Permanent world war crimes tribunals approved

[Guest]

CNN Article

"Despite vehement U.S. opposition, the world's first permanent war crimes tribunal will come into force on July 1 after receiving more than the 60 needed ratifications Thursday from U.S. allies and nations around the globe.

At a ceremony Thursday morning, 10 nations deposited their ratifications of the Rome treaty establishing the International Criminal Court, which will make the tribunal a reality in less than three months.

For the Bush administration, however, the court is an unwelcome addition to the international legal establishment.

Even though then-President Clinton signed the treaty, the United States has refused to ratify it, fearing its citizens would be subject to frivolous or politically motivated prosecutions.

Washington has campaigned unsuccessfully to exempt U.S. soldiers and officials, and two weeks ago the Bush administration said it was considering "unsigning" the treaty to stress that it won't be bound by its provisions. It is the only vocal opponent of the court. "

(Form Dagens Nyheter (Swedish newspaper):

USA has threatend to free any US personel with force if they were arrested for war crimes.

[Longinius 1]

As the saying goes...

Do as we say, not as we do.

[Guest]

I wonder if we will see an American occupation of the Hague and the netherlands

[InRange 1]

Yay, we'll have US soldiers bursting into my home town when they want to free a colleague.

[ran 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 18 2002,16:26)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I wonder if we will see an American occupation of the Hague and the netherlands  <span id='postcolor'>

huh ? the hague ? why would the want to occupate a french nuclear dump treatment center ??

i think you were talking about "La Haye"

[nordin dk 0]

den Haag?

There must be other countries that have refused?

Have all members of NATO ratified the treaty?

Still, not the best signal from the US, but it comes as no surprise. They are used to just doing what they want.

Imagine an american officer being prosecuted in Rome, and the US invading Italy to retrieve him

Ahahaahaahaaa I feel another antiUS thread coming on

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (nordin dk @ April 18 2002,17:52)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Have all members of NATO ratified the treaty?<span id='postcolor'>

Yeppp. All other NATO.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

Ahahaahaahaaa I feel another antiUS thread coming on <span id='postcolor'>

Well, not anit US really. Clinton signed the Rome treaty with the intention of ratifing the deal. It is just Bush who teared the deal apart.

[Wobble 1]

the US refused to ratify mainly because several parts of the treaty are already addressed differentley by certin US laws that are long established and have proven to work just fine..

thats as sinister as it gets..

its like if you always brushed your teeth before combing your hair.. and then the entire neighborhood said "hey lets all agree to comb our hair FIRST and then brush our teeth" neither way is superior to the other, you just like doing it your way because its the way youve always done it... kinda simplified example but thats the gist of it.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

I still didnt pay about 20003040040030020202 mio parking tickets from the time I lived in Switzerland. If they catch I will definetly be sent to a war-tribunal

[Wobble 1]

my sister didnt pay a bunch of parking tickets.. then 3 years later she called the police on someone and they noticed and threw her goofy ass in jail.. I laughed so hard one of my testicles sags an extra inch ewwww j/k

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Wobble @ April 18 2002,20:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">the US refused to ratify mainly because several parts of the treaty are already addressed differentley by certin US laws that are long established and have proven to work just fine..

thats as sinister as it gets..

its like if you always brushed your teeth before combing your hair.. and then the entire neighborhood said "hey lets all agree to comb our hair FIRST and then brush our teeth"  neither way is superior to the other, you just like doing it your way because its the way youve always done it...  kinda simplified example but thats the gist of it.<span id='postcolor'>

Why did Clinton sign it in the first place? Why have all the other countries signed it - everybody has their own judicial system that they feel works.

The point of such a court is that war criminals are judged by international standards and not national.

It also shows the double standards that are used. Some countries get sanctions because they won't cooperate with the tribunal, while USA can do whatever they want, and it's ok.

[joltan 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Wobble @ April 18 2002,20:56)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">my sister didnt pay a bunch of parking tickets.. then 3 years later she called the police on someone and they noticed and threw her goofy ass in jail..  I laughed so hard one of my testicles sags an extra inch   ewwww  j/k<span id='postcolor'>

They threw her in Jail for some parking tickets??? Not only that, but after three years???

Did she park on top of someones big toe?

[PitViper 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 18 2002,13:09)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Well, not anit US really. Clinton signed the Rome treaty with the intention of ratifing the deal. It is just Bush who teared the deal apart.<span id='postcolor'>

BZZZt.. wrong bucko.

The Senate never had any intention of ratifying the treaty. Clinton signed it against public opinion.

[Wobble 1]

Why did Clinton sign it in the first place? Why have all the other countries signed it - everybody has their own judicial system that they feel works.

signing is different from ratifying it..

It also shows the double standards that are used. Some countries get sanctions because they won't cooperate with the tribunal, while USA can do whatever they want, and it's ok.

the US opposes some parts because they are LESS strict than the US counterpart we use. and others go agsinst the "innocent until proven guilty" system we have.  for instance in the one signed people can be rounded up for any suspicion at all.. no evidence needed at all.. just take ya and "hold" you for an unsaid amount of time untill they get around to hearing your "case" in the US version the arresting authority must show that there is evidence of something amiss and there has to be a high level of suspicion and data to back it..

you talk about the rights of criminals and shit.. under this new tribunal they could toss yer ass in a cell for who knows how long with no evidence whatsoever other than "they looked suspicious" and then you have to prove you were not up to anything funny..  thats where it contradicts the US's policy  because under the tribunal system you are guilty untill proven innocent..  even if you were not up to something fishy if you cant produce some proof that you wernt, your SOL..

under the US system you can be held under suspicion pending evidence of that suspicion and then you dont have to prove anything.. the people who arrested you must do all the proving, prove that you were up to something prove that you had some malicious intent or another..

New Tribunal way: guilty until proven innocent, guilt is applied even without evidence and the accused must prove their innocents.. burden of proof lies with the accused.

US court way:  innocent until proven guilty, innocents is applied barring signifigant evidence of a crime, burden of proof lies with the accuser..

if someone walk up to you and said..  "you just shot me the finger when I wasnt looking" under the tribunal if you couldent prove you hadent shot the finger you were guilty.. the accuser needs no evidence whatsoever.. .

but the US way the accuser would have to prove you shot the finger at them

man, i make some wierd fucking examples.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PitViper @ April 18 2002,21:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">9--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 18 2002,139)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Well, not anit US really. Clinton signed the Rome treaty with the intention of ratifing the deal. It is just Bush who teared the deal apart.<span id='postcolor'>

BZZZt.. wrong bucko.

The Senate never had any intention of ratifying the treaty.  Clinton signed it against public opinion.<span id='postcolor'>

Perhaps, but he signed it, which means something. Bush is talking about withdrawing the signing, which also means something.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Wobble @ April 18 2002,21:54)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It also shows the double standards that are used. Some countries get sanctions because they won't cooperate with the tribunal, while USA can do whatever they want, and it's ok.

under the US system you can be helf under suspicion pending evidence of that suspicion and then you dont have to prove anything.. the people who arrested you must do all the proving, prove that you were up to something prove that you had some malicious intent or another..

US court way:  innocent until proven guilty, innocents is applied barring signifigant evidence of a crime, burden of proof lies with the accuser..<span id='postcolor'>

Oh, yes. You current military tribunals are the perfect example of that, right? My ass. In the international tribunal you are innocent until proven guilty, as always. It has far more rules then you current arbitrary "we will arrrest who we want" - military tribunals.

The obvious reasons is that the US doesn't want anybody else to judge their military improprieties. The talk about freeing suspected US war criminals with force shows that.

If you feel that the international courts are so unjust, why are you  forcing Ex-Yugoslav countries to hand over their suspected war criminals to the Hague?

[Wobble 1]

I think youll see alot of semblence between the new tribunal system and the Salem witch hunts.. point the finger at someone and accuse them.. if they cant prove they didnt do anything.. they are guilty..  

its just a dangerous system..  open for bad abuse like say a frenchamn didnt like and englishman.. the frenchman says "he is a terrorist!" under the tribunal the englishman could be tossed in jail untill someone proved he wasnt a terrorist"  

"are you a witch!?" can you prove you are not a witch!"  "no? you die!"

Oh, yes. You current military tribunals are the perfect example of that, right? My ass. In the international tribunal you are innocent until proven guilty, as always. It has far more rules then you current arbitrary "we will arrrest who we want" - military tribunals.

example?  or are you talking about the talebannana and al-queda scum on cuba.. I would consider fighting under an army run and funded by a terrorist organization to be sufficiant evidence needed to hold someone wouldent you?

freeing suspected US war criminals

who? and if they are only suspected, why are they being held?

[Guest]

As I said, the international tribunal has far more defined rules then the currently proposed US military tribunals.

As goes for arresting people on charges, they work the same way as the police. It is not a question of somebody pointing somebody out and the person gets arrested. They do a proper investigation and if they have evidence they go to trial. The judges must decide whether there is enough evidence to hold a person, just as in any legal system in a democratic country.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Wobble @ April 18 2002,22:01)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">example?  or are you talking about the talebannana and al-queda scum on cuba.. I would consider fighting under an army run and funded by a terrorist organization to be sufficiant evidence needed to hold someone wouldent you?<span id='postcolor'>

Oh, so you think that they are scum and guitly just because you think so. Thank you for prooving my point.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

freeing suspected US war criminals

who? and if they are only suspected, why are they being held?

<span id='postcolor'>

This is a hypotetical situation, none are held today. They would be held, just as the police holds a suspect in a murder case. They don't let him go home to wait for the trial.

[Wobble 1]

Oh, so you think that they are scum and guitly just because you think so. Thank you for prooving my point.

I never said they were guilty.. only scum.. and the fact that they were fighting for a terrorist army is evidence enough to hold them.I.E. suspicion with evidence. if what you were applying is true they would have been sentenced and delt with long ago.

This is a hypotetical situation, none are held today. They would be held, just as the police holds a suspect in a murder case. They don't let him go home to wait for the trial.

actually if you are not considered a "flight risk" you can get out on bail.. and in order to be held without bail there must be pretty rock solid evidence or it must be a VERY heinous crime.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Wobble @ April 18 2002,22:15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Oh, so you think that they are scum and guitly just because you think so. Thank you for prooving my point.

I never said they were guilty.. only scum.. and the fact that they were fighting for a terrorist army is evidence enough to hold them.I.E. suspicion with evidence.  if what you were applying is true they would have been sentenced and delt with long ago.<span id='postcolor'>

The Talibans are not terrorists. Al-Queda is. Those two are not the same. The US reluctance to admit that because they want to interrogate the prisoners just shows what an arbitrary set of rules you have. They are to protect US national interests and not the prisoners.

Not to mention the 1000+ people that were arrested after the WTC without even hearing what they had been charged with. Why do you think your civil liberties organisations object so fiercly against these tribunals?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

actually if you are not considered a "flight risk" you can get out on bail.. and in order to be held without bail there must be pretty rock solid evidence or it must be a VERY heinous crime.<span id='postcolor'>

You mean to say that mass murder is not a heinous crime?

[Wobble 1]

The Talibans are not terrorists. Al-Queda is. Those two are not the same. The US reluctance to admit that because they want to interrogate the prisoners just shows what an arbitrary set of rules you have. They are to protect US national interests and not the prisoners.

the problem is there are both taleban and al-queda there.. but they refuse to cooperate.. prisoners will be questioned 4 times and give 4 different names and 4 different answers to all questions.. so nobody knows who is who.. and whos fault is that? since nobody knows which are taleban and which are al-queda they are all treated as alqueda.. which makes sense..

You mean to say that mass murder is not a heinous crime?

I guess since you said there are no suspected US war criminals this is also a fictional person..etc etc.

umm.. well yea.. thats a crime to be held for.. what happens to the suspect?.. is he allowed to live free untill sufficent evidence to hold trial is collected OR is he tossed in jail at the first hint of suspicion and he can just sit there and rot while people try to round up evidence (if any) to take him to trial?

thats the problem.. on one hand you cant just throw someone in prison and worry about the pesky evidence later because then anyone could be jailed with no evidence.. thats wrong.. But one the other hand you dont want them out there where they can run off and hide so that when (or if) you DO get evidence you cant find the bastard.. which equally sucks

its the eternam security VS rights issue

its really hard to deal with.. because one way you risk locking up a innocent person for god knows how long.. but on the other you risk a criminal getting away because you cant keep yer eye on them

i guess there isnt really a "right" answer.. usually in a case of "mass murder" in a military sense its usually not just one person, but a group or even goverment.. so that makes it even harder in that case.. what do you do? lock up an entire goverment untill evidence is collected? let them roam free untill its collected free to dissapper or whatever.. same issue..

I guess the reason nobody can agree on this shit is because there really isnt a morally correct way to go about it.. its just like war itself.. lots of times the best decision is not always without a moral delemma..

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Wobble @ April 18 2002,22:37)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">the problem is there are both taleban and al-queda there.. but they refuse to cooperate.. prisoners will be questioned 4 times and give 4 different names and 4 different answers to all questions.. so nobody knows who is who.. and whos fault is that?

<span id='postcolor'>

How about the Miranda rights? Does that ring any bell? So you are saying that if a person doesn't cooperate you should legaly assume the worst?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

thats the problem.. on one hand you cant just throw someone in prison and worry about the pesky evidence later.. thats wrong.. but one the other hand you dont want them out there where they can run off and hide so that when (or if) you DO get evidence you cant find the bastard..

<span id='postcolor'>

The tribunal must have evidence before arresting somebody. But yes, as you say there is always a balance on how much evidence exactly is needed... But that is no different then a normal court, and that is exactly what the IWT is.

[Wobble 1]

How about the Miranda rights? Does that ring any bell? So you are saying that if a person doesn't cooperate you should legaly assume the worst?

well if you had a room with 10 people in it.. you know that 3 are criminals. but you dont know which three they are do you:

A: let the ALL go?

B: hold them untill you figure out who the criminals are and then let the rest go?

the US is currentley going with B its not charging anyone with anything yet, but untill there is a "who is who" nobody is going anywhere..

of course in a real court they *may* release them all and then go back and get them but the problem there with the tale/queda is

A: they dont know any names because they wont tell them

B: even if they did know their names, if they let them go they would never find them again.

so its kind of a similar situation.. there isnt a 100% morally correct answer..

[Guest]

Hmm.. I think that the innocent until proven guilty requires you to go with A: let all go

That would be the case with the international war tribunal, they always go after specific individuals that they have evidence against. They have never arrested a whole group of people, waiting to figure out if they are guilty or not.

But, it is a tricky question I agree. I still think that they should have a POW status, and later if they find evidence against them that they turn them over to the Hague tribunal. They are not talking anyway, unless your military starts using, eh, 'unconventional' interrogation methods.

It is also a question of what the WTC attack falls under. Genocide and crime against humanity is pushing it a bit. I would still say that WTC was a war crime while the Pentagon was a legit target.