Do We Need A World Islamic Court?

The Iranian President is calling for the formation of a "World Islamic Court"

TEHRAN: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who accuses the West of monopolising power in world bodies, proposed on Tuesday setting up an international Islamic court to try war criminals and other human rights violators.

The president gave few details about his proposal, made at a meeting of judiciary chiefs from Islamic countries. But he repeated his assertions that bodies like the UN Security Council were being manipulated by the West. "Today it is necessary to create an international Islamic court for pursuing and following international criminals, those who violates the rights of nations, war criminals and governments ..." Ahmadinejad said in a televised speech. The international community already has two courts, one to deal with criminals and another that handles disputes between states. Both are based in The Hague. The International Criminal Court was set up in 1998 to try cases such as war crimes.

I'm not a big supporter of so-called "world courts" in the first place.  American courts are usually quite capable of dealing with criminals of any sort and our system is as fair as anyone's in the world.  A criminal has more rights in an American Court than anywhere else.  No system is perfect and we've made our share of mistakes, but I trust our system over any others I can think of.

As much as I think the world courts in The Hague are somewhat useless, they are at least based upon western concepts of judicial fairness.  They are far from perfect themselves.   Let's face it, the International World Court, the court set up to try war crimes, is really quite ineffective.  Rare is the war criminal brought before the court.  The United States is not one of the 130 signatories to the treaty that created the court.  We have not signed on because we have a suitable system in place to deal with our own law breakers.  No citizen of the United States should have to submit to a court that does not guarantee the same rights that one has under our Constitution.

The idea of some kind of international Islamic court is not an idea anyone in the west should embrace or even show any interest in.  If any proof of that is needed, one need not look any further than the recent incident in the Sudan where a Teacher was hauled up before a sharia court for naming a Teddy Bear "Mohammed".  Granted she was pardoned and allowed to leave, but there were a large number of Sudanese and other Muslims who were calling for her to be whipped or put to death.  No freedom loving nation could, in all fairness, subject its citizens to a court run by men whose concept of law is rooted in 7^th century barbarism.  Their idea of justice is hanging homosexuals and stoning women who are raped. 

If the Islamic countries want to do this amongst themselves, I suppose as sovereign nations they can do that.  Just don't expect any civilized country to join them.

VW

Comments

[Just another republican]

The Spanish tried this a while back ago. The inquisition wasn't so popular then either.

[Flag Gazer]

This is scary. The world court we have now is useless - Milosovic died before they could finish his trial. An Islamic Court would be swifter and more brutal and leave us all without protection.

[Jenn]

No, no indeed it does not.

[Violence Worker]

JAR: Great observation!!!

FG: I shudder to think that we would allow any citizen to be presented before such a court!

Jenn: We need it like we need another deadly virus.

VW