Originally Posted by NJUPINTHEAIR
Again, I certainly don't agree with them, but you are not going to get others from such socieites to endorse a universal law condemning such practice, as it will be viewed and decried, rightly or wrongly, by such disgruntled Omni exiles as Jim Phillips, as US and Western "cultural imperialism." So, get real, your utopian vision of a "universal justice" is both unworkable and unattainable.
Which is exactly what I pointed out as what happens in practice In reality, no country can take the high road in criticizing the other because like I said all of them have warts and all of them have skeletons. The problem with your entire argument is one of moral absolutism. This whole thread started with stone throwing from people in glass houses. On objections to such stone throwing, pointing out that others have glass houses as well does not validate that practice for anyone.
If the US and another country differ, then it does not necesarily mean one is bad and the other good. If one does not believe in French bashing, then it does not imply one wants to do US bashing.
Less stone throwing, and more house cleaning would result in better houses all around.
I could add to the above, the most unsavory crime of burning or immolating wives in the Indian Sub-continent, whose families don't follow through with the agreed upon dowry, as well, Venk, but that would have been much too easy. Until India cracks down on this form of terrorism and murder, they are in no position to indict Warren Anderson or cast aspersions at the US legal system. Case closed.
This is a very silly argument. The practice is illegal and prosecuted just as criminals in this country are. The above is the same as saying until the US cracks down on all crooks in the US corporations, until all child molesters and murderers in the country are behind bars, until all racial bias criminals are eliminated, US has no power to ask for extradition of anyone that has committed any crime in the US and is hiding outside. But you know that. You are just trying to use an irrelevant point to say no one is holier than anyone. But in that I actually agree with you.
I will re-think my opposition to requiring Warren Anderson to appear before the Indian judiciary, when that same judiciary, as well as the police, the politicians, and the populace as a whole, eliminate -- not just outlaw -- the process of immolation of brides whose families are too poor to pay their wedding dowries.
So until US eliminates all corporate crime, they should not ask for any extradition or prosecute the European based insurance companies now under scrutiny by Elliott Spitzer. And of course... until US eliminates, not just outlaws, all internal terrorists that continue to kill and maim US citizens, they shouldn't have any rights to demand turning over terrorists from other countries.
Until then, don't lecture me on the "extent of criminal liability" highlighting the differences between countries.
The differences exist regardless of whether you agree with them or not and that is the point you are missing. For you everything has moral absolutes, it appears. If two things are different, then one must be right and the other wrong. That is entirely missing the point.
The point simply is that US is not in any position to criticize the legal proceedings in France according to their established laws under which CO has agreed to participate in. And this isn't because other countries are in a higher moral position but simply that no one is. No reason to take as an axiom that everything about the French must be suspect just because they dared to prosecute an US corporation. That view might be good for catharsism and propping up a flagging self-confidence but not worth much more.