[WikiEN-l] Wikipedians as war criminals

Wed Apr 16 09:07:49 UTC 2003

tarquin wrote:

> Poor, Edmund W wrote:
>
>> I'm content to be considered a "criminal" by the ICC -- it has no 
>> jurisdiction outside of countries which have signed its stupid treaty 
>> -- and I never travel to those dumb places anyway. So there! Nyaah, 
>> nyaah.
>>  
>> I stay in the civilized world, where there is Rule By Law -- not 
>> kangaroo courts making politicized decisions in favor of ruthless 
>> dictatorships.
>
>
>
> Shades of not invented here?
> From what I read & hear, the general perception in Europe is that it's 
> the US who's at fault for refusing to sign up to (yet another) 
> international effort.
> Ed, please keep your politics off-list, especially at a time when the 
> US is only too happy to impose its will by force without the backing 
> of the UN. At least the ICC has that.

I found Rick Wilson's remarks incoherent, and still can't be sure of 
whether he is for or against the court... His claim that Wikipedia is 
somehow complicit in Bush's war crimes makes no sense at all, whether 
you're for or against the ICC.  

Ed's uninformed vituperation is a gross distortion of fact.  He tends to 
ignore the fact that it is the democratic countries that have been most 
supportive of the Court, and a challenging array of rogue states, who 
consider themselves above the law, have opposed it.  It does have 
jurisdiction against citizens of non-participating states, but I would 
hardly expect those countries to comply with extradition orders.  The ad 
hoc courts set up by the United States are nothing more than lynch mobs 
with a veneer of procedure.  The extraterritorial applications of a 
country's laws is as much resented by people world-wide now as it was 
when the tea was thrown into Boston Harbor.

Ed's approach to this subject has all the appearance of a troll.

Eclecticology