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.
Ed Poor Chief War Criminal World Federation of the Wrongly Accused
-----Original Message----- From: Zoe [mailto:zoecomnena@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2003 2:34 PM To: WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedians as war criminals
From my Talk page:
From Rick Wilson mailto:f.g.wilson@sbcglobal.net I don't know who you are, Zoe, but if you consider my calling out Wikipedia for complicity in the crimes of Bush, then yes, I am "trying to cause trouble." To the degree that inaction or outright support of these crimes are, too, prosecutable by the International Criminal Court, I support such prosecution, and find Wikipedia a vast resource of evidence.
I'm compiling evidence for the extremely non-neutral International Criminal Court, from the vast stores of Wikipedia and those of its users whose content evidences criminal complicity in the crimes of Bush, his senior leadership, and his Coalition. The cowardly among you can breathe your sighs of relief that for most of you, the eventual outreach of the Court will mean no more than public shaming (as though that were not enough for anyone with compunction and conscience). I seriously doubt that Montrealass here would go to the gallows with that smirk on his face as did a few of his compatriots-in-spirit at Nuremburg.
Rick Wilson mailto:f.g.wilson@sbcglobal.net mailto:f.g.wilson@sbcglobal.net
Zoe
I too would be proud to be indicted for my writings in the Wikipedia. Please accept my application to be considered as an active co-conspirator. If there are any further articles I can write that will enhance my indictment, please let me know and I will start work immediately. Would it help if I express my eternal and implacable contempt for the court? I've been told I can be quite imaginative when expressing contempt....
Is Rick Wilson reading this list, or should I CC him?
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.
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
We shouldn't discuss the politics of the ICC in the polite company of wikipedia, but I'd say this is perfectly valid:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
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.
The charge of "incoherence" is valid. That claim that we're war criminals is just goofball. It might help to know that Rick calls himself a "former Maoist organizer," whatever that may mean.
Ed's approach to this subject has all the appearance of a troll.
I don't agree. I agree in substance with Ed's views on the ICC, but *really* we shouldn't discuss politics on the list. It's outside the scope of our mission, and very dangerous for WikiLove.
--Jimbo
Ed's approach to this subject has all the appearance of a troll.
I don't agree.
"To utter a posting on Usenet designed to attract predictable responses or flames; or, the post itself."
definition: from jargon file
From Edmund W's posting:
"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."
"stupid treaty", "dumb places", "stay in the civilized world", "kangaroo courts" ... Puh, I agree with the previous poster that this has all appearances of a troll. But actually it is not important if this a "troll" or "flame" post. I was just very very disappointed to read such statements from Ed for whom I had a lot of respect.
I agree in substance with Ed's views on the ICC,
for the record: I don't.
*really* we shouldn't discuss politics on the list. It's outside the scope of our mission, and very dangerous for WikiLove.
Ack.
best regards, Marco
Uh, it's probably best if we _all_ don't discuss politics on the list.
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.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l