International criminal court

[Major Fubar 0]

So basically, you are saying the USA shouldn't be answerable to the rest of the world, and can do what it wants with no explanations or repercussions? If US troops or elements of the command structure have committed war crimes, then the rest world should be expected to look the other way?

I can see both of your points, but forgive me for saying this, that attitude stinks. It is that kind of attitude that propegates anti-US sentiment the world over. Yes, you are US citizens, but (like it or not), we are all global citizens as well. Unless you want the USA to build a 100 foot wall around it's perimiter and cease any and all trading and contact with the outside world, then the USA is part of the world in general, and as such, has the same responsibilities and obligations as every other nation.

----------

Anyway, you have you viewpoint, and I respect that, but can you back it up with some evidence that the ICC is this incompetent/biased entity you seem to think it is?

[Schoeler 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.

Fubar, there is no world government, so all governments policies are based upon the idea of might makes right. In the system of international relations, the only thing that constitutes international law are the "norms" that I discussed earlier. There is no codified body of international law. The IR system is governed by realpolitik and that only changes when there is money to be made. Look at recent history. Saddam Hussein's gov't thinks it is the rightful owner of Kuwait, so he invades. The U.S. and a few other countries disagree, so they boot his ass out. Might makes right. The Serbs feel that Kosovo should be ethnically cleansed and begin doing so. A bunch of European U.N. member nations disagree so they bomb the everloving crap out of the Serbs. Might makes right. Germany thinks it should control Europe, it invades. The U.S., U.K. and a lot of other nations disagree. They invade and kick Germanies ass all over the map, then divide up Germany amongst themselves. Might makes right again. Noticing the pattern here?

Under current international norms and thus international law, sovereignty is the dominant basis upon which nations are judged. No nation should be required to surrender its sovereignty unless it's doing something drastically wrong. And even then, it will only be made to do so if the dissenting nations have the strength and the will to force it to change its ways either through political pressure, economic sanctions or warfare. This is simply how the world works right now. Each year we move closer to world government, but we aren't there yet and we have a long, long way to go.

The I.C.C. isn't something America considers itself above. Its something we consider unnecessary or a bad idea. Its bound to lead to problems for all members because you just can't get even a roomful of people to agree on issues like law, morals, ethics etc... We aren't ignoring international law by not participating, ther is no "norm" dictating that all nations become a member of the I.C.C. Until there is, membership requirements aren't international law. There is however a norm dictating that all nations are sovereign entitities, thus trying to force a nation to join an organization it has no desire to join, violates international law.

The United States is a sovereign nation. We have our own functioning legal system. That is our right, and it is also our right to try our own criminals within that system. Given that we share the same judeo-christian ethics as the rest of the western world, it is unlikely that we would ever consider someone a non-criminal when the rest of the western world does. Thus there is no need for us to surrender our sovereignty to an international body or to subvert our rights to try our own people. We can do that just fine for ourselves thank you.

Just a Tex said, I am an American citizen first. I have rights guaranteed to me by my Constitution. Among the most fundamental rights are those given to me by the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th Amendments which guarantee the rights of the accused at trial. My ancestors left Europe and came here so that I might enjoy those rights. Many other members of my family fought and died to protect those rights. I once swore an oath to support and uphold the Constitution that guarantees them, so I will be damned if I'm going to let some foreign power or international body step in and take away those rights or usurp the authority of my nation or my Constitution. Until I know for sure that the rights I enjoy as an American will NEVER be subverted, until those rights are codified in international law, until there is a governing body with the strength and authority to guarantee those rights to me anywhere in the world, until all the world has submitted to that governing authority, I refuse to submit and so does my nation.

[ralphwiggum 6]

So basically, you are saying the USA shouldn't be answerable to the rest of the world, and can do what it wants with no explanations or repercussions? If US troops or elements of the command structure have committed war crimes, then the rest world should be expected to look the other way?

nope. my post was that it is hard to get a consensus to creat a world gov't. for example, if there is one, then should we have polygomy? cutting hands if someone steals things? or make laws against eating pork or meat?

US, like what Clinton did, should participate in world affairs without rolling others under the rug. however, it is not going to happen everytime unless there is an enforcing gov't body. UN definitely is not a strong force.

Quote[/b] ]I can see both of your points, but forgive me for saying this, that attitude stinks. It is that kind of attitude that propegates anti-US sentiment the world over. Yes, you are US citizens, but (like it or not), we are all global citizens as well. Unless you want the USA to build a 100 foot wall around it's perimiter and cease any and all trading and contact with the outside world, then the USA is part of the world in general, and as such, has the same responsibilities and obligations as every other nation.

sorry about odor. had to paint outside of my parent's home today. my personal beleif is state in this post above. i'm not an isolationist, but i'm rationaly skeptical of how ICC will even start.

Quote[/b] ]Anyway, you have you viewpoint, and I respect that, but can you back it up with some evidence that the ICC is this incompetent/biased entity you seem to think it is?

first, can they enforce and bring someone in fornt of their court? unless some major forces intervene, no. and that leaves unbalanced presentation of cases. should one of G8 country consider one of her enemy to be worth the hassle, that country will try to grab the enemy. unfortunately that means some leader of a small country will have more chance of getting his ass kicked into court than those of G8 nation.

second, there is no formal gov't structure that will balance ICC. all G8 nations have legislative, judiciary and executive branch. ICC is only judiciary. that means there will be less avenue of checks and balances.

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.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Quote[/b] ]So basically, you are saying the USA shouldn't be answerable to the rest of the world, and can do what it wants with no explanations or repercussions? If US troops or elements of the command structure have committed war crimes, then the rest world should be expected to look the other way?

No, I'd expect the world to do its best to extradite the war criminals and bring them to justice, if the world can summon the cojones to do so. But it wouldn't be a problem anyway because, as I've said far too many times, we police ourselves through our own system, the UCMJ. That is our prerogative, as well as yours- because we choose to exercise that prerogative and you do not is no justification for these cries that the US thinks it is above all reproach. Our rules and punishments on the subjects of war crimes are as strict or moreso than the ICC's, and there is no indication that we would be unwilling to prosecute in the event of a valid case.

Quote[/b] ]I can see both of your points, but forgive me for saying this, that attitude stinks.

Well, I'm personally of the opinion that your attitude is overly self-righteous, but to each his own.

Quote[/b] ]It is that kind of attitude that propegates anti-US sentiment the world over. Yes, you are US citizens, but (like it or not), we are all global citizens as well. Unless you want the USA to build a 100 foot wall around it's perimiter and cease any and all trading and contact with the outside world, then the USA is part of the world in general, and as such, has the same responsibilities and obligations as every other nation.

Huh. I've been told numerous times by very intelligent people whom I respect a great deal that anti-American sentiment is propagated by tangible policies of the US government, not intangible attitudes held by the American people. In fact, I've also been told numerous times that the world actually quite likes the American people, and that we'd get along famously if we'd stop electing dickheads for our leaders.

As for responsibilities and obligations of a member of the world community, nowhere is it written that any state must join an international institution that could involuntarily suborn our national sovereignty. It is a choice that any country can choose to make, not an obligation or quid pro quo that predicates their status in the global village. Conversely, it is your country's choice to attempt to punish us for our choice in this matter, let's say through economic sanctions. It's your right as a sovereign nation, after all. Or better yet, why not just cut all ties with our barbarous and wayward superstate? That would teach us a lesson. All of this is part of the game of international relations- we do what we want, and, depending on the response forthcoming from you, we either continue to do what we want or compromise to a certain degree of mutual satisfaction.

However, if you'll notice, the diplomatic pressure placed upon the US in lieu of its decision to snub the ICC has been, to say the least, weak. If your governments cared so much, why haven't they been more forceful about it? In fact, I must say that I'm a bit dissapointed in your government's lackadaisical efforts to get us back on the international straight and narrow. So that begs the question, why haven't the assembled governments of the civilized world made the case more forcefully for the US to sign on to the ICC? Could it be because you risk offending us (you are, after all, not our boss). That wouldn't be especially bad for you, if it wasn't for the fact that many governments rely on us in manner entirely out of proportion to their people's opinion of our policies. Translation:

You need us more than we need you, and your governments know that.

And if I had to sum it up in a sentence, that's why we haven't signed on to the ICC, and that's why you haven't made more of a push for us to fall in line. It's ugly, it sounds grossly arrogant, but it's also patently obvious. If your countries have the same sovereign abilities as our own, why are they not engaging us in the grand game of diplomatic negotiation that obviously should be occuring on this subject? The answer is several lines up. Instead, we continue to do what we want, as is our right, and you continue to grumble sotto voce about it, never really raising any real kind of opposition. I personally at a loss- many of the world's governments seem to have surrendered themselves to the idea that their own national sovereignty is no longer viable, and now choose to coddle up to either the United States, or to international institutions like the UN, the EU, or the ICC. But I digress, I've rambled long enough. back to your last question:

Quote[/b] ]Anyway, you have you viewpoint, and I respect that, but can you back it up with some evidence that the ICC is this incompetent/biased entity you seem to think it is?

All I can offer as evidence are empirical observations of other national and international institutions, both political and otherwise. We see instances in the UN of a country like Libya receiving the chairmanship of UN Human Rights Committee. We see our own civil justice system, that is almost hopelessly quagmired in judicial activism (just take a look at the th Circuit Court's last few decisions). We see a world that, justified or unjustified, is rather pissed off at us right now, so why put our soldiers at the mercy of any political sharks lurking out there? We see a massive inflamation of an instance like the atrocities in Afghanistan that continue to be hailed as US WARCRIMES,  despite the lack of a single shred of credible evidence to support that US soldiers participated in any such events. We see charges filed in the Dutch legal system, which, although ridiculous in their own right, highlight the length to which opponents of the US will go to inflict political harm upon our country.

That is all I can offer to you as evidence. I doubt it will sway you, but so be it- we already know the resolution of this one.

edit: hukt on fonix reely werkt for mee

[USSoldier11B 0]

umm, I think I'll stay out of this one...

[Schoeler 0]

umm, I think I'll stay out of this one...

Come on man, you swore the same oath I did. Can you really consider allowing a group of foreign nations to subvert our Constitution and usurp our sovereign authority? I can't see why these guys feel we are being ridiculous.

[USSoldier11B 0]

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

[NurEinMensch 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.

[raedor 8]

ok, let's go:

Schoeler said:

Quote[/b] ]

In the Iraq thread Raedor wrote:

Quote

(raedor @ July 07 2003,06:30)

Quote

(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

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

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.

the ICC isnt there to try nations. it is there to get CRIMINALS punished.

Quote[/b] ]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.

you're absolutley right. but we can try to get something like a world justice system. and for war, we have one. genfer conventions.

Quote[/b] ]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.

hmm... i dont think that's a recipe for war. because which nation could attack another? ICC is a institution of UN. do u think that anyone will attack the UN? or do you think a nation will attack all nations from which the judges are? hmm...

Quote[/b] ]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.

the world's LAST superpower? i think every superpower was thinking that it'll be the last. but the romans werent eternal like the british. the same for the US. i dont know when the next superpower will come, or which nation it is, but i'm sure that it will come.

Quote[/b] ]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.

i'm sure the WCC wont exist in the time of my life. and not the hundred years after my death.

yes, sure, "The victor/victors of the war gets to determine who are the criminals and they also get to try them." but this is exactly what the ICC should prevent for. Einstein said that eveything depends on the point of view ("alles ist relativ"). so there is no way to describe what exactly a "criminal" is. with your argumentation, it is ok that you get tried only because you lost a war. the ICC is there that not the victor, but a international court can decide who the "real" criminal is.

Tex [uSMC] said:

Quote[/b] ]Quote

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.

ok, then please tell me who gave the coalition the right to attack saddam? he wasn't able to attack you. he was only trying to protect his people from being killed by other countries otr by the opposition in his country or by in his opinion "bad guys" like kurden (i dont know the english name of them, but i think you can understand it).

p.s.: there's something wrong with the quotations...

[Tex -USMC- 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.

Sure, no problem. Let me just call George up right now... where'd I put that number? Dammit, now I'm going to have to look his Crawford number up again.

[NurEinMensch 0]

Yes Tex that would help, but don't you think it would be better to visit him and talk to him in person. I'm sure after that he'll be a changed person.

Don't be silly, kick him out of office next election and make sure you elect the right person. Make your voice heard. All that stuff.

After all in a democracy the people are accountable for the leaders they elect.

[booradley60 0]

Tex 2004! Bush should follow his lead and respond to his opponents instead of letting them stew in their own boiling anger.

[Schoeler 0]

the ICC isnt there to try nations. it is there to get CRIMINALS punished.

But see Raedor, that's the problem. Its the I.C.C. who gets to determine who the criminals are. In a world system governed by the concept of sovereignty, international law dictates that the nation the accused is a citizen of has the right to accuse and try him. Under sovereignty, it is each nations right to have their own court system and to try their own criminals. Historically the only time that sovereign power has been usurped is at the conclusion of a war, where the victors get to accuse and try the defeated.

Quote[/b] ]hmm... i dont think that's a recipe for war. because which nation could attack another? ICC is a institution of UN. do u think that anyone will attack the UN? or do you think a nation will attack all nations from which the judges are? hmm...

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] ]the world's LAST superpower? i think every superpower was thinking that it'll be the last. but the romans werent eternal like the british. the same for the US. i dont know when the next superpower will come, or which nation it is, but i'm sure that it will come.

Sorry, I meant last as in the last remaining one in the current era, not in the ultimate sense. I actually think the EU and China will become superpowers.

Quote[/b] ]i'm sure the WCC wont exist in the time of my life. and not the hundred years after my death.

yes, sure, "The victor/victors of the war gets to determine who are the criminals and they also get to try them." but this is exactly what the ICC should prevent for. Einstein said that eveything depends on the point of view ("alles ist relativ"). so there is no way to describe what exactly a "criminal" is. with your argumentation, it is ok that you get tried only because you lost a war. the ICC is there that not the victor, but a international court can decide who the "real" criminal is.

Again, it's a nice idea, but all that has to happen for this to fall apart or degenerate into something worse than an international spat, is for one nation or a group of nations to feel their soldiers are being wrongly accused. Nations do not agree very often on things of such magnitude. I think there are too many differences in philosophy and ideology for this to work.

Quote[/b] ]ok, then please tell me who gave the coalition the right to attack saddam? he wasn't able to attack you. he was only trying to protect his people from being killed by other countries otr by the opposition in his country or by in his opinion "bad guys" like kurden (i dont know the english name of them, but i think you can understand it).

The international system and current international law gave the U.S. the right to invade Iraq. Under sovereignty, if one nation believes it is under immediate threat by another, it has the right to go to war with that nation. Now if no WMD are discovered, then thats another story. Also, if Saddam has participated in atrocities, genocide, etc... , then under international law, the U.N. can send in a coalition of countries to stop him. This is why I am so pissed off at the U.N. It hasn't had the balls to do this for a long time. Everybody wants to wash their hands of the ugliness in the world and not get involved unless they benefit from it somehow. No one wants to stand up and do something about the worlds problems anymore. Consider the genocide in Africa, nothing was done. Why? I suspect it was a combination of things: 1) They are black people, and why should rich racist white politicans give a shit about black people. 2) They are poor, so nothing was in it for other nations to step in and stop the madness. 3) Nations acan manipulate them by taking advantage of the chaos and lawlessness and thus more easily exploit those countries. Look how long it took the U.N. to step in in Yugoslavia. I really think the U.N. has rendered itself impotent and a laughingstock to the rest of the world. Everyone knows its full of hot air, empty threats, promises unkept, its just a weak organization now.

[denoir 0]

Hello I've been watching this discussion for a while now and I no longer can keep myself from joining in

Its the I.C.C. who gets to determine who the criminals are.  

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

Don't confuse the ICC with the UN. The UN is the political forum of the world where every nation has an equal right to express their opinion. There everybody is supposed to have thier political agenda. The ICC is a legal organization that has a strict set of laws and rules to follow. It's actions are limited to war crimes, a subject that most nations of the world agree on. The ICC is there to prevent nation states to defend their war criminals. Do you think that Milosevic would have put himself to trial for war crimes?

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.

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.

And the ICC is going active regardless of one country's wishes. USA has no more right than Yugoslavia to dismiss the war crimes tribunal. US military personel suspected of war crimes will be apprehended on sight and brought to trial. You may not like it. Tough luck. I'm sure Milosevic did not like it either. All are equal before the law, or something like that

Quote[/b] ]The international system and current international law gave the U.S. the right to invade Iraq.  Under sovereignty, if one nation believes it is under immediate threat by another, it has the right to go to war with that nation.

I don't think anybody claimed that Iraq was a direct threat to USA. Not even Bush tried to strech it that far. For obvious reasons there was no way that Saddam could wage a war against USA. WMD or not - he didn't have the delivery system.

Quote[/b] ] I really think the U.N. has rendered itself impotent and a laughingstock to the rest of the world.  Everyone knows its full of hot air, empty threats, promises unkept, its just a weak organization now.

On the contrary I appriciate the UN much more now when it showed that it indeed had balls. It does not take much to order an invasion of a third world country. It takes balls to say no to bullying from a super power. It's just tragic that USA does not appriciate today what the UN did for you during the cold war.

Quote[/b] ]Everybody wants to wash their hands of the ugliness in the world and not get involved unless they benefit from it somehow.  No one wants to stand up and do something about the worlds problems anymore.

Wait a minute. You are confusing me. First you go on about the importance of national solvreginity and the importance of a nation to fight for its interests. Now you are blaming the member states of the UN for doing exactly that?  

[Apocalypse4 0]

Go Amnesty,

No might does not make right! Look at russia during the cold war? or china? Thats just international bullying tactics. If the Nazis had won WW2, would the complete extermination of all non "pure" race be fair? In that respect, lincon was wrong,

(he has said that)

Every country has a right to protect its people from unjust violence and persecution, but not the word UNJUST.

You cant have double standards, otherwise, the US nad other countries are hypocratcies rather than democracies.

Apocs rant is over , (im not french,im british, i believe the iraq thing should of been fought, but not for the reasons gien (WMDs, instead of human rights violations) , and it should of been held of for a while, to allow charities to prepare properly, im a member of amnesty too)

[NurEinMensch 0]

OMG I didnt read his post yet because I am so excited about the fact that he is back!!!

Welcome back!

*now goes and reads the post*

And the ICC is going active regardless of one country's wishes. USA has no more right than Yugoslavia to dismiss the war crimes tribunal. US military personel suspected of war crimes will be apprehended on sight and brought to trial. You may not like it. Tough luck. I'm sure Milosevic did not like it either. All are equal before the law, or something like that

No. As long as a sovereign nation does not put itself under ICC jurisdiction its citizens may not be tried there, that's my opinion.

Why?

Because they had no (democratic) means to define the rules of the ICC. As long as you don't give your universal freedom away (e.g. by being citizen of a nation you agree to that nations law and give away your "right" to rob the next bank ) you are free and should not be held accountable.

argh language barrier sux

For example if it was illegal in bananistan to scratch your head with your left hand no matter where on the planet you live I wouldn't be extradicted to bananistan because of that.

[raedor 8]

the ICC isnt there to try nations. it is there to get CRIMINALS punished.

But see Raedor, that's the problem.  Its the I.C.C. who gets to determine who the criminals are.  In a world system governed by the concept of sovereignty, international law dictates that the nation the accused is a citizen of has the right to accuse and try him.  Under sovereignty, it is each nations right to have their own court system and to try their own criminals.  Historically the only time that sovereign power has been usurped is at the conclusion of a war, where the victors get to accuse and try the defeated.

germany is a sovereign state. and yes, every nation has the right to have an own court system. but here in the EU it works fine with an intereurpean court. and just mr bush is always talking about globalisation. but we cant globalisate (does this word really exist?) if we want to keep our own sovereignty. if we want "one" world, we have to fit together.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]hmm... i dont think that's a recipe for war. because which nation could attack another? ICC is a institution of UN. do u think that anyone will attack the UN? or do you think a nation will attack all nations from which the judges are? hmm...

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.

ok, you're right. mr bush said that the US troops are allowed to use "violence" to get their comrades out of den haag. but i think to try people from countrys which didnt sign isnt right, because ... their country didnt sign. i thought you meant that a country (which has signed) will attack if it isnt pleased with the result of a trial. if there will soldiers (of countrys which didnt sign) be tried, then it could happen, that there will be a military response.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]the world's LAST superpower? i think every superpower was thinking that it'll be the last. but the romans werent eternal like the british. the same for the US. i dont know when the next superpower will come, or which nation it is, but i'm sure that it will come.

Sorry, I meant last as in the last remaining one in the current era, not in the ultimate sense.  I actually think the EU and China will become superpowers.

oh, this was a little misunderstanding. yes, in the current era, they are the last superpower. but the EU ... hmm, china... they have lots of ressources. let's see  

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]i'm sure the WCC wont exist in the time of my life. and not the hundred years after my death.

yes, sure, "The victor/victors of the war gets to determine who are the criminals and they also get to try them." but this is exactly what the ICC should prevent for. Einstein said that eveything depends on the point of view ("alles ist relativ"). so there is no way to describe what exactly a "criminal" is. with your argumentation, it is ok that you get tried only because you lost a war. the ICC is there that not the victor, but a international court can decide who the "real" criminal is.

Again, it's a nice idea, but all that has to happen for this to fall apart or degenerate into something worse than an international spat, is for one nation or a group of nations to feel their soldiers are being wrongly accused.  Nations do not agree very often on things of such magnitude.  I think there are too many differences in philosophy and ideology for this to work.

ok, they have to make an agreement, what a crime is and what not. but i think this is clearly said in the conventions of genf

[edit](ok, now i know the correct name: geneva conventions; thx @ denoir)[/edit].

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]ok, then please tell me who gave the coalition the right to attack saddam? he wasn't able to attack you. he was only trying to protect his people from being killed by other countries otr by the opposition in his country or by in his opinion "bad guys" like kurden (i dont know the english name of them, but i think you can understand it).

The international system and current international law gave the U.S. the right to invade Iraq.  Under sovereignty, if one nation believes it is under immediate threat by another, it has the right to go to war with that nation.  Now if no WMD are discovered, then thats another story.  Also, if Saddam has participated in atrocities, genocide, etc... , then under international law, the U.N. can send in a coalition of countries to stop him.  This is why I am so pissed off at the U.N.  It hasn't had the balls to do this for a long time.  Everybody wants to wash their hands of the ugliness in the world and not get involved unless they benefit from it somehow.  No one wants to stand up and do something about the worlds problems anymore.  Consider the genocide in Africa, nothing was done.  Why?  I suspect it was a combination of things: 1) They are black people, and why should rich racist white politicans give a shit about black people. 2) They are poor, so nothing was in it for other nations to step in and stop the madness. 3) Nations acan manipulate them by taking advantage of the chaos and lawlessness and thus more easily exploit those countries.  Look how long it took the U.N. to step in in Yugoslavia.  I really think the U.N. has rendered itself impotent and a laughingstock to the rest of the world.  Everyone knows its full of hot air, empty threats, promises unkept, its just a weak organization now.

this sounds a bit like propaganda. i discussed this "UN-thing" with a friend of mine before the war began. he said exactly what you now say: "the U.N. has rendered itself impotent and a laughingstock to the rest of the world". but we could something do against this weakness. the best thing to get rid of problems is searching for their roots. ok, where is the root of this problem? everyone does what he wants. the US asked "can we attack?" UN said "no." this for two or three times. then the US attacked together with some (not only a few) other states. that's the matter why the UN is that weak. because everyone does what he wants. if UN says "no" u cant do "yes". and if you do "yes", it's your fault if the UN gets weaker and weaker. the UN is not a organization to justify all things mr bush is planning and say "yes" to everything.

the US gave the choice to the UN: war or weakness. i think they decided rightly. the problem of the UN is the following:

1. the UN has no own troops to lay stress on its opinion, so it has no might.

2. the UN is no government of the world, it is all governments together, and, like you mentioned before, every bush, schröder, chirac, blair or ... wants to do what the most valuable thing for him is (or sometimes for his country, too).

erm and if we're talking about the genocide in africa (rwanda, i think) and why nothing was done. say me why the US did nothing in the past and now in iraq, they did something. i think this is your 2): the iraq has oil (now we're back ontopic, but unfortunatley we changed the thread ).

to get back on topic: what does a court against war crimes help, if the country which is involved in nearly all conflicts on our little earth dont want to join it?

p.s.: we're havin a good discussion here, i think  

/edit: p.p.s: welcome back denoir!    

[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!

So, was Belgium going by the Geneva Convention when it called Franks a war criminal? Because this is the sort of politically motivated charges I expect to be brought from the I.C.C.

Quote[/b] ]The ICC is a legal organization that has a strict set of laws and rules to follow. It's actions are limited to war crimes, a subject that most nations of the world agree on. The ICC is there to prevent nation states to defend their war criminals.

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.

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.

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. Either way the U.S. responds to something like that, whether it be war, sanctions, etc... It's bound to be messier than I'd desire.

Quote[/b] ]And the ICC is going active regardless of one country's wishes. USA has no more right than Yugoslavia to dismiss the war crimes tribunal. US military personel suspected of war crimes will be apprehended on sight and brought to trial. You may not like it. Tough luck. I'm sure Milosevic did not like it either. All are equal before the law, or something like that

That's exactly what I've been arguing all along. No one is going to surrender persons accused of war crimes to this tribunal if they consider them to be innocent. Thus the I.C.C. will have to get its detainees the old fashioned way. The world community would have to send in troops to come get them and if they win the conflict, then they get to make their accusations and have their trials. Why change the way things have always been and still will be, even with the I.C.C.?

Quote[/b] ]I don't think anybody claimed that Iraq was a direct threat to USA. Not even Bush tried to strech it that far. For obvious reasons there was no way that Saddam could wage a war against USA. WMD or not - he didn't have the delivery system.

The F.B.I. just arrested an Iraqi intelligence agent in Oak Lawn Illinois. Your telling me he couldn't be an effective delivery system for a biological agent? If Iraq had WMD, then Bush's rhetoric about Iraq presenting an imminent threat will ring more truly. Personally I think it was all hype.

Quote[/b] ]Wait a minute. You are confusing me. First you go on about the importance of national solvreginity and the importance of a nation to fight for its interests. Now you are blaming the member states of the UN for doing exactly that?

Well, in my argument I stated that under current international norms and thus international law, sovereignty takes a back seat when considering issues such as genocide, brutal oppression, slave trafficking, harboring terrorists etc... The U.N. stood by weakly and watched Rwanda tear itself topieces. It practically washed its hands of Yugoslavia. What the hell does it exist for if it gets to pick and choose what issues its interested in? As a world forum, all concerns and interests should have a voice.

[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?  

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!

[denoir 0]

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

Thank you But I think raedor and others has presented counter-points as least as well as I could

Quote[/b] ]So, was Belgium going by the Geneva Convention when it called Franks a war criminal?  Because this is the sort of politically motivated charges I expect to be brought from the I.C.C.

From their point of view: probably (although it's not really Belgium but Iraqis presenting the case in a Belgian court). I think it shows very well the need for a common take on war crimes. If Belgium has its own system, USA its own, Russia its own etc - it's bound to be a mess. We have a common set of rules already (the Geneva conventions). To make them work we need a common enforcement of them. Otherwise the victor in a conflict will always be right.

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.

Does every person in a jury have the same interpretation of the law? If not, does that mean that our legal systems are defunct? In the ICC, you have judges with no political affiliation. The jury is multi national and the standard rules apply. If there isn't a 100% agreement the suspect is aquitted. The jury and the judges are not selected on political or national basis, but on legal experience. They're not allowed to have a political agenda, or any other prejudices for that matter. It's the same as in a regular court. Perhaps you are put off by the fact that you expect it to be as political as your supreme court. It's not. Your system is an exception in the democratic world. Judges and jury members are automatically disqualified for service if they have or have had any political affiliations that might affect their judgement.

Quote[/b] ]That's exactly what I've been arguing all along.  No one is going to surrender persons accused of war crimes to this tribunal if they consider them to be innocent.  Thus the I.C.C. will have to get its detainees the old fashioned way.  The world community would have to send in troops to come get them and if they win the conflict, then they get to make their accusations and have their trials.  Why change the way things have always been and still will be, even with the I.C.C.?

Because something has to be done if the "bad guy" wins. Do you think that there would have been any Nürnberg tribunals had Hitler won? There is a necessity for a set of rules that is independant of the current local government in a nation state. It must also send a clear message to those that consider comitting war crimes that they will be punished. Right now it is: "Oh, if I win the war and keep good relations with the US, I'll be safe"  (Hint: Venezuela). If you know for certain that the world will come after you then you'll think twice before comitting war crimes. This is especially important on the political level. That the leadership knows that they've doomed themselves if they order war crimes or protect war criminals.

And USA is not a stranger to the idea. On the contrary, USA has put in a lot of effort to pressure ex-Yugoslav countries to extradite their war criminals. Direct arrests by US troops included. The only thing USA doesn't like is itself coming under the same rules that it imposes on others.

Quote[/b] ]The F.B.I. just arrested an Iraqi intelligence agent in Oak Lawn Illinois.  Your telling me he couldn't be an effective delivery system for a biological agent?  If Iraq had WMD, then Bush's rhetoric about Iraq presenting an imminent threat will ring more truly.  Personally I think it was all hype.

If I remember the rules correctly, terrorism is not included in the international law's definition of threat. Imminent invasion is IIRC the only thing that qualifies.

Quote[/b] ]As a world forum, all concerns and interests should have a voice.

They do but as in any good democracy it is the majority opinion that prevails. What the majority feels is important is not the same thing as what really is right (if there is such a thing). While you and I may agree that human rights violations and war crimes are the most serious issues there is, not everybody agrees. If they are in majority then that's democracy for you. Democracy is the art of pissing off as few people as possible. Don't expect miracles from it. Just an average good.

And I doubt that any country can really take a moral seat. USA is concerned about human rights violations in countries it does not currently agree with. Friends and allies that are brutal dictatorships are of no interest - on the contrary - they get protection. Sweden likes to hold a high moral ground in every conflict while it readily sells weapons to everybody who has the money.

Everybody has their agenda. The UN extracts the common denominator of those agendas. The result can't be perfect, but it is the solution that pisses of as few countries as possible. While some times it does not agree with what your country wants, it gives a democratically sound solution.

And the ICC is going active regardless of one country's wishes. USA has no more right than Yugoslavia to dismiss the war crimes tribunal. US military personel suspected of war crimes will be apprehended on sight and brought to trial. You may not like it. Tough luck. I'm sure Milosevic did not like it either. All are equal before the law, or something like that

No. As long as a sovereign nation does not put itself under ICC jurisdiction its citizens may not be tried there, that's my opinion.

Why?

Because they had no (democratic) means to define the rules of the ICC. As long as you don't give your universal freedom away (e.g. by being citizen of a nation you agree to that nations law and give away your "right" to rob the next bank   ) you are free and should not be held accountable.

argh language barrier sux  

For example if it was illegal in bananistan to scratch your head with your left hand no matter where on the planet you live I wouldn't be extradicted to bananistan because of that.

Well, first of all, most countries have agreed to the Geneva conventions. So that isn't much of a problem. But second, it isn't as simple. While country A might think that mass murder is A-OK, nation B that is subjected to it does not. In the end one must accept that the general law can't please every individual. Just like when you are born in a country you have to follow it's laws, regardless if you like it or not. For the world a common agreement, like the geneva conventions have to be in place, regardless if some countries don't like them. Majority rule dictates here too, I'm afraid. It's the only way to get anything done.

It's difficult to generally say when you should respect a foregin culture and when you have to act from a humanitarian point of view that's shared by the majority of the world. I'm afraid I don't have an answer for that.

[Tovarish 0]

Don't have time to read all the latest right now, but popped in because I law "Last post by: denoir". The sig explains it all, welcome back bud .

<span style='color:red'>*edit*</span> Read it now

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.  Either way the U.S. responds to something like that, whether it be war, sanctions, etc... It's bound to be messier than I'd desire.

Are you serious? Where have we seen such a scenario before and what did it lead to?   . I'm fairly sure the US would respond in some way, but by now I think the powers that be have figured out that arming mujahedin and letting them go at it isn't such a great plan.

Anyways, I can see why Americans are wary of this, especially now during times of war...but I truly believe we need the ICC to be recognized by everyone, otherwise, the US will be seen as a rouge superpower and we might see a second Cold War with Europe. True there is potential for misuse of the ICC, no such organization is immune to corruption, ect. But do you Americans truly think you would be the only ones negatively affected by this? 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.

[Major Fubar 0]

@ July 09 2003,16:07)]Huh. I've been told numerous times by very intelligent people whom I respect a great deal that anti-American sentiment is propagated by tangible policies of the US government, not intangible attitudes held by the American people. In fact, I've also been told numerous times that the world actually quite likes the American people, and that we'd get along famously if we'd stop electing dickheads for our leaders.

Yes, I agree with that actually. I meant that that seems to be the prevailing attitude of the governing body (TBA) rather than your personal attitude (although in this case they seem to coincide). But no, I didn’t mean anti-US sentiment is propagated by the opinions of the US populace – although I suspect it also contributes to a certain degree (like those pics of people holding up signs saying "bomb the Iraqis" and such...it's unfortunate that the noisy and unpleasant minority can reflect on the majority intelligent and good hearted Americans).

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.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

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?

[Tex -USMC- 0]

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.

[Tovarish 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.