Atheists can be morons too - probably.

[The Minsky Moment]

According to Article 11 however, the ICC only has jurisdiction for offenses committed after the coming into effect of the Rome Statute.  Not to mention that the ICC only has jurisdiction over genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes (as per Article 5).

See above.  I doubt this problem ceased in 2002.

[Barrister]

According to Article 11 however, the ICC only has jurisdiction for offenses committed after the coming into effect of the Rome Statute.  Not to mention that the ICC only has jurisdiction over genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes (as per Article 5).

See above.  I doubt this problem ceased in 2002.

But the specific allegations against Benedict (should a Pope be called by his original name when discussing his pre-papal acts?) go well before 2002. 

[Agelastus]

What you are missing is that under Article 27 of the Rome Statute, status as head or government or state neither immunizes a person from prosecution by the ICC nor does it prevent the exercise of ICC jurisdiction in signatory states (which include the UK).

One understands why the USA is not signing up for this institution, then.

2.         Immunities or special procedural rules which may attach to the official capacity of a person, whether under national or international law, shall not bar the Court from exercising its jurisdiction over such a person.

Does this mean what it looks like it means? That the ICC is above even international law? That it is, in fact, the sole holder of a new "superlaw" authority that overrides any other source of law on the planet?


Edit: And while I've been reading up on that, the lawyers have arrived!

[The Minsky Moment]

But the specific allegations against Benedict (should a Pope be called by his original name when discussing his pre-papal acts?) go well before 2002.

My understanding is that his supervisory role continued after that date (and indeed to the present).

There would be an evidentiary question about whether pre -2002 conduct could be admitted to help explain the alleged scheme after that fact.  Such evidence is often admitted in other jurisdictions in analogous cases.

[The Minsky Moment]

Does this mean what it looks like it means? That the ICC is above even international law? That it is, in fact, the sole holder of a new "superlaw" authority that overrides any other source of law on the planet?

The Rome Statute itself forms part of the corpus of international law.  Basically it is saying that with respect to its specific areas of jurisdiction, it overrides otherwise background "common law" or customary rules of international law.

[Barrister]

My understanding is that his supervisory role continued after that date (and indeed to the present).

There would be an evidentiary question about whether pre -2002 conduct could be admitted to help explain the alleged scheme after that fact.  Such evidence is often admitted in other jurisdictions in analogous cases.

So the leader of the Catholic Church is potentially criminally responsible for any sexual abuse by its members anywhere in the world due to "a policy of organizational indifference and aiding and abetting perpetrators after the fact."?

You're either trolling me, or just enjoying playing the devil's advocate...

[Drakken]

Seriously?

No state would ever arrest the pope. Dawkins knows this.

Napoleon did.

Napoleon imprisoned two Popes but never arrested either one of them.

Seizing the three Legations, put them in the Cisalpine Republic, and then watch the hopelessly impotent Pope beg, quiver, and squeal to have them back was certainly entertaining to Napoleon, though.

And Napoleon's reply to the Pope after his self-coronation as Emperor that, as Protector of Cisalpine Republic (which he had himself created), he couldn't alienate part of its territory on his own authority, while his own troops were stationed as close to Rome as Civitavecchia, was so sly it's classic political comedy. 

And it's not like the Pope didn't try everything to have them back. He had even found a "Pierre Bonaventure Bonaparte" to propose for canonization as a favor to Napoleon, which he refused.

[The Minsky Moment]

BB - in case is wasn't already clear, I think it is a *very* weak case.

But the operative language of the Rome Statute is rather sweeping, and if read and applied broadly, could lead to some suprising results.  In a sense, being a State entity or representative of one - usually a big advantage in international law - can have some rather nasty side effects when the ICC comes knocking.

Obviously the Vatican didn't specifically set out to commit sexual assaults on minors as a matter of policy.  The question could be is here some point where protection of perpetrators and pressure to cover up wrongdoing leaks over from merely being an ugly form of organizational damage control to actual facilitation?  Is an organizational mental state of extreme recklessness or indifference suffficient?  As you know, these kinds of questions arise in the context of criminal cases under national laws, and sometimes are answered in a way that casts a wide net in terms of potential criminal liability. 

[Berkut]

I think we've already established that there isn't any chance of this going to court. That clearly is not the point.

Then it has no point at all, since if they know it has no chance then they are just doing it for the publicity.

Well, for a moment lets ignore your assumption that if it doesn't have the point you demand that it have, then it can have "no point", and wonder why you would say it has "no point", then immediately follow that up with mentioning a point. Is not "for the publicity" a point, even if it is a likely strawman point that you made up yourself?

Since one can hardly argue that the long-running problem of children being abused by Catholic priests has not already received worldwide coverage, wasting their effort on this non-starter of a case is moronic.

More or less "moronic" than all the other people who comment or bring attention to the issue, like say, you? Is everyone who talks about Catholic priest abuse a moron, since it already gets plenty of attention?

Does this criteria extend to all subjects? Is it moronic for anyone to bring more attention to an issue they feel is important if in fact the issue is already getting what you consider to be an adequate amount of attention?

What about the reverse - it is moronic for the Pope, for example, to comment on this, since it already gets enough attention? Or is the rule against commenting on issues that get worldwide attention specific to one side or the other?

Although I would contend that if you use the criteria of "I requested something, and nobody answered me, so I will assume whatever is convenient" to decide what is or is not a valid contention, YOU are the moron.

Saying I am assuming "whatever is convenient" is something of a misrepresentation given that I stated what I had assumed from my own knowledge in the opening post. Nor have you disagreed with what I assumed, have you?

I don't know - I forget what it is you assumed. What I do know is that "I asked for clarification, and nobody responded, therefore..." is bad thinking no matter what the topic.

[Razgovory]

More or less "moronic" than all the other people who comment or bring attention to the issue, like say, you? Is everyone who talks about Catholic priest abuse a moron, since it already gets plenty of attention?

Well we've had several threads on this already and most of them have been started by Marty.  So a case can be made for that argument.

[Agelastus]

More or less "moronic" than all the other people who comment or bring attention to the issue, like say, you? Is everyone who talks about Catholic priest abuse a moron, since it already gets plenty of attention?

The only cost in my posting on the subject is to myself, a cost in time. What they are doing is going to cost a lot of people both time and money on what appears to be self-evidently a losing case. Even the forum lawyers are chipping in to say the argument is very weak. I'd consider that moronic.

Does this criteria extend to all subjects? Is it moronic for anyone to bring more attention to an issue they feel is important if in fact the issue is already getting what you consider to be an adequate amount of attention?

What about the reverse - it is moronic for the Pope, for example, to comment on this, since it already gets enough attention? Or is the rule against commenting on issues that get worldwide attention specific to one side or the other?

The Pope (or rather his spokesmen) have already commented on this. They have to respond when something like this is brought up, after all.

Anyway, why are you trying to extend a specific case termed "moronic" by myself into a general rule? "Moronic" is a value judgement. Your value judgement of what constitutes "moronic" may differ from mine - in fact, it is fairly obvious that it does. Trying to establish a general rule of "what does Agelastus call moronic" from something that is by nature only decidable on a case by case basis, as you seem to be doing, seems to be somewhat self-defeating.

I don't know - I forget what it is you assumed. What I do know is that "I asked for clarification, and nobody responded, therefore..." is bad thinking no matter what the topic.

Really? So one should always approach a subject with their mind completely made up, then? Asking for clarification strikes me as a very sensible approach to online debate, particularly concerning a subject one is not an expert in, and both Barrister and Minsky have obliged me handsomely. Their discussion has been most illuminating. Unfortunately, this discussion postdates the post you and I are discussing, which is a shame; fortunately, since they both seem to think the case is very weak, it doesn't invalidate my basic position - although I must admit to some surprise that their is even a possibility of this making a case, weak or not.

[Berkut]

More or less "moronic" than all the other people who comment or bring attention to the issue, like say, you? Is everyone who talks about Catholic priest abuse a moron, since it already gets plenty of attention?

The only cost in my posting on the subject is to myself, a cost in time. What they are doing is going to cost a lot of people both time and money on what appears to be self-evidently a losing case. Even the forum lawyers are chipping in to say the argument is very weak. I'd consider that moronic.

Again, it is only moronic if in fact their intent is to prosecute a winning case. Since we've established form about post #2 that that is almost certainly NOT their intent, repeating this ad naseum is a bit silly.

Does this criteria extend to all subjects? Is it moronic for anyone to bring more attention to an issue they feel is important if in fact the issue is already getting what you consider to be an adequate amount of attention?

What about the reverse - it is moronic for the Pope, for example, to comment on this, since it already gets enough attention? Or is the rule against commenting on issues that get worldwide attention specific to one side or the other?

The Pope (or rather his spokesmen) have already commented on this. They have to respond when something like this is brought up, after all.

No they don't - they could say "We have decided that this gets enough attention, and we don't want to appear moronic by commenting more, so we are going to not comment!" Of course, that doesn't really make any sense since there isn't any connection between brining attention to something and your views on whether it gets enough attention already and the intelligence of the person involved.

Anyway, why are you trying to extend a specific case termed "moronic" by myself into a general rule?

Because I suspect that your claim that Dawkins is a moron is based on your opposition to his particular position, rather than any actual reason to think he is a moron, and I am pointing out that your evidence for his being a moron is inconsistent and makes no sense.

"Moronic" is a value judgement. Your value judgement of what constitutes "moronic" may differ from mine - in fact, it is fairly obvious that it does.

True, but on the other hand, it is a judgement that ought to be based on some kind of actual evidence. So far, your "evidence" that this is moronic is based entirely on your insistence that they are doing something that cannot work, therefore they must be morons. But that is completely circular, and is dependent on *your* insistence that they are trying to do something that cannot work, despite the fact that it is quite obvious that they are not trying to do what you insist they must be trying to do.

Really, if someone is doing something, and you think "Why, that is rather moronic!" then the first thing you should question is whether they are really trying to do whatever it is you think they are trying to do.

Unless, of course, your goal is not at all to understand what they are trying to do, but rather to crow about how stupid they are - then you should make it a point to NOT understand what they are trying to do, because then you cannot dance around in glee going on about what morons they are.

Trying to establish a general rule of "what does Agelastus call moronic" from something that is by nature only decidable on a case by case basis, as you seem to be doing, seems to be somewhat self-defeating.

Not at all, I think I have suceeded rather admirably.

I don't know - I forget what it is you assumed. What I do know is that "I asked for clarification, and nobody responded, therefore..." is bad thinking no matter what the topic.

Really? So one should always approach a subject with their mind completely made up, then?

Wow, that is quite the jump there - how did you manage to construct THAT strawman?

Asking for clarification strikes me as a very sensible approach to online debate, particularly concerning a subject one is not an expert in, and both Barrister and Minsky have obliged me handsomely.

Uhhh, no, that isn't what I said at all, which of course you know.

I said assuming that nobody answering your question means that your assumed answer is correct is bad thinking. But I see we are in the part where you just pretend like you don't understand what I say, so this is going to become very uninteresting very quickly.

Their discussion has been most illuminating. Unfortunately, this discussion postdates the post you and I are discussing, which is a shame; fortunately, since they both seem to think the case is very weak, it doesn't invalidate my basic position - although I must admit to some surprise that their is even a possibility of this making a case, weak or not.

They have already succeeded in doing exactly what they set out to do, which is get people to talk about the role of the Pope in covering up a bunch of kiddie rape. Nothing more or less. Well, I guess they've drawn some attention to themselves as well, which is certainly not at all unwelcome.

[Queequeg]

It's like me saying I have less respect for you than for dead maggots.

[Agelastus]

Given that Britain recognized the Holy See and its Head of Government, the Pope, in 1982, I dare say you are correct (and that Agelastus could actually have looked this up with a little effort, rather than merely assuming that the board's lawyers were his to command), I think you are correct that this has no chance to go to court.

Missed your post first time through, due to how close in time it was posted to one of mine. Just came across it as I was reviewing the thread.

An amusing point is that if you type "British Recognition" into google, it tries to finish that with only two suggestions - "of American Independence" and "of the Confederacy".

And the second point is that looking up Britain's recognition of the Vatican (which I did, in fact, know about) has no bearing on the information I requested of our lawyer brethren. I didn't think I explicitly had to include Britain in the term "number of countries it has diplomatic relations with" in my opening post.

[Agelastus]

Again, it is only moronic if in fact their intent is to prosecute a winning case. Since we've established form about post #2 that that is almost certainly NOT their intent, repeating this ad naseum is a bit silly.

We've established that the majority of Languish's considered opinion is that they cannot be serious; we have not confirmed that that is their intent as they have not confirmed or denied it.

No they don't - they could say "We have decided that this gets enough attention, and we don't want to appear moronic by commenting more, so we are going to not comment!" Of course, that doesn't really make any sense since there isn't any connection between brining attention to something and your views on whether it gets enough attention already and the intelligence of the person involved.

???

Well, on the serious side, silence by the church on any aspect of the child abuse scandal leads to squeals of "cover up" or implications that they are guilty but won't admit it. The Church has to respond to anything regarding child abuse these days, no matter how stupid the event.

In regard to your artificial construction (which is the best term I can come up with for that pair of sentences) all I can say is that I fail to see the lack of interconnectivity between the parts of your second sentence. All three seem to revolve around a person's opinion, at least, as you have written them. Am I supposed to develop an artificial tripolar disorder to keep them separate?

Because I suspect that your claim that Dawkins is a moron is based on your opposition to his particular position, rather than any actual reason to think he is a moron, and I am pointing out that your evidence for his being a moron is inconsistent and makes no sense.

An otherwise intelligent individual is quite capable of making a stupid action; am I thus forbidden to call the action moronic? And, in this case, wasteful?

True, but on the other hand, it is a judgement that ought to be based on some kind of actual evidence. So far, your "evidence" that this is moronic is based entirely on your insistence that they are doing something that cannot work, therefore they must be morons. But that is completely circular, and is dependent on *your* insistence that they are trying to do something that cannot work, despite the fact that it is quite obvious that they are not trying to do what you insist they must be trying to do.

Really, if someone is doing something, and you think "Why, that is rather moronic!" then the first thing you should question is whether they are really trying to do whatever it is you think they are trying to do.

Unless, of course, your goal is not at all to understand what they are trying to do, but rather to crow about how stupid they are - then you should make it a point to NOT understand what they are trying to do, because then you cannot dance around in glee going on about what morons they are.

So, did you read the title of my thread or not? If you did, I suggest you retract these paragraphs.

Your argument, or should I say implication, that they are solely doing this for the publicity is not completely convincing, by the way. There are simpler ways of publicising what has already been publicised.

Not at all, I think I have suceeded rather admirably.

Opinions differ.

Wow, that is quite the jump there - how did you manage to construct THAT strawman?

---

Uhhh, no, that isn't what I said at all, which of course you know.

I said assuming that nobody answering your question means that your assumed answer is correct is bad thinking. But I see we are in the part where you just pretend like you don't understand what I say, so this is going to become very uninteresting very quickly.

Well, other than the fact your original phrase was that I could "assume whatever was convenient" as if I had no intellectual honesty whatsoever and had not already posted an opinion (with some reasons) at the start of the thread, and that it ignored the corroborating opinions of the laymen, including yourself, who had posted in the thread, I think I will concede here.

Upon reflection, I feel I took your your comment in extremis, and imputed a meaning to it that you did not intend or in any way say. I apologise.