How Is International Law to be Enforced?

[TheBigDog]

What legislation do you refer to?

The Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 comes to mind.

 

Bill

[Tarantism]

we should break down borders and forget differences and just become one race, with one huge country.

 

its possible. we chould then have a committe of, say, 2000 people of "international" orgin and have then vote on worldwide law.

[Freddy]

The Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 comes to mind.

 

Bill

 

How was this law rewritten? The Supreme Court ruled Bush's military courts were illegal. That is how the system of checks and balances has worked since Marbury v. Madison in 1801.

[Southtown]

Does it matter? Unless you want to be a scofflaw, that's the way it is now. The matter is legally settled.

Until it comes up again, and then it's anybody's guess because judges don't always agree (which is strong evidence of their adherance to legislation, or lack of.)

 

Somebody wise once said that the definition of an "activist judge" was one who actively disagreed with the accuser.

 

TFS

I would not call that an intelligent statement, simply because the case of either the prosecution or defense are irrelevant to justices with agendas.

 

What legislation do you refer to? It is my understanding the US is treaty bound to follow the Geneva Convention. It is also my understanding the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in all cases arising out of the federal government.

I refer to the Geneva Convention, specifically, to which terrorists don't apply because they don't wear uniforms, they don't represent any nation, and they don't care about civilian casualties. As a matter of fact, they actually prefer to attack civilians while using their own civilians as sheilds.

 

And to set a judicial precedence that says they apply to even a vague concept of warfare guidelines is to not only impersonate an international legislator, but also to impersonate an intelligent lifeform.

[HydrogenBond]

International laws are sort of like the rules of sport. Certain rules are created to create a fair and equal playing field. But if one is playing by the rules and your opponents is breaking the rules, the judges should step in and give out penalties, to make sure the rules are followed. What tends to happen is that one side is allowed to cheat while the other side is required to play by the rules.

 

The refs are not playing by the rules, since they are not enforcing the penalties. So maybe the rules should be defined by those who cheat, allowing both sides to play the same game. Picture if one is playing basketball and one team is allowed to trip, elbow, travel, etc., while the other team is told to play by the rules. The cheating may allow the weaker team to be more competitive. But after taking a few too many elbows, the rules should be laxed, with collateral damage, allowed.

 

The problem is that we are tying to make the game fair, with one team like the pros and the other amateurs. The cheating helps level the field, but maybe the amateurs should stay in their own league, where they can play by the rules and still be very competitive. One can see this in the war occurring in the middle east. Many of the Hezbo's are fighting like men, using conventional weapons, instead of suicide stuff, because they are playing in a league where cheating isn't as necessary to be competitive. They are still losing but are being quite competitive. Soldiers may not like their enemy but they still respect a legitimate competitor.

 

Here is a provocative solution to end terrorism. What we have is a UN sanctioned bout between the terrorists and another international team. The idea is to equipment both sides with the exact same fire-power and ammo as well as defensive fortifications. Maybe trenches for protected offensives. It will come down to training and how wants it most. Maybe the bout can have a 48 hour time limit. After that, the survivors have dinner together, tell battle stories and make friends.