International criminal court

[ruff 102]

@ June 11 2003,04:35)]It really isn't all that big a deal. Hell, Bush's presidency is shaping up into a Reagan 2.0 deal. Only Bush isn't as charismatic or lovable, and his new and shaggier version of the Evil Empire won't leave his cave. Even Bush's economic policies are running up the same massive deficits, and the new round of tax cuts haven't even gone into effect yet. I'd say that a second Bush term is definitely possible, and even very likely, but that won't be so bad. I mean, unless Sweden simultaneously discovers oil within its borders and starts gassing Norwegians  

[cynicism]

Here's my prediction for the next presidential election, and you can quote me on this. Bush by a few percentage points- the Dems will make a fairly strong run post-convention, but that September will most likely see the institution of 9/11 day, and I can guarantee you you wont be able to turn on Fox news without hearing "We will not falter, we will not fail yadda yadda yadda- let's roll!" This nostalgia for the state of terrified patriotism we lived in post 9/11/01 will lift Bush over the top just like getting tough on Iraq helped the Republicans win the midterms last year. Nothing gets the soccer moms out to the polls better than file footage of burning skyscrapers. Oh yeah, that and the fact that no moderate in their right mind would vote for Gephardt.

[/cynicism]

reagan i believe was way worse than bush

first of all reagan negotiated with iran doing a weapons deal during iran iraq war in exchange for less terrorism attacks on america in which he addmitted publicly

he sent us troops into lebanon with no mission

wat do u get over 200marines dead

he attacks the city with battleship guns instead of the well known hezbollah camp which was a dam easy target in fear of terror reprisals and this was infact after the us embassy bombing

bush aint perfect nor is he as good president as clinton the playa..... but at least his got balls

also at least he didnt become trigger happy rite afta 9/11

i believe powell should continued to run for president even though his a military man he was actually the only one hu really wanted to go through un with iraq but he became the war starter since things didnt go well

he was just following orders

im from oz by da way so correct me if im wrong on the lebanon topic

[Jinef 2]

"We are going to get these terrorist dead or alive"

A month later preps for Afghanistan were in full swing.

No not trigger happy at all

[-TU--33ker 0]

Wow! Denoir stood up for us....

::heart attack and dies::

Did he really?

I think I'll have to read his post again.

[PitViper 0]

A quick question: How can a country be accountable to a treaty it has not ratified?

[Guest]

As far as you are concerned you're not accountable since you havn't ratified it. As far as those that have ratified it, you are accountable.

Do you think that the Nazis had accepted the Nürnberg trials? Or do you think that Milosevic ratified the war crimes tribunal conventions?

No, war crimes go beyond national law. It's the only way since often it is regimes themselves that are responsible for ordering war crimes. That's much more common than that individual soldiers decide to start murdering civilians on a mass scale.

[PitViper 0]

As far as you are concerned you're not accountable since you havn't ratified it. As far as those that have ratified it, you are accountable.

Do you think that the Nazis had accepted the Nürnberg trials? Or do you think that Milosevic ratified the war crimes tribunal conventions?

No, war crimes go beyond national law. It's the only way since often it is regimes themselves that are responsible for ordering war crimes. That's much more common than that individual soldiers decide to start murdering civilians on a mass scale.

Ratification happens in Congress in the U.S. There is no "regime" in Congress as each member is elected by a unique constituency. Congress is calling the shots as far as the ICC in the U.S.

[Guest]

The congress is part of the government or "regime" if you wish. Say for arguments sake that the US government orders the execution of 1,000 Iraqi civilians each day until somebody comes forward about where WMDs can be found. Do you think that the US government would then at the same time willingly accept war crime charges?

Usually genocide (a typical war crime) is ordered on government level of a country. To put the responsible on trial, you can't wait for them to accept to be arrested.

Therefor the ICC is above national level. You may or may not like it but you are accountable anyway. The ratification of the ICC only means that you will fully cooperate and send your suspects and help out capturing suspects from other nations. The congress can decide if the US will cooperate or not, but it has no bearing on the accountability of US soldiers as far as the ICC is concerned and on those that have ratified it.

[PitViper 0]

The congress is part of the government or "regime" if you wish. Say for arguments sake that the US government orders the execution of 1,000 Iraqi civilians each day until somebody comes forward about where WMDs can be found. Do you think that the US government would then at the same time willingly accept war crime charges?

In that situation, the congress would likely get involved if an administration took such an absurd route. Our government has quite a bit of checks and balances.

[FSPilot 0]

Maybe it's because I've grown up in a country that's ripe with them, but I can't imagine a judge without a political agenda. Especially not in such an up-high international position.

The ICC may be a non-national organisation, but that doesn't automatically mean that it's non-biased.

[Guest]

In that situation, the congress would likely get involved if an administration took such an absurd route. Our government has quite a bit of checks and balances.

Indeed, so you have nothing to worry about

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]Maybe it's because I've grown up in a country that's ripe with them, but I can't imagine a judge without a political agenda. Especially not in such an up-high international position.

The ICC may be a non-national organisation, but that doesn't automatically mean that it's non-biased.

Nice to see that the definition of justice in the US is coherent to the definition of politics.

We don´t have such shit in germany. Law is the only sponsor of justice, not some greedy capitalist parties.

I really wonder how that system can work.

[crashdome 3]

The congress is part of the government or "regime" if you wish. Say for arguments sake that the US government orders the execution of 1,000 Iraqi civilians each day until somebody comes forward about where WMDs can be found. Do you think that the US government would then at the same time willingly accept war crime charges?

In that situation, the congress would likely get involved if an administration took such an absurd route. Our government has quite a bit of checks and balances.

I disagree somewhat.

In such an absurd route, Yes..(Maybe), but what about circumstances that are silently manipulated. All you have to do is read a Business Law book to see how our "checks and balances" resemble nothing but post-it notes that clutter and confuse.

You are relating that we should not be accountable, because we can account for ourselves?? yes?..no?

I am sorry, we place responsibility solely in our own hands and someone is going to abuse it eventually.

IMO if we were placed accountable and brought up on charges, do you think we would really be punished severely? I disagree. I believe the lack of accountability is simply to prevent a lack of support for our actions and to prevent further tension. If we are charged, it would put a crack in the podium our military is standing so high on right now. Recruitment and budgets would decline and overall morale would deminish. Is that bad? I believe not

You have to look at why everyone "hates" us right now. It's basically because we barreled ahead without concern for anyone else's opinion and now we want to further alienate their opinion of our actual deeds, mostly to protect our own interests. I would be pissed too if I were anywhere else in the world right now!

[killagee 0]

Indeed, so you have nothing to worry about

Thats right. If the US has such an open and counter-balanced system where war crimes will not arise, it has nothing to fear from the ICC.

It is similar to a cop asking if he can search your car. You posess nothin illegal ... "Sure mate, mind the old chips on the floor"

You have a kg of cocaine under your seat..." you have no right to search my car"

Or maybe you are just worried about what they will find that even you dont know about...

ICC does not 'backdate', ie: you can only get in trouble for crimes committed after the courts opening date, not before. This was a concession to try and get the US on aboard, basically they agreed to forget the charge of "unlawful use of force", for which the US has already been found guilty by the World Court.

The following is a short history of Nicaragua's 'Passive Resistance' after US sponsored terrorism against the democratically elected socialist government which left tens of thousands of people dead.

"They responded by taking it to the World Court, presenting a case, they had no problem putting together evidence. The World Court accepted their case, ruled in their favor, ordered the...condemned what they called the "unlawful use of force," which is another word for international terrorism, by the United States, ordered the United States to terminate the crime and to pay massive reparations. The United States, of course, dismissed the court judgment with total contempt and announced that it would not accept the jurisdiction of the court henceforth. Then Nicaragua then went to the UN Security Council which considered a resolution calling on all states to observe international law. No one was mentioned but everyone understood. The United States vetoed the resolution. It now stands as the only state on record which has both been condemned by the World Court for international terrorism and has vetoed a Security Council resolution calling on states to observe international law. Nicaragua then went to the General Assembly where there is technically no veto but a negative US vote amounts to a veto. It passed a similar resolution with only the United States, Israel, and El Salvador opposed. The following year again, this time the United States could only rally Israel to the cause, so 2 votes opposed to observing international law. At that point, Nicaragua couldn't do anything lawful. It tried all the measures. They don't work in a world that is ruled by force."

From here

[Major Fubar 0]

[Hit_Sqd_Maximus 0]

It is similar to a cop asking if he can search your car. You posess nothin illegal ... "Sure mate, mind the old chips on the floor"

You have a kg of cocaine under your seat..." you have no right to search my car"

Or maybe you are just worried about what they will find that even you dont know about...

Actually, last week I got pulled over and a cop asked if he could search my car, I didnt have anything on me but I still refused to let him.

[ruff 102]

"We are going to get these terrorist dead or alive"

A month later preps for Afghanistan were in full swing.

No not trigger happy at all

exactly

a month later

a month better than a day

which ppl expected

even though it took u.s. to attack iraq more than a year

at least it was a year

and how are going to stop terrorist????give them flowers???

and for international criminal courts

i beleive the ppl hu were wronged should be the ones with the power

if theres not enuff evidence for a cunning war criminal then wow theyre scot free

also it seems only soldiers hu follow orders will the ones only accountable, specially on peace keeping missions e.g. east timor when there was an iquiry on the sasr treatment of pow, it was claimed the pow were derived of sleep and food for 2 days!!!!!!!!!and a dead corpse was kicked...wow thats a big woop, if it were the other way around all captured soldiers wouldve been killed. all war crims cant be caught or tried , only the soldiers of established countries following orders. even those captured soldiers in iraq hu were bashed, will theyre captors be tried????havent heard anyhting bout that..

and i believe countries can have an influence on these courts, judges can be bought or threatened, every countries got spies or spec ops... if they dont like america...then there u go

its like the whole issue with the echelon and eu

allies spying on each other

[ruff 102]

Indeed, so you have nothing to worry about

Thats right. If the US has such an open and counter-balanced system where war crimes will not arise, it has nothing to fear from the ICC.

It is similar to a cop asking if he can search your car. You posess nothin illegal ... "Sure mate, mind the old chips on the floor"

You have a kg of cocaine under your seat..." you have no right to search my car"

Or maybe you are just worried about what they will find that even you dont know about...

ICC does not 'backdate', ie: you can only get in trouble for crimes committed after the courts opening date, not before. This was a concession to try and get the US on aboard, basically they agreed to forget the charge of "unlawful use of force", for which the US has already been found guilty by the World Court.

The following is a short history of Nicaragua's 'Passive Resistance' after US sponsored terrorism against the democratically elected socialist government which left tens of thousands of people dead.

"They responded by taking it to the World Court, presenting a case, they had no problem putting together evidence. The World Court accepted their case, ruled in their favor, ordered the...condemned what they called the "unlawful use of force," which is another word for international terrorism, by the United States, ordered the United States to terminate the crime and to pay massive reparations. The United States, of course, dismissed the court judgment with total contempt and announced that it would not accept the jurisdiction of the court henceforth. Then Nicaragua then went to the UN Security Council which considered a resolution calling on all states to observe international law. No one was mentioned but everyone understood. The United States vetoed the resolution. It now stands as the only state on record which has both been condemned by the World Court for international terrorism and has vetoed a Security Council resolution calling on states to observe international law. Nicaragua then went to the General Assembly where there is technically no veto but a negative US vote amounts to a veto. It passed a similar resolution with only the United States, Israel, and El Salvador opposed. The following year again, this time the United States could only rally Israel to the cause, so 2 votes opposed to observing international law. At that point, Nicaragua couldn't do anything lawful. It tried all the measures. They don't work in a world that is ruled by force."

From here

how bout the russians????

when they assassinated and killed the afghan president

russia's getting away with lots of shit

only ppl are ready to blame u.s. for everything since they are thwe current world power

[FSPilot 0]

It is similar to a cop asking if he can search your car. You posess nothin illegal ... "Sure mate, mind the old chips on the floor"

You have a kg of cocaine under your seat..." you have no right to search my car"

Or maybe you are just worried about what they will find that even you dont know about...

Or maybe the cop is corrupt and will do anything to put you in prison?

[Major Fubar 0]

[rant]It's no surprise that the US considers itself above the jurisdiction of the ICC: after all, they are able to ignore UN rules and regulations when it suits them, why should the ICC be any different?

Let's face facts, America doesn't believe it has to answer to anyone other than itself. Sure, it'll suck up to other countries when it wants alliances, allies to help do it's dirty work or someone to palm off war expenses onto; but in the end, the attitude is USA Uber Alles...[/rant]

[FSPilot 0]

We're exempt from it because people will use it against us, not because we have some ego problem.

And if we're waging war against ghosts I guess you don't have to worry about civilian casualties anymore do you.

[Major Fubar 0]

Quote[/b] ]We're exempt from it because people will use it against us, not because we have some ego problem.

My mistake - not ego, paranoia  

---

I can just see imagine an accused murderer pleading "Objection your honour - I can't face this charge in court, someone might use the court against me!"...

[killagee 0]

how bout the russians????

when they assassinated and killed the afghan president

russia's getting away with lots of shit

only ppl are ready to blame u.s. for everything since they are thwe current world power

That is so true ruff.

Actually I believe the Ex-USSR to be a worse menace during the 80's than the US. I had high hopes that the break up of the Soviet Union would produce a more tranparent form of foreign policy from Russia. The leveling of Grozny with 30,000 artillary rounds in the first day of russia's second offensive scuttles these hopes...

I still have a great love and high hopes for Russia's future however, and see things getting better in the short term, unlike the US which will follow its domestically popular megalomaniacal foreign policy until the balance tips...How deep will the hole be that the US has dug for itself be by this time?

But still, hope exists. Today the US listed many countries it threatens with econimic action if they do not do more to curb the flow of Human Traffic (child soldiers, slaves, prostitiues, refugees...) across their borders

I think these threats will force these countries to clamp down on the multi-national organised crime syndacites that profit from the trade on human lives.

Now imagine how else the USA could use its power to sway other governments...

Economic santions and trade exclusions against countries involved with:

-Sale of New and Used weaponry to developing nations and Military Dictatorships...

-The harbouring of International Criminals...

-The manufacture, research or posession of weapons of mass destruction...

-Subsidises their own inefficient agriculture and industry that flood developing countires with their own product so that local producers cannot compete in their own marketplace against the cheap imports (ie: Daddy..How come people living on fertile land still starve?)

Oh wait... How can the US impose santions on itself?

[Jinef 2]

Please, i would like the US to threaten the EU with sanctions if we don't get off our arse and ship out the surplus of food we have to places that need it. We have tons of food just sitting around and we don't give it to anyone because of the cost of logistics.

[Guest]

Anyhow the immunity for US servicemen was extended for another year by the UN Security Council. France, Germany and Syria abstained from voting.

[FSPilot 0]

My mistake - not ego, paranoia  

That's better.