My stockings are in honour of Kat. Seriously.

I bought the pinstripe ones too. Not sure I have the right skirt for them yet.

Kat - insent to your phone.

I am having McD for lunch. I had BK for dinner yesterday. And if I plan things right, I will have Baskin Robbins for dinner tonight.

I know that is feeding all the wrong things in my brain. I know it, and yet...ok to counteract destructive simple carb and sugar intake, I will make a salad tonight also and for lunch tomorrow along with grilled chicken.

I am eating a coffee cake muffin. I probably won't have lunch. This is no way to live, yet I do.

I am so sleepy. This is the first time I've gone right into work after dilaudid, and it's not easy.

I was reading this article on the ICC and Darfur and was struck by these excerpts:

He told the BBC the government had a legal duty to arrest the men, even though Sudan is not one of the 120 states that signed up to the creation of the ICC.

and

The BBC's Geraldine Coughlan in the Hague says in the light of the court's decision, Sudan, despite its rhetoric, is now obliged to co-operate in handing these first two named suspects over to the ICC.

How can a group like the ICC force its legal will on another country? Is that legit and with precedent?

So I got called for jury duty a while ago. I rescheduled, since it was for last week and I was leaving town on Thursday. (Then I rescheduled again, because husband and I ending up booking a cruise on short notice.) So I'm scheduled for jury duty at the district court on the 15th.

Guess what came in the mail today? A jury duty summons for the municipal court.

How can a group like the ICC force its legal will on another country? Is that legit and with precedent?

I don't see how it is legit if Sudan didn't sign the treaty to form the ICC. I'm guessing the ICC feels it must respond to Darfur, legit or not.

That can't be right, Dana. I mean, you can't have to do both.

I have thinky work to do, and no brain to do it with. This is a dilemma.

How can a group like the ICC force its legal will on another country? Is that legit and with precedent?

Yes, this is basically the problem the US had with it. I wrote an essay on it once but forget what their bases are; probably universal jurisdiction (any country can have juris over the citizens of any other country for certain extra-special crimes like genocide, airplane hijacking (maybe?) and mass rape).

That can't be right, Dana. I mean, you can't have to do both.

Apparently I can. They'll exempt me from municipal service if I get picked to serve on a district jury, though. And I can reschedule municipal service if necessary, so there's really a ton of flexibility built in. I can't complain too much.

probably universal jurisdiction (any country can have juris over the citizens of any other country for certain extra-special crimes like genocide, airplane hijacking (maybe?) and mass rape)

That would be my guess also. However, we also discussed this concept in my international law class where, if a sort of critical mass of countries have accepted a certain treaty or law, then that treaty becomes binding on everyone.

universal jurisdiction (any country can have juris over the citizens of any other country for certain extra-special crimes like genocide, airplane hijacking (maybe?) and mass rape).

This exists, then? Or you're saying it's the unsound basis for what the ICC insists on?

Dude. Darfur. People need to be punished. But I'm squeamish about organisations say it's going to be them that does it. Now, if Sudan had been in the ICC, I'd imagine they'd have withdrawn right quick to get out of their jurisdiction, but still.

Still sleeping. Maybe I need to take a walk.