Pakistani Military Aid

[FromTexas]

The majority rule without a Constitution results in no protection for the minorities or consistency in the application of law. Thus the will of the popular is dictated upon the less popular. I believe that Israel is what is defined as a parliamentary democracy, a form of governing slightly better then a dictatorship.

Israel under their Declaration of Establishment of the State of Israel gave the explicit intent of the state and that is that it will be a Jewish state. Logic dictates that when you establish a state on ethnic, religious, or favored race that you will discriminate against those not of that description. Check any human rights watchdog site and you will find that Israel is up around the top of their list of violators.

By the way, having access to the internet, CNN, and MSNBC does not mean that they have freedom of the press. Their press is controlled by the political parties and tows the party line or is squashed.

My point was that Israel is among the purest democracies. On that subject, you have more than agreed without agreeing.

Protection for minorities, etc... falls under a representative republic more than a pure democracy.

 

[Animal]

I mean aiding nations that do not embrace democracy fully completely circumvents our purpose in the international community now doesn't it?

I think as long as they are moving in the right direction, towards democracy, it works in our favor to give them benefit for their effort. There isn't a switch where you can just turn it on and *boom* democracy exists where there has never been any.

 

[2ndAmendment]

And to 2A regarding the International Court, the issue of international arms dealing and nuclear proliferation jeopardizes the security of hundreds of nations. Furthermore, it includes relations between countries and the A.Q. Khan network had factors in several nations. Why should prosecution be carried out in only one of the involved nations?

In any event, why was A.Q. Khan pardoned? Should he have at least been prosecuted in Pakistan?

Hello? Is this thing on? The United States does not recognize the International Court and for very good reason. What international body do you suppose should A.Q. Khan have been handed over to? He was in Pakistan and is a Pakistani. He was under their jurisdiction. It would have been a great example of U.S. humility and lack of dictatorial power to demand he be turned over to us or any other organization for trial. You can't have it both ways. We either recognize the sovereignty of other nations and respect their jurisdiction or we don't. You seem to want to have us play nicely with the other countries of the world and recognize them until it does not suit your sensibilities and then you want the U.S. to step all over sovereignty and demand that a citizen of another nation be turned over to an organization we don't even recognize ourselves.

 

[rraley]

2A, I believe that the United States should participate in the ICJ once again...I mean why should actions that jeopardize the entire world only be prosecuted in one nation? It would be like prosecuting a criminal who transported a murder victim across state lines in state court. In America, we have federal courts to deal with such a crime. Such a similar body should be recognized and utilized in the world.

 

[rraley]

I think as long as they are moving in the right direction, towards democracy, it works in our favor to give them benefit for their effort. There isn't a switch where you can just turn it on and *boom* democracy exists where there has never been any.

Animal, I understand that we should help nations moving towards democracy. Under Musharaff's leadership, all that I have seen is a movement away from democracy...the military flip-flop is just one example.

 

[Bustem' Down]

As far as Israel goes. No matter how much democracy they have, their actions on the USS Liberty on June 8, 1967, and the things I personally witnessed in 2003, I will never trust them. If thier country slid off into the Med it wouldn't bother me one bit.

 

[SamSpade]

2A, I believe that the United States should participate in the ICJ once again...I mean why should actions that jeopardize the entire world only be prosecuted in one nation? It would be like prosecuting a criminal who transported a murder victim across state lines in state court. In America, we have federal courts to deal with such a crime. Such a similar body should be recognized and utilized in the world.

Even our own courts have to answer to the people, and the other branches of government.

Who would this court answer to, if it's fraudulent?

 

[Ken King]

Rraley,

Is there some confusion here? We do participate in the ICJ we do not participate in the ICC. Which is it that you are speaking to?

 

[FromTexas]

Even our own courts have to answer to the people, and the other branches of government.

Who would this court answer to, if it's fraudulent?

:UNoilforfood:

 

[Flying Pig]

Also, maybe you haven't been paying attention, but Pakistan is a far better place now than it was 20 years ago.

It'd be a neat trick for him to have been paying attention to the state of Pakistan 20 years ago. He wasn't even a glimmer in his daddy's eye yet.

 

[Flying Pig]

It'd be a neat trick for him to have been paying attention to the state of Pakistan 20 years ago. He wasn't even a glimmer in his daddy's eye yet.

Apparently some loser has a problem with my post. Don't know why.

 

[2ndAmendment]

2A, I believe that the United States should participate in the ICJ once again...I mean why should actions that jeopardize the entire world only be prosecuted in one nation? It would be like prosecuting a criminal who transported a murder victim across state lines in state court. In America, we have federal courts to deal with such a crime. Such a similar body should be recognized and utilized in the world.

The United States does not participate in or recognize the International Court for the protection of our own officials and soldiers. I think I remember some country charging President Bush with war crimes in the International Court. If we recognized it, we would have to turn over our President for trial; not a good prospect. Same with our soldiers. We don't need Presidents worrying about anything except what is best for the United States or soldiers second guessing their orders wondering if they will be changed with war crimes. If you were the President, Secretary of State, or some other official, do you think it is healthy for the United States to always have to worry about whether you might offend someone in some other country for some decision you make? I don't. I think our officials should be unfettered in their actions for preserving the United States.

We cannot expect or insist another country turn over a criminal to the International Court if we are not a participant.

 

[Bustem' Down]

The United States does not participate in or recognize the International Court for the protection of our own officials and soldiers. I think I remember some country charging President Bush with war crimes in the International Court. If we recognized it, we would have to turn over our President for trial; not a good prospect. Same with our soldiers. We don't need Presidents worrying about anything except what is best for the United States or soldiers second guessing their orders wondering if they will be changed with war crimes. If you were the President, Secretary of State, or some other official, do you think it is healthy for the United States to always have to worry about whether you might offend someone in some other country for some decision you make? I don't. I think our officials should be unfettered in their actions for preserving the United States.

We cannot expect or insist another country turn over a criminal to the International Court if we are not a participant.

Not saying your right or wrong, I just don't know the answer. Didn't we turn Milosivich (sp) over to the international court after the Kosovo operation? If so, was this because we were acting under the UN and not by ourselves?

 

[2ndAmendment]

... was this because we were acting under the UN and not by ourselves?

It was the U.N. that handed him over. Kosovo was a U.N. operation not a U.S. operation.

 

[Bustem' Down]

It was the U.N. that handed him over. Kosovo was a U.N. operation not a U.S. operation.

Gotcha, that's what I thought, just wasn't sure.