Hey, folks, I think I just had a good idea. The world court is now called the International Court of Justice, and both the US and Afghanistan have agreed to abide by its decisions (US in 1945, Afghanistan in 1946)

Here's some very interesting reading on the history, functions, etc of this court. It's too long to post here, with several links. Here's the court's home page:

http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/icj002.htm

Why not have Afghanistan and the US lay out their respective cases before the court, have them decide, then abide by the court's decision. The judges on the court come from many, many countries, and each country in a dispute is allowed to have a judge from their country sit on the panel, in the even they aren't already represented by one.

If we can't work it out, at least we have the "blessings of the court" before we go bombing everything in sight.

We can drop bombs while screaming "The Court's On Our Side"

JOJ

-- jumpoff joe (jumpoff@ecoweb.net), October 09, 2001

Answers

Not a bad idea. If that doesn't work maybe they could get my Mom to settle it. She makes judge judy look like a wimp. Unfortunatly, I doubt anything will ever "end" terrorism and wars. We're people and that kind of crap just seems to be something we are really good at. Maybe 5000 years of practice killing each other makes for a hard habit to break. I don't know.

-- John in S. IN (jsmengel@hotmail.com), October 10, 2001.

Good idea, John! My Mom could help, too.

-- Doreen (bisquit@here.com), October 10, 2001.

Come on, guys! I don't think the world court will "end" war. Just like I don't think our federal, circuit, or jp courts will "end" crime. But it just MIGHT help solve the dispute, or if not, at least give the US some credibility in the world community.

JOJ

-- jumpoff joe (jumpoff@ecoweb.net), October 10, 2001.

Joe,

Sounds like a good idea on the surface. But just think about this. It is not just Afghanistan we are forced to deal with, but many countries all over the world. These terrorist thugs are dispersed all around the world. If this went to the World Court we would all be dead from old age before it would be resolved, if it ever was.

We as Americans have to take a stand on this issue, whether the rest of the world does or not. It is our ONLY alternative. We can not allow this type of behavior to continue. Our country is in a fight for survival, although many do not see it at this time. I guess in my mind it really does not matter to me if the court agrees with us or not. We are doing what is right and necessary for OUR country. We don't need the blessing of the court to do what is right.

Do you honestly think the Taliban and Bin Laden would hold to the decsion of the court? If you do, I have a great deal on waterfront property for you.

Talk to you later.

-- Bob in WI (bjwick@hotmail.com), October 10, 2001.

Thanks, Bob, but I already have plenty of waterfront property.

I agree with you on a level, but I also think we can't go attacking all the countries (not to mention US cities and states) where terrorists live.

I thought we were focusing on getting Afghanistan to arrest OBL. Let's do that.

I hope you're not saying we need to start bombing Iraq, Iran, the Philippines, Idaho, Montana, etc?

I think what we SHOULD have done (too late now) is show the Taliban, and anyone else claiming power in Afghanistan, the evidence against OBL. If they think the evidence insufficient, we should have gone to world court. If we have a good case, I think the truth will come out.

The truth, finally, came out about the Gulf of Tonkin, if you recall. We should have pursued the world court at that time, as well. The truth was, and it was grudgingly admitted by the US govt, what, fifteen years after the fact? that the Gulf of Tonkin "incident" never happened. It was a PR trick to get the American public to rally around the flag. I'm cynical enough to suspect that the same type of PR is not beyond our current govt as well. I hope not, but I have little faith in the govt, then or now.

JOJ

-- jumpoff joe (jumpoff@ecoweb.net), October 10, 2001.

Sorry Joe, I wasn't trying to be a poop. I just don't think it matters whether we have credability w/ the courts or not. The militant types over there are going to continue recruiting and propagandizing from a large pool of people who have all lost family or friends thru violence w/ someone. Doesn't matter if it was the USA or not, we'll continue to be blamed for all things bad in the world.

Maybe my cynicism is getting in the way of logic on this one, but I don't think it matters if we kill all of the existing terrorists in the world. There seems to be to much hatred and willingness to engage in violence to innocents amoung those folks. There will always be plenty of eager replacements.

I think the best we can do is kill as many terrorists as possible (taking measures to avoid civilians as we can) and hope to disrupt these organizations. I wrote this in a hurry, hope this makes some since.

-- John (jsmengel@hotmail.com), October 10, 2001.

In some ways I agree with you, Joe. It has gone beyond that now as you said, but I think it went beyond that when the Cole was hit. There were reportedly several other terrorist activities that had been conclusively linked to Ole Bin at that time. I also agree wholehertedly with your last statement...so that means we are traitors. oh my. I wrote on another thread that the reason I think we are even dealing with attacks is because of our foreign political actions throughout the past several decades. Part of that is firmly linked to the above referenced World Court. We have no business in the UN We sure don't need to be their police and military thugs, look where it has lead.

We are now committed to a course of action that is really dangerous. If we called it short and just went for the Al Qaida it would be more logical and less destructive to everyone, but that isn't the agenda.sigh.

-- Doreen (bisquit@here.com), October 10, 2001.

Hello JOJ, Who would be the judges? How would they be selected? Would you want a judge from a country such as Iran to decide the fate of a disagreement with, lets say US and Canada? How would an Iranian judge, (raised in extreme beliefs) even understand a situation between to peaceful neighboring countries? Or what if martial law was declared in the US and it was left up to the world court to decide our fate? Would you want an Taliban judge to decide that the Constitution was not correct and needed to be overhauled? World Court would mean world death to many countries, in my humble opinion. Sincerely, Ernest

-- http://communities.msn.com/livingoffthelandintheozarks (espresso42@hotmail.com), October 11, 2001.

Very astute, Ernest. Excellent points!

-- Doreen (bisquit@here.com), October 12, 2001.

Ernest, here is what the world court's web page has to say about this. The judges, as one would expect, have already been elected: (http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/icj002.htm) The judges seem to be a good mix, to me.

The Court is composed of 15 judges elected to nine-year terms of office by the United Nations General Assembly and Security Council sitting independently of each other. It may not include more than one judge of any nationality. Elections are held every three years for one-third of the seats, and retiring judges may be re-elected. The Members of the Court do not represent their governments but are independent magistrates.

The judges must possess the qualifications required in their respective countries for appointment to the highest judicial offices, or be jurists of recognized competence in international law. The composition of the Court has also to reflect the main forms of civilization and the principal legal systems of the world.

When the Court does not include a judge possessing the nationality of a State party to a case, that State may appoint a person to sit as a judge ad hoc for the purpose of the case.

The present composition of the Court is as follows:

President Gilbert Guillaume (France), Vice-President Shi Jiuyong (China), Judges Shigeru Oda (Japan), Mohammed Bedjaoui (Algeria), Raymond Ranjeva (Madagascar), Géza Herczegh (Hungary), Carl-August Fleischhauer (Germany), Abdul G. Koroma (Sierra Leone), Vladlen S. Vereshchetin (Russian Federation), Rosalyn Higgins (United Kingdom), Gonzalo Parra-Aranguren (Venezuela), Pieter H. Kooijmans (Netherlands), Francisco Rezek (Brazil), Awn Shawkat Al-Khasawneh (Jordan), Thomas Buergenthal (United States of America).

The Registrar of the Court is Mr. Philippe Couvreur (Belgium) and Deputy-Registrar of the Court is Mr. Jean-Jacques Arnaldez (France).

-- jumpoff joe (jumpoff@ecoweb.net), October 12, 2001.

Joe, do you believe courts have anything to do with truth or justice? Do you also believe in the Little People and Tooth Fairy?

-- Laura (LadybugWrangler@hotmail.com), October 12, 2001.

Sounds to me like this proposal is running a little late.

-- Ed Copp (OH) (edcopp@yahoo.com), October 12, 2001.

Laura, so far I have never lost in court, and I have never paid off a judge. I DO think courts have "anything" to do with truth and justice. We happen to live in "a country of laws".

Courts are not perfect, nor are judges. But they're better than a lot of other things in our society.

I've even met some honest lawyers (but not very many)

No, I don't believe in the tooth fairy, Santa Claus, or a benevolent god. Or water witching. Which "little people" do you have in mind? Everyone I know seems little to me. (6'6, 230#) :0)

JOJ

PS, what would you substitute for the legal system? Anarchy?

-- jumpoff joe (jumpoff@ecoweb.net), October 12, 2001.