International criminal court

[Tex -USMC- 0]

@ July 09 2003,22:12)]

I know how you historically value your sovereingty...but wold you not sacrifice a small part of it for a more stable world to live in? Isolationism is an ugly policy.

There is a massive gap between isolationism and sacrificing our national sovereignty, even a small part of it.

You might find that isolationism could very well follow once every country but the one with the biggest stick has made that sacrifice.

As I said earlier, that's your choice. However, if I were you, I would be prepared to be let down by your politicians when they don't make nearly the stink over this as you'd expect them to.

[Tovarish 0]

@ July 09 2003,22:26)]As I said earlier, that's your choice. However, if I were you, I would be prepared to be let down by your politicians when they don't make nearly the stink over this as you'd expect them to.

You're mistaken if you think I personally want a big stink over this. The first Cold War sucked, no need for a repeat. Plus, I'd expect Canada not to agravate the US. The reality of it is, if we piss you off, we're screwed (just see the aerospace thread). I'm just saying, with the EU and all, I think we'll see a bipolar world before long again. Maybe even tripolar by the looks of China. I would think we'd be better off with some common rules.

[Major Fubar 0]

@ July 10 2003,11:09)]

Let me give you a hypothetical: say a powerful nation like China decides to invade and commit war crimes in a small country which is an ally and friend of the USA (a fictional nation for the moment, so I don’t colour this argument with personal prejudices). For one reason or another the UN doesn’t want to intervene. Now, after the invasion is over, people want to see some nasty war criminals prosecuted. But individual nations are too scared of China’s power (including a large nuclear arsenal) to push the point. Would the USA risk war with China (quite possibly a nuclear exchange) to get these war criminals brought to trial, or would you rather have an international body there to serve the interests of justice? On a purely moral level, the answer is obvious…

P.S. Let me say, welcome back Denoir. You have made many of us very happy by your return, even in a non-moderator capacity.

Okay, I'm just going to cut right to the chase here- your argument is purely speculative, and as you said yourself, has no basis in reality. So, to that end, I'll just say this- why would China cowtow to an international organization if they won the war? It doesn't make sense. If the United States, complete with its arsenal, didn't have the ability to get any war criminals extradited, what on Earth makes you think that China will just smile at the ICC and hand over soldiers that would more likely than not be hailed as the victors and heroes of Marxism's latest triumph in China?

I didn't want to say it, but the line of reasoning is hopelessly naive. You make an assumption that the US wouldn't get involved after an invasion of one of its allies (your knowledge of history ought to tell you how valid that assumption is), and then you assume that a country like China will just hand over soldiers because the ICC said so. What is the ICC's muscle? How are they supposed to get these guys if China won't hand them over willingly? The UN? But you said that the UN didn't want to get involved in the first place, so why on Earth would they want to get involved now?

You see, your hypothesis just doesn't add up in a logical fashion. On a purely moral level, I'd be stuck holding the door open for little old ladies for more than half my waking life, but the world doesn't operate on a purely moral level. The only people who think that are the clerics in Iran, George W. Bush, and, apparently, you. Strange how that turns, doesn't it?

OK, I'm a little insulted that you seem to think I'm a naieve idealist just because our concepts of democracy and justice are more than a little incopatible. But that's not an issue, I'm a big boy and can take criticism, so we'll let that drop. I will be the first to admit that I am not as historically and politically knowledgable as many here at these forums. Perhaps my example was flawed. I will think harder when I have time to present you with a more histroically based example.

But having said that, I don't need to have a PHD to understand basic right and wrong. To me it is a basic truth that perpetrators of war crimes need to be held accountable and brought to justice regardless of their nationality or who they work for. And I don't believe that in many (most?) cases the war criminals own countries and governments can be counted on to enact this justice, or even to recognise that war crimes have been committed. I think on this point we can agree.

As for enforcement of these laws and apprehension of the war criminals, no, I dont believe that (in my example) China would happily hand them over. Nor would I expect any one country to go in gangbusters with their own troops to snatch these criminals, risking war betweens themselves and China. That is exactly why we need an  international, independent body like the ICC for this reason. Now I'll admit, I really have no idea how the ICC apprehends it's suspects at the moment, or who the personnel are that carry this out - or if it is totally dependent on countries cooperating with them. Can someone enlighten me? But I believe if all countries were to submit to ICC legislation, then they would be bound by threat of international repercussions (sanctions and otherwise) to hand over suspects.

-------

P.S. your post count reduction was not done in response to any of your comments. it was purely because you spammed in Keg's winter Nogova thread.

Don't worry Ralph, despite our differences I have a high enough opinion of you that you wouldn't do something like that

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Quote[/b] ]OK, I'm a little insulted that you seem to think I'm a naieve idealist just because our concepts of democracy and justice are more than a little incopatible. But that's not an issue, I'm a big boy and can take criticism, so we'll let that drop. I will be the first to admit that I am not as historically and politically knowledgable as many here at these forums. Perhaps my example was flawed. I will think harder when I have time to present you with a more histroically based example.

Sorry if you're insulted, but the fact is that your ideas on this concept are simply untenable in a real-world situation. It isn't that our concepts of democracy and justice are incompatible, it's that our views on how the world works seem to be abit at odds. Your example was flawed in a couple ways

1) it was a hypothetical. these are weak because hypothetically, my aunt could turn out to be my uncle- maybe there's something she (he?) hasn't told me yet lol.

2) it made a few basic assumptions that were flawed when looked at from a historical context.

You cannot hope to make a convincing argument if your underlying example is fundamentally flawed.

Quote[/b] ]But having said that, I don't need to have a PHD to understand basic right and wrong. To me it is a basic truth that perpetrators of war crimes need to be held accountable and brought to justice regardless of their nationality or who they work for. And I don't believe that in many (most?) cases the war criminals own countries and governments can be counted on to enact this justice, or even to recognise that war crimes have been committed. I think on this point we can agree.

Yeah, I agree. But that's just how it is.

Quote[/b] ]As for enforcement of these laws and apprehension of the war criminals, no, I dont believe that (in my example) China would happily hand them over. Nor would I expect any one country to go in gangbusters with their own troops to snatch these criminals, risking war betweens themselves and China. That is exactly why we need an international, independent body like the ICC for this reason. Now I'll admit, I really have no idea how the ICC apprehends it's suspects at the moment, or who the personnel are that carry this out - or if it is totally dependent on countries cooperating with them. Can someone enlighten me? But I believe if all countries were to submit to ICC legislation, then they would be bound by threat of international repercussions (sanctions and otherwise) to hand over suspects.

You just spelled out the weakness in the ICC. No matter how high-minded its ideals are, eventually the enforcement comes down to the 'might makes right' paradigm. Without the might, it doesn't matter whether you're right or not, because you won't last- just look at the League of Nations.

[Harnu 0]

Okie Dokie.  Just read all the pages and noticed Denior is back.  Time to start stocking the ammo and rations  

USSoldier11b

Quote[/b] ]I don't want to get banned, nobody will like what I have to say and it's a flame bait waiting to happen.  

But can't you just feel the words pulsating! Your fingers just have to type them!  (PR'd isn't as bad as you'd think anyway )

Denior

Quote[/b] ]I can't see how this could be anything but a recipe for disaster.  Consider the I.C.C. thinks General Franks is a war criminal.  They snatch him and hold him prisoner until he can stand trial.  Do you really think the U.S. or any other non-signatory country is going to allow something like that?  It's a direct attack on our sovereign authority.  I guarantee there would be a military response to such an incident.

Quote[/b] ]And do what? Invade Holland? Suppose Russian troops captured him and brought him to the ICC. Would you attack Russia and turn your country into a parking lot? USA is a super power, but that has its limitations too. If you push it too far you'll soon see what a lonely dangerous place the world can be. If the world gangs up then you stand no chance.

Now lets say we stage a raid and snag him back, what would those reprocussuions be?

As for my standing on the whole issue..

  I don't feel that America should be part of the ICC.  As I feel that every other country on this planet has also the right to say no.  We differ in opinions far too greatly.

 Some of you may argue "Well, say the United States killed x amount of civilians intentionally for some purpose".  Then I have to say, the day that happens, is the day we can argue about it.

 Should the US be exempt from war crimes? Hell no.  But as opinions differ, we may not find them to be war criminals.

 Take the IL National Gaurd pilots for instance. Major difference in opinion there.

And I couldn't find this on the original sites, how many and what countires have signed to this?

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Well remember what Israel did back in the day- they staged a mini-invasion of Argentina, grabbed a few Nazis, and boogied back out before before the folks in Beunos Aires had any idea what was going on. If you really want to deal with war criminals, that's how to do it in a low-impact manner.

[Schoeler 0]

It is the Geneva conventions that get to determine who the criminals are. Most countries in the world have ratified them, including USA.

Hot damn!  Welcome back Denoir.  Finally a worthy opponent!

 i wasnt or what do you want to say with this?  

Quote[/b] ]When I see all nations agreeing on what constitutes a war crime.  When that is strictly defined and codifed, when someone can't put their own spin or interpretation on what is and what is not a war crime (i.e. Belgium), when all nations have surrendered that little bit of their sovereignty, then I could accept the I.C.C. .  Until then, I see trouble brewing.

geneva conventions?  

Quote[/b] ]No, I couldn't see us invading Russia, though Bush just might be that dumb.  What I could see us doing is entering Chechnya or supplying them with arms, just to get back at the Russians.

yes, he is   . the US supplied osama (cold war) with arms, why shouldnt they do so now?    i think this is almost easier than trying it through meetings with mr putin. he says always the same: chechnya is a problem of russia, he dont want other nations to be involved, all is just because of some crazy islamic terrorist from foreign countries.

Quote[/b] ]Personally I think it was all hype.

yes, it was.

good night, mates!

Sorry Raedor, I didn't mean to insult you, you've made some great arguments, but Denoir and I have spent hours arguing with each other, and so far he's one of maybe two people who have caused me to stay up hours past when I should have gone to bed, thinking of counterarguments. I've only just started discussing things with you, so I didn't mean to insult you, its just that I haven't much opportunity to pick your brain or to be extremely challenged by you yet. You have so far, made me put up a pretty good fight!

I think Denoir is one of the few people I've met here who has read as much if not more than I have, so he keeps me on my toes with the facts and makes me remain logical! Plus, he has the class to agree to disagree, or to concede a point now and then, which makes him a fun opponent, because its not like arguing with a brick wall. I'm fine tuning my skills for when I become a lawyer, and I love to argue, so its nice to have someone who really presents a challenge. for me, argumentation is the finest mental game a human being can play. It beats thehell out of chess, solitaire, crossword, etc.. What can be better than matching your wits and your vocabulary with another fine mind? Sometimes I argue points I don't even support just for the challenge of it. Now you can see why I'm becoming an attorney!

[Schoeler 0]

I can't see surrendering any little bit of U.S. sovereignty just to please a bunch of nations that may or may not be politcally motivated in their designs for involving the U.S. in the I.C.C. First of all, is the I.C.C. going to guarantee Americans all of their Constitutional rights? How will the legal system function? Will it be adversarial like it is in America? Or will it operate as it does in France where the accused is presumed guilty until proven innocent? Somehow I doubt it will guarantee all of the protections and rights of our own legal system. We have a history of trying our own criminals here, our courts aren't any more corrupt than any other western nation's courts are, they function just fine. Why do we need the I.C.C.? Can we suddenly not be trusted to try our own criminals?

Again, there's the whole problem with enforcement anyway, someone is going to have to go in and get the accused criminals, and I'll bet my paycheck the country they get snatched from isn't going to like it. So what happens then, War? It just leaves a real bad taste in my mouth.

[Renagade 0]

Quote[/b] ]Will it be adversarial like it is in America? Or will it operate as it does in France where the accused is presumed guilty until proven innocent?

ur always guilty until proven innocent,why do think the stick u in court??at least the french are being honest

[Schoeler 0]

Well, studying the legal system like I do, I beg to differ, but hey it's your opinion so . . . . . .

[ran 0]

Quote[/b] ]Will it be adversarial like it is in America?  Or will it operate as it does in France where the accused is presumed guilty until proven innocent?

ur always guilty until proven innocent,why do think the stick u in court??at  least the french are being honest  

it's innocent until proven guilty , eventhough you spend some time in jail for the "préventive"

[Major Fubar 0]

Why do we need the I.C.C.?  Can we suddenly not be trusted to try our own criminals?

Short answer : no.

To point back to an example I gave before: If Osama was apprehended, would you trust the Afghan courts to try him, or would you demand he be tried in an American or at the very least UN or NATO court?

[Schoeler 0]

Fubar, the U.S. and Afghanistan are two very different entities. One is a nation dominated by lawlessness, oppression, corruption and open support for terrorism. The other is a nation whose legal system has been an example for much of the world to emulate, and which has always prosecuted its criminals. Especially its war criminals. Anybody remember Lt. William Calley?

[NurEinMensch 0]

Fubar, the U.S. and Afghanistan are two very different entities.  One is a nation dominated by lawlessness, oppression, corruption and open support for terrorism.  [...]

... And then there is Afghanistan.

Sorry, couldn't resist, it's meant to be funny not offensive!

[DarkLight 0]

My dear Americans, at least in my opinion you are free to join the ICC or not, but please if you don't join be fair and don't force other countries who aren't ICC members to extradict their war criminals.

Thank you.

You know, if america would do this nobody would be nagging right now...

[DarkLight 0]

Why do we need the I.C.C.?  Can we suddenly not be trusted to try our own criminals?

Short answer : no.

To point back to an example I gave before: If Osama was apprehended, would you trust the Afghan courts to try him, or would you demand he be tried in an American or at the very least UN or NATO court?

Court? What court? All you're doing is nuking whole afghanistan...

[denoir 0]

This whole discussion is quite simple. Answer these questions with yes or no:

1) Do you think the war crimes tribunal has the right to put Milosevic on trial for war crimes?

2) Do you think it was right to impose sanctions on Yugoslavia until they extradited Milosevic?

If you answer no both then I can agree that from your point of view no country should not be accountable before the ICC.

If you answer yes to both then there is no question that USA, just like every other country in the world is accountable before the ICC. Anything else is just hypocrisy.

The position of USA is today that everybody should be accountable except for USA. This leads to absurd situation in some ex-Yugoslav countries that USA threatened to withdraw aid and reduce trading if they didn't cooperate fully with the war crimes tribunal while at the same time threatening to withdraw aid and reduce trading if they didn't sign a contract not to extradite American suspected war criminals.

You don't see anything wrong with that?  

[Tamme 0]

U.S government doesn't seem to respect other countries. Well how could I know, but that's the impression I've got. UN didn't give permission to invade Iraq, but USA didn't care and attacked anyway. USA as the worlds only super power should show an example to the rest of the world. Now they just think that they are an example of high-morals and justice. They don't respect the UN and its laws. Instead they except everyone live by the rules that USA lives by. That rule is:"We are right and everyone does what we tell them to" All you americans out there: Find some smart leaders not these morons, thank you.

[Apocalypse4 0]

Ok, lets streamline all the comments into 2 bands

1: The US cannot be exempt from war crimes trails, even if victorious in a war, it is hypocritical and does not present a good example to other developing countries.

2: The US can do what the hell it wants, we won, and because of anti US feeling, we need to protect our people

I personally have no quibs in protection for your own people, however, to be completely exempt is unjustifiable, even in the current situation.

[Harnu 0]

Okie, hang on a second here. Who will be tried by the ICC? Will it be the military leaders? The soldiers? Or in America's case, the President, and all them?

[denoir 0]

Okie, hang on a second here.  Who will be tried by the ICC?  Will it be the military leaders? The soldiers? Or in America's case, the President, and all them?

Whoever ordered the war crime. If the president orders for instance the mass killing of civilians, then he would be tried and those that executed those orders. If it was the actions of one individual soldier, then just that individual would be tried.

You have to remember that when you we are talking about war crimes it's large scale. If some private gets drunk and starts killing off civilians, it won't be a matter for the ICC. Such things are handled by each country.

A commander ordering his troops to kill all the civilians they see would on the other hand be an ICC matter.

[raedor 8]

It is the Geneva conventions that get to determine who the criminals are. Most countries in the world have ratified them, including USA.

Hot damn!  Welcome back Denoir.  Finally a worthy opponent!

 i wasnt or what do you want to say with this?  

Sorry Raedor, I didn't mean to insult you [...]

i didnt take it as an insult. i just wanted to make a (bad) joke...  

[ralphwiggum 6]

This whole discussion is quite simple. Answer these questions with yes or no:

1) Do you think the war crimes tribunal has the right to put Milosevic on trial for war crimes?

2) Do you think it was right to impose sanctions on Yugoslavia until they extradited Milosevic?

If you answer no both then I can agree that from your point of view no country should not be accountable before the ICC.

If you answer yes to both then there is no question that USA, just like every other country in the world is accountable before the ICC. Anything else is just hypocrisy.

The position of USA is today that everybody should be accountable except for USA. This leads to absurd situation in some ex-Yugoslav countries that USA threatened to withdraw aid and reduce trading if they didn't cooperate fully with the war crimes tribunal while at the same time threatening to withdraw aid and reduce trading if they didn't sign a contract not to extradite American suspected war criminals.

You don't see anything wrong with that?  

over generalization. you are holding one incident and trying to make it all same for all cases.

How about this - Milosevic was frowned upon by pretty much all of the world due to his blind hatred against ethnic Albanians. There is no excuse, and everyone except Milo saw this coming. They wanted to get him tried on international scale since his crimes were against basic human values.

however, not all cases that are begging for international scale is not of such nature. Just look at the Belgian case(which was of course a joke ). Tommy Franks was accused of war crime, when in fact it should be Bush. this says that there are politics involved.

so how are the politically charged cases handled? there will be someone who will file politically charged cases, and that menas any accused nation has to defend itself, taking frivolous lawsuits. if the accusation do not make it to the court, then it has to be rejected somewhere, meaning ICC has to take the blunt of force. are they willing to do that?

On the contrary side, in retrospective, since those who were negligent of Saddam's action on Kurds and his people are also accountable for international level of gross negligence(including Fr, US), should they be tried? Since it was impossible to get a fair trial on Hussein in Iraq, the only hope is ICC, but I have yet to see people who brought any criminal charges against Hussein before the war.

The problem with ICC, as i reiterate, is that there is no world-level gov't, and countries don't see its need yet. maybe when alien races wage 'war' on us, then we will make one, but as long as there are no external balance, i doubt if that will be happening.

[Apocalypse4 0]

i suppose any of the soldiers who has commited a war crime could be got, letattacking a civilian without a due reason, butit would most likely be the person who authorised a war to get the war crimes, unless the person on trail has commited, or allowed others to commit atrocities

[DarkLight 0]

however, not all cases that are begging for international scale is not of such nature. Just look at the Belgian case(which was of course a joke ). Tommy Franks was accused of war crime, when in fact it should be Bush. this says that there are politics involved.

Imagine what would've happend if Belgium did blame Bush, i wonder how long i'd survive...