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

I don't think it would matter to the Taliban, nor the groups targeted. These people do not operate on the world level and do not care about world opinion. They have their own agenda (jihad). Pity that they don't consider the world in their minds; some innocent are going to pay as well as the guilty.

-- j.r. guerra (jrguerra@boultinghousesimpson.com), October 10, 2001.

Great idea, Joe. The only problem is the duly elected rulers of Afghanistan were overthrown years ago by the Taliban extremists. While the bombs are landing in Afghanistan, we're not attacking that nation so much as the extremists who illegally took control of it.

-- Gary in Indiana (gk6854@aol.com), October 10, 2001.

I think both of you guys are correct; however, couldn't this maybe be structured where the COUNTRY of Afghanistan is the defendant in the case? (Meaning, whoever is currently representing the country)

jr, if the Taliban, or whoever claims representation of the country, DO ignore the court's opinion, or refuse to show up, so what? The US would have at least "gone through the proper channels", and would thus gain a lot more support from the rest of the world, since the whole issue, with evidence from both sides having been presented (or at least evidence from our side), would have had the opportunity to be scrutinized and discussed by the various states of the world before we continue with our attacks.

JOJ

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

But JOJ, even if we went to the court and won, what would that mean to a lot of the mainly Arab world (populations, if not the governments) that thinks Bin Laden is correct, anyway? The nations that are on our side now would still be on our side and the people who aren't would think the World Court was rigged in our favour. We might even looker weaker to the terrorists for going crying to a world body instead of taking action on our own, and end up encouraging them. Who knows? When you are working on the outside of any country in a legal matter, doesn't it all just get to be relative in the end? It just depends on who accepts the decree of the court. There's a lot of value to the World Court, but this is beyond its scope,IMO.

But I really think this is an action of self defense, and we don't need a court order for that.

-- Jennifer L. (Northern NYS) (jlance@nospammail.com), October 10, 2001.

"duly elected rulers of Afghanistan were overthrown years ago by the Taliban extremists", that's a laugh. Mullah Omar and his boys were the good sheriff and his posse dressed white who rode into town and tossed out the baddies.

-- john hill (john@cnd.co.nz), October 10, 2001.

Joe, one of the ironies of this whole mess is that we don't recognize the Taliban so can't have them as the representative leadership of the 'defendent' Afghanistan. It's certainly a tangled web, to be sure.

-- Gary in Indiana (gk6854@aol.com), October 10, 2001.

I don't see filing a grievance with the world court as whining, any more than filing a lawsuit with a neighbor who won't be reasonable. In both situations, we have three choices, maybe more: capitulate, kill the dickhead, or sue.

Afghanistan has agreed to honor the decisions of the world court, like I said, 55 years ago. If they don't honor the court, at least WE have followed what I consider proper channels.

To me it's always more honorable to try to get a third partry to mediate than to duke it out. Has been ever since I moved to the west coast from Texas, and was able to see how people out here handle things (in Texas, we'd just smack each other in the face for hardly any reason at all.

I not only don't see this as "beyond the scope" of the world court, I think this IS the scope of the court.

Gary, you bring up a good point, and one which has been bugging me. I don't know enough about the whole situation to say who should represent the Afghans; I'd love to hear some discussion on this. I just wish our "leaders" would have addressed this over the last month, instead of shooting from the hip. All I can see in our future is escalation. Tit for tat.

JOJ

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

Let me rephrase what I said about the World Court. I would *like* to see this be an area that they could rule on and make stick a fair decision, but people who come to a court have to be on at least a semblence of the same wavelength. In this case, they aren't. So, yes, I think it's beyond the scope of the court. With a different country besides Afghanistan involved, perhaps it wouldn't be.

Interesting discussion, JOJ.

-- Jennifer L. (Northern NYS) (jlance@nospammail.com), October 10, 2001.

I think the whole idea of war is stupid, anyway. If two countries have a dispute which they cannot manage to settle through mediation, etc., then why don't the LEADERS of those countries duke it out themselves, instead of consigning hundresds, thousands, etc of military personnel plus innocent civilians to their deaths? Not to mention the cost of the war to both countries as well as any of their allies who get involved. And on top of that, the invaded country gets destroyed, and after the war we turn around and spend more billions to rebuild what got bombed. All of this paid for by the taxpayers. Stupid.

-- Elizabeth (ekfla@aol.com), October 10, 2001.

Yeah, but Elizabeth, how will the arms dealers make any money that way?

Seriously (equally seriously?) I like that idea, and have proposed the same method of dispute resolution. Of course, if a country's leader lost the fight, they could always just elect a badder leader, I guess.

What's weird is the "rules of war" don't even ALLOW the killing of a country's leader, but does allow the killing of all it's other citizens. Something wrong here!

I say, let OBL and GWB duke it out. GWB can use his cowpoke hat, and OBL can use his turban. That way, no one will get seriously hurt.

JOJ

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

Nahh JOJ GWB has a real nice Colt 45 Peacmaker Let him use that. Give OBL a knife. :o)

-- Kenneth in N.C. (wizardsplace13@hotmail.com), October 10, 2001.

Kenneth, I like your idea best. I previously thought things like this should be settled by a game of chess, but in this case.......

Chess takes thinking ahead and strategy, something I think GWB lacks.

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