...probably because it would be physically impossible to incarcerate an entire city street---or even an entire city block for that matter.
Of course that was the title to a strongly opinionated news article about all the shady business practices of some of the major investment firms, major banks and a few other prominent outfits whose activities adversely affected the stock market as well as numerous other interactive clients and customers.
And of how their unscrupulous behaviors managed to, among other things, pretty much turn the world economy "on it's head". And of how ineffectual the U.S. government is in the way it's dealing with this particular scenario.
Personally, I think the World Court should have the authority to rule on major issues of both moral and economic concern. After all, they have a "human rights counsel", don't they? (Or something along that line, anyway). And the events of 2008 have the ramifications of both (moral and economic), do they not? If the World Court had even more authority than it does now (via inclusion of more "international laws") so as to overreach even further than it does now, they would then have the power to override the decisions of any country's "high court" in the event of any clear violations of international laws on the part of said country. That way not even a country's highest courts would always necessarily "have the last word" on actions and behaviors which can---or have potential to---affect the moral, financial, political, or social well-being not only nationally but also globally as well.
Of course the notion of the World Court having that kind of extensive legal clout is not an idea that would ever set too well with most nations. The idea does have that element of "invasiveness" about it, for sure.
And what happens if corruption starts occurring inside the structures of the World Court itself? Where is there to go after that?
Good questions, yes.
Dilemma after dilemma. Obviously the U.S. lacks that sense-of-responsibility to itself and to it's own people to tackle a lot of it's legal and moral problems resolutely and effectively---but, yes, what are the alternatives to allowing a major country (ANY major country) the right to continue it's sovereign right-to-self-governing? There is something to be said for the notion of allowing any "outsiders" to intervene with U.S. affairs.
By the way, leave Wall Street itself alone. It's only the offending moguls who should be locked up and charged ...and, upon conviction, sent to "the big house" a la "Al Capone".
Of course that was the title to a strongly opinionated news article about all the shady business practices of some of the major investment firms, major banks and a few other prominent outfits whose activities adversely affected the stock market as well as numerous other interactive clients and customers.
And of how their unscrupulous behaviors managed to, among other things, pretty much turn the world economy "on it's head". And of how ineffectual the U.S. government is in the way it's dealing with this particular scenario.
Personally, I think the World Court should have the authority to rule on major issues of both moral and economic concern. After all, they have a "human rights counsel", don't they? (Or something along that line, anyway). And the events of 2008 have the ramifications of both (moral and economic), do they not? If the World Court had even more authority than it does now (via inclusion of more "international laws") so as to overreach even further than it does now, they would then have the power to override the decisions of any country's "high court" in the event of any clear violations of international laws on the part of said country. That way not even a country's highest courts would always necessarily "have the last word" on actions and behaviors which can---or have potential to---affect the moral, financial, political, or social well-being not only nationally but also globally as well.
Of course the notion of the World Court having that kind of extensive legal clout is not an idea that would ever set too well with most nations. The idea does have that element of "invasiveness" about it, for sure.
And what happens if corruption starts occurring inside the structures of the World Court itself? Where is there to go after that?
Good questions, yes.
Dilemma after dilemma. Obviously the U.S. lacks that sense-of-responsibility to itself and to it's own people to tackle a lot of it's legal and moral problems resolutely and effectively---but, yes, what are the alternatives to allowing a major country (ANY major country) the right to continue it's sovereign right-to-self-governing? There is something to be said for the notion of allowing any "outsiders" to intervene with U.S. affairs.
By the way, leave Wall Street itself alone. It's only the offending moguls who should be locked up and charged ...and, upon conviction, sent to "the big house" a la "Al Capone".
No comments:
Post a Comment