International criminal court

[Tex -USMC- 0]

My mistake - not ego, paranoia  

That's better.  

But are we paranoid enough? Heh, my time on this forum has convinced me that we should launch preemptive strikes against Sweden, France, and whichever part of England Jinef lives in

[Guest]

Heh, prime example of what I'm talking about: Serbs clash over war crimes arrest

Quote[/b] ]US aid deadline

The arrest comes just before a 15 June deadline when the US Congress requires proof the Serbian authorities are co-operating with the Hague tribunal in order for a further tranche of economic aid worth $110 m to be released to Serbia.

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

Bush thinks hypocrisy is either a medical complaint or an unpatriotic hip hop act!

Vote for Bush! Hes just having fun!

Disclaimer**IsthatyouJohnWayne is not acting as an advocate of any political party in the contiguous United States. Liberals suck too... and commie europeans. But not the BBC. The BBC is a wonderful and impartial organisation with ne'er a hint of bias shown. Verily **

Serbs clash over war crimes arrests

/\

It would be nice to see the PA taking similar actions against the extremist criminals who are trying to wreak the peace, but then the IDF has destroyed many of the means by which the PA might actually have dont that in its (over)reactive attacks.

[Hit_Sqd_Maximus 0]

Liberals suck too... and commie europeans.

LMAO

[ruff 102]

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.

yeah i reckon

us is giving all the food in ethiopia at the current moment and eu is doing jack shit

even an eu spokes man was disgusted

i believe force is neccessary to countries hu dont care for sanctrions

its like saying no government funding for a drug dealer

but the drug dealer will just make more in the streets

and for innocent civillians getting killed in war

if it takes 300ppl to stop a murder of 200 000+ i beleive its worth it

russia vs checnia

no 1 hears wat happens and its an all out war

[killagee 0]

I would like to hear some more about chechnya. I am very confused about this conflict. I have read a few books by people who fought / reported for both sides. I have searched all over the net and always end up finding very one-sided accounts.

Anyone know where I can find a detailed analysis of this conflict?

For a very emotional account of the destruction of grozny I reccomend "My war gone by I miss it so" by Athony Loyd. Also contains horrific accounts from the Balkens.

This is a good link for great pic's from the russian side.

Sorry, if I am too offtopic here.

Maybe someone should open a thread where we can discuss this and other "Eastern" conflicts?

Chechnya Link

[Col. Kurtz 0]

I would like to hear some more about chechnya. I am very confused about this conflict. I have read a few books by people who fought / reported for both sides. I have searched all over the net and always end up finding very one-sided accounts.

Anyone know where I can find a detailed analysis of this conflict?

For a very emotional account of the destruction of grozny I reccomend "My war gone by I miss it so" by Athony Loyd. Also contains horrific accounts from the Balkens.

This is a good link for great pic's from the russian side.

Sorry, if I am too offtopic here.

Maybe someone should open a thread where we can discuss this and other "Eastern" conflicts?

Chechnya Link

There was a thread a while back but it might have been too long ago to kickstart it back into life.

Chechnya is definetely a highly controversial topic. I view it with the same kind of feelings as I do with the whole Palestinian&Israeli issue. I think both sides do wrongs. I'm sure the ICC could find a lot of juicy cases from Chechnya as both sides have commited some very nasty war crimes.

[ruff 102]

all i know is that Chechnya wants to break away form russia

and that most of them are islamic and overseas fighters went to help

and terror tactics were used therefor putin declared all out war around 5000 troops i think are trying to crush the rebels

mostly spetznaz and alpha 1

alpha 1 was sent after the russian hostage siege were 999 hostages were freed and 100 injured or dead all terrorist were killed or captured cant remeber it was last year

but yeah it sounds like the middle east crisis

its like britain in the early stages and its "want to break away colonies" like india and countless more in asia and africa

[killagee 0]

Can anyone hear an echo...

Any Interest in a Chechnya thread? I could start one. We might all learn something...

[ruff 102]

hell yeah

[-TU--33ker 0]

Can anyone hear an echo...

Any Interest in a Chechnya thread? I could start one. We might all learn something...

I think we already have one open.

[Schoeler 0]

In the Iraq thread Raedor wrote:

Quote[/b] ](raedor @ July 07 2003,06:30)

Quote[/b] ](Schoeler @ July 07 2003,12:08)

No American in his right mind wants to kill an ally and if he did, he would most certainly go to prison for it.

sure? why did the US NOT join ICC? is den haag in a country which is on the list of undemocratic countrys or is den haag know for beeing biased? or do u know other reasons?

I responded:

Quote[/b] ]Would you want foreign governments judging your actions?  Consider the fact that we feel justified as a sovereign nation in fighting this war with Iraq.  Now consider that some other countries consider this wa war crime.  Do you really think the U.S. as the world's only superpower is going to surrender any of that power or subvert its own sovereignty by allowing those smaller foreign nations to judge us based upon a different system of morals or ideas of proper international relations?  Those other countries have their own interests and agendas just as we have ours.  I don't agree with surrendering our sovereignty and subverting our national interests in the interest of meeting theirs.

In a PM to me Raedor replied:

Quote[/b] ]hi schoeler!

you seem to be a really intelligent boy/man...

you said: "Do you really think the U.S. as the world's only superpower is going to surrender any of that power or subvert its own sovereignty by allowing those smaller foreign nations to judge us based upon a different system of morals or ideas of proper international relations?"

ok, this may be your opinion.

BUT: firstly i didnt talk about THE US, i talked about soldiers of the US army who had comitted crimes. secondly joining ICC doesnt mean giving up the own sovereignty and being judged by smaller and foreign nations based upon different sytems and so on... cos those soldiers will be judged by a court which (who?) is elected by all democratic states all over the world. and those judgements will be based on ONE system of morals and ideas of...

or can you explain to me why the states of the former yugoslavja should deliver the former "chefs" to den haag? mr milosevic for example. surely he has a different system of morals. if everyone says "no, we have a different system" we will never have justice.

and maybe mr. bush is talking about freedom and democracy. but what he does doesnt really sound like democracy. not all the world does like our system. and not all the world is christian. dont forget this, especially if you are talking about the near east. (i am christian (my father has studied theology) and i like the most of our system.)

the US is the world's only superpower. but in a democracy the minoritys have also a right of free speech. you know what i mean?

best regards,

raedor

p.s.: sorry for my bad english!

My response is that I think the I.C.C. is a great idea ..... in an ideal world. I have too little faith in the nature of mankind to believe it will work in today's world however. I cannot see this as anything but a recipe for disaster. We live in a world where the concept of individual national sovereignty is still the dominant factor in international relations. There is no use denying that, like it or not. Thus nations today still have their own agendas: political, economic and military. These nations look out for their own interests first and the interests of other people second, or only when its suits them or helps to further their own interests. In a world like that, there is almost a guarantee that politics and national agendas will creep their way into and infect an international body like the I.C.C. It is a place where nations foreign to one's own can collectively gang up on whomever is the outsider at any given time, or where one large dominant bully-nation can use its clout to get other nations to acquiesce to its agenda. So from a world politics standpoint I am against such a body as it will only lead to dissension, a dowturn in international relations, arguments, disputes and possibly war.

Now, I'll approach the issue from a legal philosophical perspective. The I.C.C. is to be based upon a Western system of justice and moral values. Who are we to impose our legal system or morals upon the rest of the world? In the Middle East for example, many nations operate under Hammurabic Law and the Islamic sense of justice which involves "an eye for an eye" reprisals. In Saudi Arabia, a petty thief can be sentenced to have his right hand amputated. Now according to western legal concepts and judeo-christian ethics, this kind of justice is simply unacceptable at best and completely repugnant at worst. Yet do we have the right to judge others whose values differ from ours according to our value system? I don't think we do. The English have the oldest sytem of code law ever devised, the French operate under Napoleonic law and a legal system developed under Charlemagne, but those systems are based upon Judeo-Christian ethics and are fledgling compared to other legal systems. So in essence imposing those types of legal systems on other nations is imposing the ethical system upon which they are based on other cultures, creeds, religions etc... I can't agree with that.

Getting back to national sovereignty. I thought national self-determination was a good thing. We fought for that for much of the last century did we not? If a group of people united by whatever bond, be it ethnic, religious, economic, ideological want to form a nation and determine how they should be governed, we should respect that. The concept of sovereignty is just that, repsecting how it is a people decide to rule themselves. Now, I think that Emmanuel Kant was right to some extent. There are universal rights and wrongs. Indiscriminant killing is wrong, starving or oppressing people for whatever reason is wrong, invading another sovereign state without good reason is wrong. This is where a nation-state has moved outside the limits and boundaries of its sovereignty. Going from there we have a leading western moral philosopher in John Stuart Mill who espoused Utilitarianism, or doing what is best for the greatest good, or the greatest number of people. By that extension, when the previously mentioned injustices occur, then it is up to other nation-states with the power and the inclination to do so, to step in and rectify the situation and then to get the hell out as soon as the problem is effectively solved. This is why the U.N. still exists and why I don't want to see the U.S. pull away from that organization. Now not all nations are going to agree with such an action, and some will even call it criminal. Do we really want to give any nation or any quorum of nations the power to level criminal charges against a nation of group of nations that felt it was behaving morally because of simple philosophical disagreements? I think that is a recipe for war.

As a citizen of the world's last superpower, I am inclined to absolutely Not support our joining the I.C.C. We are a sovereign nation in a system of international relations dominated by the concept of sovereignty. I can't agree with surrrendering our power or our right to self-determination when many other nations refuse to do so. Everybody resents the guy at the top, and right now America is the guy at the top. It's only human nature that someone (or some State or group of States) that resents the U.S. will abuse its/their power to lash out in that resentment. Mankind is too selfish and too self-serving for this to work right now. When we do away with the concept of sovereignty and start thinking in terms of the collective good, then I could see it working.

As far as trying war criminals goes, well we've had a system in place for centuries that has effectively addressed that problem and its this: The victor/victors of the war gets to determine who are the criminals and they also get to try them.

As has been said, the Nazis didn't think they acted wrongly, but the Allies (the victors) disagreed with their philosophy, labeled them criminals, tried them at Nuremberg and hung the worst offenders.

This sytem worked in the past and there is no reason to believe it won't continue to go on working.

I hate to say it, as from our western philosophy, it might not seem moral, but according to the law of nature and the way the world has always worked and continues to work until this day: Might does make right. To the victor the spoils have always belonged. Maybe some day there will be some apocaulyptic clash between western and eastern moral values or maybe there won't. But if it does happen, you can bet the winner will determine for the loser what ethics we'll all live by.

As for the future, the concept of international law is a relatively new idea. There is no codified body of international law, nor is there even a single unifying philosophy. Sure, we have some maritime agreements, the Geneva Accords and a few U.N. madates, but that is as close as we have come to an international law. International law is simply based upon the idea of "norms" in the arena of international relations. Its really that simple. 100 years ago, it was acceptable under these norms for a large nation to colonize and exploit a smaller nation. Today it no longer is. In today's world it is becoming increasingly more unacceptable to traffic in human beings, market narcotics, starve one's own people, or ethnically cleanse. Tomorrow may bring further developments and agreement in moral and philosophical norms. Maybe they will all be based in western philosophy, or maybe we will adapt some tenets of other philosophies here in the west. Who can predict? Mankind is on the path to enlightenment, buts its going to be a long, long time until we reach that end. I can't in good conscience accept an idea that tries to jumpstart the process or bypass generations of needed development before we are all ready, in the simple interest of expediency or worse in trying to get our western values and systems of philosophy imposed upon others. Who is to say we are completely in the right or that our system is best? As human beings, we all have some learning to do. I'd rather we did it at the natural pace instead of trying to tinker with the system and create a quick and dirty utopia. Such attempts at shorcutting things of such monstrous importance and impact have only resulted in failure, destruction and ultimately human suffering. The lessons of human history are rife with examples. We should learn from them and let human development take its natural course. We'll get an I.C.C. when we are good and ready. Maybe we won't even need the letter "I" in that acronym some day, but instead have a world criminal court.

[NurEinMensch 0]

It's an interesting topic and I think Raedor has a point or two.

The idea of the ICC is good, but only those who put themselves under its authority should be judged there.

If there were universial ethics and morale that all people everywhere could agree about, only then we would be able to have a court even for those who don't join the code but as long as ethics seem to be relative and morales arent universal we can't have a "mandatory" ICC.

And if the US dont want to be part of it its sad, but its their decision.

[DarkLight 0]

This is yet another one of those great examples of how the US seems to piss off the whole fucking world harder every single day...

I seriously do not understand why the US doesn't want to join...

The worst probable is that the US thinks it can judge everyone else and commit agressive actions towards those ppl/countries/etc while they don't think it would be justified if THEIR (f.e.) soldiers got punished for something they did wrong.

You gotta admit that the US doesn't seem to do any harm to their own war criminals, but when it's someone who doesn't have the american nationality.... whoooh... CODE RED CODE RED, INVADE COUNTRY NOW!

*ahum*

I'm seriously getting very irritated by all the stuff that's happening west of me... I just cannot understand why the hell the US seems to be doing so... so... SO FUCKING IRRITATING these days!!!

They've managed to piss off the whole world in an extremely short period of time, and now what do i see? It all continues...

Sometimes i feel like i'm trapped in a room, i want to do something and get out of the fucking room but there's no way out. Just like i want to do something to stop all these idiots called "politicians" but there's nothing that we can do that'll stop them.

Just admit it, if worldwide protests against a war cannot stop someone from starting one, then what can stop that person?

A war is something horrible, it's something that you normally don't just start for fun. When the whole world protests against it, you absolutely shouldn't do it. Now for some strange reason it still happens.

Conclusion: The lovely West doesn't give a fuck about what we think.

Free country my ass, you're free to say what you want as long as it's nothing negative about your country.

Fucking grown ups

i wish kids ruled the earth

[Schoeler 0]

This is yet another one of those great examples of how the US seems to piss off the whole fucking world harder every single day...

I seriously do not understand why the US doesn't want to join...

The worst probable is that the US thinks it can judge everyone else and commit agressive actions towards those ppl/countries/etc while they don't think it would be justified if THEIR (f.e.) soldiers got punished for something they did wrong.  

You gotta admit that the US doesn't seem to do any harm to their own war criminals, but when it's someone who doesn't have the american nationality.... whoooh... CODE RED CODE RED, INVADE COUNTRY NOW!  

*ahum*  

I'm seriously getting very irritated by all the stuff that's happening west of me...  I just cannot understand why the hell the US seems to be doing so... so... SO FUCKING IRRITATING these days!!!

They've managed to piss off the whole world in an extremely short period of time, and now what do i see?  It all continues...  

Sometimes i feel like i'm trapped in a room, i want to do something and get out of the fucking room but there's no way out.  Just like i want to do something to stop all these idiots called "politicians" but there's nothing that we can do that'll stop them.

Just admit it, if worldwide protests against a war cannot stop someone from starting one, then what can stop that person?

A war is something horrible, it's something that you normally don't just start for fun.  When the whole world protests against it, you absolutely shouldn't do it.  Now for some strange reason it still happens.

Conclusion:  The lovely West doesn't give a fuck about what we think.

Free country my ass, you're free to say what you want as long as it's nothing negative about your country.

Fucking grown ups

i wish kids ruled the earth

It's not just the U.S. that thinks it can judge everyone else, everyone thinks they can judge everyone else just as you have just done with the U.S.  It's just that the U.S. is the only nation left with enough power to do something about it.  I agree, that's probably extremely frustrating to other nations.  But don't think for a second that if another superpower emerges on the world scene, that it won't start throwing its weight around too.  If Europe unites, it will do things to address its own interests.  If China ever developes the means to project its power, so too will it.  The Soviet Union did it, so did Britain, France, Spain any other superpower in history at the hieght of its power.  It's a simple fact of life and human nature.  An I.C.C. isn't going to change that.

[NurEinMensch 0]

I disagree Schoeler, A ICC might very well change that if the world actually agrees on it.

I don't say it's likely to happen anytime soon, but I am certain it is possible.

Noone can put the US under ICC rule except the US citizens semselves through their government.

And the rest of the world humbly (or not so humbly ) asks you to do so because -be honest- there is no objective reason not too.

The growing paranoia of the american people (and posts like "the US seems to piss me off" aren't going to make them less paranoid) is the main obstacle.

[Schoeler 0]

But can't you see that the I.C.C. would be based upon a western system of justice? Who are we to say thats the best way of doing things in the world?

How are we to prevent a body with such power from being abused?

Look at the philosophical dissension and bickering in this forum alone. How could we guarantee that it won't happen on an international level? When nations bicker, wars are fought. I don't think the world is ready yet.

[NurEinMensch 0]

I don't want to say "didn't you read my post" because it always annoys me when someone posts this. But I really did say "if the world actually agrees on it."

What I meant is if all nations agree on one system of justice, only then can everyone everywhere held responsible at the ICC. Until that day only those who want to be under ICC justice should be judged by the ICC.

I think we can both agree on that.

[Schoeler 0]

Ooops! Sorry I agree. Only those nations who want to take part should be held accountable. If someone dastardly is out there committing atrocities and isn't a member, then the U.N. can handle it, or George Bush can act unilaterally once again! Either way they'll be brought to trial eventually. Even with the I.C.C., forces are going to have to go in and get the accused to make him stand trial. I can't see anyone among the world's cuurent despots lining up for a lifelong prison sentence or an execution.

[Major Fubar 0]

What it basically comes down to is this: the USAs moral values (in regards to foreign policy, war crimes etc.) are based on the "might makes right" mentality..i.e. we are the biggest and baddest, therefore we aren't accountable to anyone.

I would give the following comparison: the USA is like a Mafia crimelord - too powerful and influential to come under the jurisdictional power of the courts; above the law so to speak.

The ICC mightn't be some Eutopian ideal of international justice, but it is currently the best body we have. The USA considers itself above this body, just as it considers itself above the edicts of the UN (another body it sees fit to ignore when it's own agenda isn't met).

Hey, be happy your country is powerful enough to ignore international law, it is quite an achievement; but don't dare take the high moral ground, unless you want to reek of hypocracy.

[FSPilot 0]

Uh, no Fubar.

Look at it this way. A lot of people hate you (not literally, in this situation you are the US), would you want to be put on trial by someone who wants to make all those people like him enough to vote for him? I wouldn't.

[Milkman 1]

Uh, no Fubar.

Look at it this way.  A lot of people hate you (not literally, in this situation you are the US), would you want to be put on trial by someone who wants to make all those people like him enough to vote for him?  I wouldn't.

Neither would I.

[Major Fubar 0]

Uh, no Fubar.

Look at it this way.  A lot of people hate you (not literally, in this situation you are the US), would you want to be put on trial by someone who wants to make all those people like him enough to vote for him?  I wouldn't.

Well look at the facts:

1. ICC is the only body out there at the moment to serve this function, therefore in the interests of justice the USA should submit to it's authority

2. The USA is exempt from any international governing body just because it believes "everyone is out to get me"? I don't think so...

And unfortuantely, it isn't really the place of the accused to choose in which venue he will be tried, simply based on an assumption that the court will be biased. If that were the case, no criminal would ever appear in court again.  

The USA (like all other countries) is a global citizen, part of the international community, and really needs to start behaving as such.

Anyway, if the USA did submit to the ICC, and truly belived that decisions handed down on its troops were biased/unfair/incorrect, then it would certainly have the right of appeal. The USA is powerful enough and has enough allies that it wouldn't be strongarmed into accepting a decision that was blatantly false...

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Quote[/b] ]The USA (like all other countries) is a global citizen, part of the international community, and really needs to start behaving as such.

Uhh, no. I'm not a citizen of the world- I'm a citizen of the United States. That means that one of the functions of the US government is to protect me from being fucked with by other countries. I'm sorry you see it a different way, but this is just how it is. The US is a sovereign nation with the wherewithal and desire to stay out of the ICC. If you think it should be another way, then do your best to extradite US soldiers when the time comes. That's how the world's always worked, and I see no reason why we have to stick our soldiers' necks out to make it any different. You want to put your soldier's out there like that, fine- last time I checked, there weren't too many ardent anti-Australian groups out there with litigious clout.

However, as long as the US maintains its sovereignty and strength, we can essentially do whatever the hell we want in regards to the ICC. And the best the US government can do in the interests of its citizens (in the vein of Locke's philosophy) is to protect us from foreign powers and interference. I for one am just fine with that. I'd like to point out, one last time, that this is a simple matter of national sovereignty. If you and most of the western world want to suborn yours to a nebulous international institution, so be it- let us make up our own damn minds, thank you very much.

[ralphwiggum 6]

ICC is a noble idea, but is impractical at the moment. as of this moment, not many people in the world feel the need for planet-wide gov't. unless we get attacked by some alien species that acts on earth-human level, we won't see or feel the need for a "united earth" gov't.

although world became a close place, the cultural difference over last thousands of years will be hard to converge in to a homogenous entity. there is a relationship between culture and law.