07-05-2002 14:03									#211
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

I really don't care so much about the laughing at us. That is sort of a trendy thing. When they need us to pull the bacon out of the fire like WW2, they know where to come.

If the focus of this document is limiting US transgressions, than it is not adressing the real problems around the world...

I respect Roland's brains and his knolwedge but not his judgement on foreign affairs or on some aspects of the law of war (this is based on his remarks made after the Chinese F-8 knocked down our P-3). I don't trust people like that wrt our interests.

Also Imarn, just because it's international doesn't mean it's automatically good. Becoming more bound by supernational structures is not neccesarily going to improve things.

	07-05-2002 14:10									#212
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

"It's a feel good exercise for academic lawyers..."

Like the Treaties of Rome ? Like the federalist papers ? Btw, the ICC differs from the ECJ in many ways - the ECJ is more like the US cupreme court, just more poerful.

"what situations would it swing into action for."

genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes (with detailed definitions); and the lack of state action; essentially Art 17:

quote: Issues of admissibility 1. Having regard to paragraph 10 of the Preamble and article 1, the Court shall determine that a case is inadmissible where: (a) The case is being investigated or prosecuted by a State which has jurisdiction over it, unless the State is unwilling or unable genuinely to carry out the investigation or prosecution; (b) The case has been investigated by a State which has jurisdiction over it and the State has decided not to prosecute the person concerned, unless the decision resulted from the unwillingness or inability of the State genuinely to prosecute; (c) The person concerned has already been tried for conduct which is the subject of the complaint, and a trial by the Court is not permitted under article 20, paragraph 3; (d) The case is not of sufficient gravity to justify further action by the Court. 2. In order to determine unwillingness in a particular case, the Court shall consider, having regard to the principles of due process recognized by international law, whether one or more of the following exist, as applicable: (a) The proceedings were or are being undertaken or the national decision was made for the purpose of shielding the person concerned from criminal responsibility for crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court referred to in article 5; (b) There has been an unjustified delay in the proceedings which in the circumstances is inconsistent with an intent to bring the person concerned to justice; (c) The proceedings were not or are not being conducted independently or impartially, and they were or are being conducted in a manner which, in the circumstances, is inconsistent with an intent to bring the person concerned to justice. 3. In order to determine inability in a particular case, the Court shall consider whether, due to a total or substantial collapse or unavailability of its national judicial system, the State is unable to obtain the accused or the necessary evidence and testimony or otherwise unable to carry out its proceedings.

	07-05-2002 14:11									#213
	Well like Bismark said... Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Roland And we were part of the frontline, you had the luxury of being etappe.

...God looks after drunkards and America. (I'm doubly blessed here... )

We are blessed as a country with great geography. I think that we did the right thing in taking up the mantle of Cold War leadership. but certainly we could have gone another way. A Sweden/Switzerland model...

I don't think the draft was such an effective instrument either in USA or in W.E. I think a top nothc professional army which of course includes longer service times is more effective. Also we had the draft from beginning of Korean War through end of Viet Nam War. Elvis was one of our top soldiers...)

	07-05-2002 14:14									#214
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: I mean what situations would it swing into action for. "Not another Calley but X." Define X. AHH... well it swings into action for crimes of genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, which are not prosecuted (truely... ie, can't be a sham trial) in the state which the people who committed the crime come from. Since the US prosecuted Calley, the ICC can't take it up.

Who defines sham. What if Kitty Horse decides that X years in jail for Calley was not enough. He needs to hang. (I actually would have no problem with him hanging...mind you...but would be worried about a process which becomes too responsive to political pressure...I prefer keeping some of those things in the Constitution which we fought for at the founding of this country.)

	07-05-2002 14:17									#215
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Roland "what situations would it swing into action for." genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes (with detailed definitions); and the lack of state action; essentially Art 17:

(your inserted quote dissapeared when I replied)

Still seems like there is plenty of wiggle room in all that legal language to let an ICC act capriciously. I don't have confidence that it wouldn't.

	07-05-2002 14:17									#216
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

"If the focus of this document is limiting US transgressions..."

It is about the Pinochets and Saddams of the world, not the Bushes and Blairs.

"(this is based on his remarks made after the Chinese F-8 knocked down our P-3)"

Ehm... whenhowwhatwhy ?

"I don't trust people like that wrt our interests."

I simply don't care about "your interests". Oh btw, I'd also have some reservations about the ICC. But for god's sake, know what you are talking about before making sweeping judgments based on speculation or Bush propaganda.

	07-05-2002 14:20									#217
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

You don't have to care about our interests. We will take care of that.

	07-05-2002 14:20									#218
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Btw, the ICC differs from the ECJ in many ways - the ECJ is more like the US cupreme court, just more poerful.

I know, I was just using it to make a point of a court becoming more powerful over time.

quote: Who defines sham. What if Kitty Horse decides that X years in jail for Calley was not enough. He needs to hang.

Sham is defined by the justices who would decide the cases to hear. A case in the US would probably not be deemed to be sham. A case in Zimbabwe, where the guy got off, and was obviously not a true trial, then perhaps they would decide it was a sham trial.

Just because they get a case, doesn't mean that they have to accept it... like SCOTUS.

And the ICC wouldn't be able to hang anyone (I believe the UN frowns on that) .

	07-05-2002 14:22									#219
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

"We will take care of that."

I have some serious doubts about that.

"Still seems like there is plenty of wiggle room in all that legal language"
That's like saying there's a lot of water in the ocean.

	07-05-2002 14:23									#220
	Suffering from ads?

Imran, ok. That's another problem I have with it. I want capital punishment included...

	07-05-2002 14:23									#221
	Support Apolyton

quote: Still seems like there is plenty of wiggle room in all that legal language to let an ICC act capriciously. I don't have confidence that it wouldn't.

There is lot of room for the SCOTUS to act capriciously .

quote: It is about the Pinochets and Saddams of the world, not the Bushes and Blairs.

Exactly. The Bush's and Blair's a propaganda tool used to defeat it.... without realizing that they would never be arrested.

quote: You don't have to care about our interests. We will take care of that.

I believe joining this court is in our interests. Internationalism is in our interests. If it isn't... then why are we in the UN?

	07-05-2002 14:26									#222
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Roland "We will take care of that." I have some serious doubts about that.

Oh...so we need Papa Roland to look after us? But you said you weren't interested!

quote: "Still seems like there is plenty of wiggle room in all that legal language" That's like saying there's a lot of water in the ocean.

Of course...so the key is how much can we trust the process/people etc. From what I've seen of the average UN yahoos...I worry. don't want to get people like the French figure skating judges in there...

	07-05-2002 14:28									#223
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Of course...so the key is how much can we trust the process/people etc. From what I've seen of the average UN yahoos...I worry. don't want to get people like the French Figure sakting judges in there...

That is the Olympics... cheating is an international sport there .

The people that will be the justices will be highly respected justices from various UN countries (IIRC). A US Appeal Court Justice might even be included on it .

	07-05-2002 14:30									#224
	Got spare money?

I don't care about your interests. But I'm just fascinated with your inept and corrupt government. Beats even ours in that regard, and that's no small achievement.

It may surprise you that the UN does not nominate figure skating judges.

Btw, what tickled your balls so much about the spy plane affair ?

	07-05-2002 14:32									#225
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Ah, one thing I forgot (silly me), is that Lt. Calley couldn't be tried under the ICC.

The ICC states that any crime has be 'widespread' or 'systematic'. One massacre wouldn't cut it.

	07-05-2002 14:34									#226
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: There is lot of room for the SCOTUS to act capriciously .

yeah...so what's your point. You want more capricousness? You think they will be less capricious than the SC. And why? Or you think they will review SC decisions? Not sure where this is going....

quote: I believe joining this court is in our interests. Internationalism is in our interests. If it isn't... then why are we in the UN?

I understand that you feel this way. But every advance of internationalism is not NESCESSARILY better. A world governmetn admistered by Buddha has much to reccomend it. But one admistered by a collection of Mobotos doesn't. The key is how this thing works in practice. REgardoing the UN. It's a nice forum...

	07-05-2002 14:39									#227
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: yeah...so what's your point. You want more capricousness? You think they will be less capricious than the SC. And why? Or you think they will review SC decisions? Not sure where this is going....

I think they WILL be less capricious. Why? Because they are very limited in what they can rule on.

quote: I understand that you feel this way. But every advance of internationalism is not NESCESSARILY better.

Anything that increases the power of the UN is better... especially in our stated 'interests', and the ICC increases the power of the UN.

Yes, the key is how it works in practice. You'll get to see it on July 1st, 2002. And the conspiracy talk with the black helicopters will fade away. It'll be like the UK with the Euro .

	07-05-2002 14:45									#228
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Roland I don't care about your interests. But I'm just fascinated with your inept and corrupt government. Beats even ours in that regard, and that's no small achievement.

Yes I know. You have a strange "thing" for the US. I suggest spending some time here. Might give you some more perspective in your views.

quote: It may surprise you that the UN does not nominate figure skating judges.

Oh don't be so technical. It's some Eurocom-dominated international body of finky-finks.

quote: Btw, what tickled your balls so much about the spy plane affair ?

Well, it was a while ago. And maybe you were in a little bit of "sophist mode"...but as a I recall:

1. Blaming pilot for landing on Hainan. (Imho, the Chinese bear the blame for his landing because of causing the collision. No doubt in my mind given the types of aircraft involved and my knowledge of their operating patterns wrt ELINT gatherers.)

2. Made some remark to the effect that the Chinese "might" have a case for considering the Americans to be gulity of espionage for gathering ELINT (IMHO this is crazy given that it was passive and in international waters and the crew were in uniform and the plane clearly marked...the last 2 being basic parts of Genevea Convention.

	07-05-2002 14:49									#229
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui Ah, one thing I forgot (silly me), is that Lt. Calley couldn't be tried under the ICC. The ICC states that any crime has be 'widespread' or 'systematic'. One massacre wouldn't cut it.

Don't be so quick. I'm sure that those who think we were the bad guys in VNM will claim a pattern...

	07-05-2002 14:49									#230
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

GP, go to sleep!

How can I go to bed knowing you are still up, perhaps responding to my posts .

I know that it is 5:50 AM down there for you as well. Damned Night Owl .

	07-05-2002 14:52									#231
	Got spare money?

quote: Don't be so quick. I'm sure that those who think we were the bad guys in VNM will claim a pattern...

But they can't get us for Vietnam... .

Anyway, if genocidal orders did come from above, they would take whoever issued them (based on evidence that they can find).

	07-05-2002 14:53									#232
	Inflate your Upload Space

"1. Blaming pilot for landing on Hainan."

Nope. "the Chinese bear the blame for his landing because of causing the collision." - by far the most plausible scenario.

"2. Made some remark to the effect that the Chinese "might" have a case for considering the Americans to be gulity of espionage for gathering ELINT... basic parts of Genevea Convention."

It does not fit espionage under the geneva convention - yet this is not the issue.

Espionage under national law is a different thing, and in the absence of war I fail to see what in international law would have limited China from trying them for espionage. What do you see ?

	07-05-2002 14:56									#233
	Tired of ads?

hee hee.

That's my moniker for you. Mr. Night Owl. At least we don't have the chat thing going. No Irish 16 year old girls looking for sex chat with History...

	07-05-2002 14:58									#234
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: That's my moniker for you. Mr. Night Owl.

Ah, fun college days... though coming to an end soon... Atlanta and law school beckons.

quote: At least we don't have the chat thing going. No Irish 16 year old girls looking for sex chat with History

I don't think the g/f (or your wife) would be pleased with that .

	07-05-2002 18:50									#235
	Re: Re: GP Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by GP Can't be 100% sure of it, of course. But we've been a "force for freedom". If you want to live in "hypothetical land" you can worry about abuses from the US. If you really want to worry about the source of the problem, look elsewhere. I just sense this disconnect from Euro-weenies living in "hypothertical world" and those who actually have to spend time deploying to the nasty parts of the world and training to fight the next wars. Given your predicate (assumption) obvviously the latter follows. The question is if the assumption is valid. Ok. To be honest, I understand this issue. But also to be honest, I don't think it is all about legitimate concern about abuses either. I think there is some desire to "hamstring the Gulliver". Sure. I don't think this is worth the other countries getting that upset about, though. It's more of a pride issue than a real concern.

So, are you in la-la land??

The United States was really never a "force for freedom", with the exceptions with the American Revolution, and the Union, during the Civil War. In the late 19th century and in the first half of the 20th century, we sought to become an imperial power on behalf of our "little brown brothers" and white supremacy.

We used the words "arsenal for democracy" during World War I, because that sounded better than fighting to maintain economic and capitalistic interests, which was the real reason.

	07-05-2002 19:25									#236
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui Dino, I think that means that your answer overrides your statement that the US holds ultimate soveriegnty in the country.

In what way does it override my statement regarding who holds ultimate sovereignty in the US?

quote: Originally posted by Roland who of you debaters about the ICC HAS READ AT LEAST PART OF THE ****ING STATUTE ?!?!?

I have read some of it. I had the occassion to the last time this issue came up for debate. Why do you ask?

quote: Originally posted by GP How closely does that addenda match what Americans are used to in terms of protections.

You would get signifigantly less protection if you were appearing before the ICC than you would if you were appearing before an American court according to my reading of the Rome Statute.

	07-05-2002 19:26									#237
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Sorry I dont consider an American pilot who accidently hits a bus full of civilians instead of a Iraqi tank next to it, to be a war crime.

	07-05-2002 19:28									#238
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

My Lai Saw the trial of 3 men. 1 Calley was convicted and let go after a few months. However, there was no inquiry into the cambodian B-52 and Spec Op's incursions which estimates are killed 100,000 civilians in small villages along the border. But nobody checked it out. And after Pol Pot ; you probably couldnt prove a case.

	07-05-2002 19:40									#239
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

" You would get signifigantly less protection if you were appearing before the ICC than you would if you were appearing before an American court according to my reading of the Rome Statute."

Based on... ?

	07-05-2002 19:51									#240
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Roland Based on... ?

Article 64, sect. 7 & Article 68, sect. 1-6 of the Rome statute will do as a start. Article 81, section 3[c] asserts that the defendent may be held in detention even if acquitted.