian territories, set a deadline of next month for submitting arguments and said it would begin hearings on Feb. 23.


The court announced the timetable with unusual speed, 11 days after the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution asking the UN's highest judicial authority to render an urgent opinion on the issue.

The court, also known as the world court, said the United Nations or any of its member states may submit written arguments by Jan. 30. Countries wishing to present oral arguments must inform the court by Feb. 13, and hearings would begin 10 days later."

<snip>

"The opinion will be nonbinding. Israel has said it would cooperate with the court, but has not said whether it would abide by any opinion it hands down."

[Jim Sagle]

1. The International Court ain't nuthin' but shit.

[bluesoul]

2. Really Jim?

Now that's a very progressive view of international law, I must say. One can only wonder...

[Muddleoftheroad]

5. International "law" is an amorphous concept applied unequally

As such, Jim is right.

[Violet_Crumble]

6. So is all "law"...

No-one would dispute that there are problems with enforcing law. But how does that make it turn into "law"? Are you trying to say it really isn't law at all? Or that law can be ignored and called shit when it suits someone's purposes to do so?

Violet...

[Muddleoftheroad]

7. Not so

You only went after part of my comment. International law is "amorphous." It is not clearly codified, voted on, etc. As an example, many here want Saddam tried by the ICC, but many nations don't even belong to it, including the U.S.

It is ALSO selectively enforced.

[Violet_Crumble]

8. All law is selectively enforced, Muddle...

And who gives a flying toss whether the US has ratified the ICC or not? That has zero to do with the legitimacy of the court. The fact is that the court exists for the reason of trying accused war criminals. Why? Where do you think he should be tried? The US?

[Muddleoftheroad]

9. It has a LOT to do with it

That means the ICC is NOT legit to Americans, etc.

Sorry, but if you pass a law in Australia, it doesn't apply to me in the U.S. That's how law works.

[Violet_Crumble]

11. I don't think you understand how it works, Muddle...

Even though the US hasn't ratified the ICC, what with it's current neo-con agenda of wanting to be the sole arbiter of what is and isn't international law, US citizens can still be tried for war crimes and such...

Of course domestic law only applies domestically. Where on earth did you see me saying it applied elsewhere? There's a difference between domestic and international law. One applies domestically to people accused of a crime within the borders of a state, and the other is international and applies to states and leaders...


Violet...

[Muddleoftheroad]

13. I understand, doesn't make it legit

Go ahead, let them try U.S. citizens. That will do more to boost * than any stupid ass thing Rove can come up with.

Unless the U.S. signs the treaty, the ICC has no bearing on U.S. citizens.

[Violet_Crumble]

16. No, it is a legitimate court...

And despite yr protestations to the contrary, the ICC can try US citizens. I'm off to bed now, but tomorrow I'll find some information for you to read about the ICC...

I don't really understand why you think US citizens should be held above international law. Do you really think that just because someone is a US citizen that should make them immune from any prosecution for war crimes??

Violet...

[newyorican]

12. The guilty...

always squeal loudest about the "unfairness" of any legal proceeding, it is said. We shall see.

[Muddleoftheroad]

14. What am I guilty of

Other than pointing out that it has no bearing on U.S. citizens.

[drdon326]

15. Would Newyorican....

have said that about the racists courts in the south
from the past where they railroaded anyone they wanted?

[Violet_Crumble]

3. Are you suffering from a bout of premature condemnation, Jim?

Shouldn't you be waiting until a finding is handed down by the court? If it finds in Israel's favour, then you can do the obligatory: "The ICJ's da man, doin' the best it can...to make the world a better place. ICJ RAAWWKKS!!!' And if it doesn't find in Israel's favour, then it's time to do the: 'The International Court ain't nuthin' but shit." routine?

Or maybe you already think the ICJ ain't nuthin' but shit regardless of any future decision regarding the fence? If so, why?


Violet...

[bluesoul]

4. Jim

Do you oppose international law when it concerns the USA or Israel?
I would really LOVE to hear your answer about this. It would make things so much clearer...

[newyorican]

10. What statutes will be used?

Geneva Convention?
Rome Statutes?
Other?

I think the statutes used will provide a good idea of what the possibilities are. Not that it will eventually matter given this:

The opinion will be nonbinding. Israel has said it would cooperate with the court, but has not said whether it would abide by any opinion it hands down.

In other words, we will go along unless the ruling is against us.

[Jim Sagle]

17. By jove, I think you've GOT it!

[Gimel]

18. If the results

are so fated, why even bother?

Ther results are sure to be revolutionary. Which side is so sure of itself here?

[tinnypriv]

19. I suggest

Looking at the composition of the court.

If it rules against Israel, it is because Israel is in the wrong.

[Gimel]

20. Divine ordination?

Everything is political. However, I have a hunch that they might be able to pull it off. Actually, the tide is already turning against the petition after petition that the Palestinian lobby is trying to brainwash the world with.

[bluesoul]

21. The whole world is not brainwashed

as you imply. It merely sees the obvious. And you don't like hearing the truth from the rest...

[tinnypriv]

22. Hey, at least there are hardly any Arabs on the court

So that shoots down that little line right now. :)

[The Magistrate]

23. This Is A Good Development, Sir

It will be of use in future to have a tribunal of judges ruling on the application of the Geneva Conventions to this situation.

Regardless of what practical effect it may or may not have, I eagerly await this decision.

[tinnypriv]

24. You may be interested to know

That George Bush I agreed that they were, back when he was UN ambassador for the U.S.

I'm not sure being to the right of him is a nice place to be, but there you go. ;-)

[bluesoul]

25. LOL Tinnypriv

touche! ;)

[The Magistrate]

26. It Is My Own Opinion They Apply As Well, My Friend

But the arguments against that proposition are not wholly frivolous, and it will be good to have an authoritative decision to which to refer.

[tinnypriv]

27. ITA (nt)