07-05-2002 20:05									#241
	Put an end to popups!

quote: our men and women in uniform _as well as current and former U.S. officials_ could be at risk of prosecution.

so what???
people who should be prosecuted for something they have done SHOULD be.... prosecuted, right?

	07-05-2002 20:07									#242
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

We are comparing this to US law, not practice, right ?

Article 64, sect. 7

Limits to publicity - looks reasonable. How does it differ from US provisions ?

Article 68, sect. 1-6

I agree this goes a tad too far in limiting the defense.

Article 81, section 3[c]

As an exception pending appeal. Given that review on appeal is broader than it is usually in the US, it makes sense.

	07-05-2002 20:08									#243
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

BTW, isn't the Rome statute at odds with recent rulings from the Hague?

	07-05-2002 20:09									#244
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

"BTW, isn't the Rome statute at odds with recent rulings from the Hague?"

Apart from the question whether this is technically possible - how ?

	07-05-2002 20:17									#245
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Roland Apart from the question whether this is technically possible - how ?

How would Article 27, section 2 effect cases such as this one?

	07-05-2002 20:23									#246
	Got spare money?

The Congo case only related to functional immunity while in office. It does not exclude jurisdiction, it only delays prosecution.
Art 27 establishes jurisdiction (which Belgium had too), and Art 98 allows for the respect of that functional immunity. Might be other provisions relating to that one too...

	07-05-2002 20:24									#247
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Roland We are comparing this to US law, not practice, right ?

You are correct sir!

quote: How does it differ from US provisions ?

You saw the negative reaction in the US to Bush's proposal to hold secrect tribunals. What do you think the reaction would be when they start carrying out the samething on a more grand scale?

quote: I agree this goes a tad too far in limiting the defense.

Only a tad? I guess that we'll just have to agree to disagree on how much withholding evidence from the defense can taint the verdict of a trial that proports to be fair.

quote: As an exception pending appeal.

The defendent would be acquitted in this hypothetical. What is there to appeal or is double jeopardy another protection that distinguishes the ICC from American courts?

BTW, thank you for answering my question.

	07-05-2002 20:35									#248
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

"What do you think the reaction would be when they start carrying out the samething on a more grand scale?"

Secret trials are different from partial exclusions of the public. Are all US trials always public ? Eg what happens when witnesses have to reveal professional secrets ?

"Only a tad? I guess that we'll just have to agree to disagree on how much withholding evidence from the defense..."

What exactly can be withheld, and what can be withheld without the court having seen it ?

"The defendent would be acquitted in this hypothetical. What is there to appeal or is double jeopardy another protection that distinguishes the ICC from American courts?"

If you have a jury trial an acquittal is pretty much the last word - although there are (limited) appeals against jury verdicts in our system, for example.
As the acquittal is not final it is not formally a double jeapordy... but I see that point. The double jeapordy protection also causes problems with our domestic law as it does not exactly fit a system that has broad appeals (for both sides) in criminal trials. A problem similar to prosecuting what is materially one deed in federal and state court....

	07-05-2002 22:22									#249
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by GP Those were just individual acts of misconduct. We were the good guys in terms of out policies and our actions to defend freedom during the Cold War. If you think that we were the bad guy in the Cold War, it makes me that much less interested in signing treaties where you get to exert control over U. S. citizens. (Since I think you're kinda misguided...makes me trust you less...)

I think you were both bad guys. Neither of you cared overmuch (on geopolitical level) about the ideals you were supposedly putting forth...

You seem to be under the impession that I think this court should go back and dredge up all the crap the US has done in the last fifty years. Not true. Just demonstrating that ROW has justifiable cause to be concerned about US' refusal to sign, for fear of future violations that won't be adequately addressed by your soldiers trying their own.

	07-05-2002 23:36									#250
	Re: Re: Re: GP Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by MrFun 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.

And WW2 and Cold War. And the incredible shining example of democracy that we've been. I'm not in lala land. You're in revisionist historian land.

	07-05-2002 23:44									#251
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: And WW2 and Cold War.

WW2 can't be a fight for freedom given the huge amounts of lost freedom in the US, in the form of trade barriers, conscription, rationing, forced relocations, etc.

And in the Cold War we supported brital dictators around the world.

	07-05-2002 23:49									#252
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

You were dragged into WW2. You only supported the Allies because they were the only ones you could sell things to in the first 2 years of the war.

You didn't support democracy during the cold war. You supported anyone who said they were on your side, whether they were bloodthirsty dictators or western democracies. You were vicious to the other side whether they were democracies or dictatorships. It was capitalism vs communism not democracy vs dictatorship.

	07-05-2002 23:51									#253
	Suffering from ads?

If we really fought for freedom in the Cold War, why did we not support the Hungarian, Czech, and Polish revolts?

	08-05-2002 00:01									#254
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by KrazyHorse I think you were both bad guys. Neither of you cared overmuch (on geopolitical level) about the ideals you were supposedly putting forth...

I know you feel that way. I disagree with you as do most Americans. Being subjected to control by people with these kinds of beliefs makes me that much less interested in participating in this court.

FYI: You should at least parrot Roland's statements regarding Saddam versus Bush. It gives you more traction to push this thing through. If you insist that it's all about restraining the evil eagle, you're not gonna get anywhere...

	08-05-2002 00:12									#255
	try to be more sophisticated. Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd If we really fought for freedom in the Cold War, why did we not support the Hungarian, Czech, and Polish revolts?

We had to pick our battles, stud.

	08-05-2002 00:17									#256
	You always see the glass half empty, David... Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd WW2 can't be a fight for freedom given the huge amounts of lost freedom in the US, in the form of trade barriers, conscription, rationing, forced relocations, etc. And in the Cold War we supported brital dictators around the world.

This is a great and free country and it has been a huge force for freedom in its history. Spend some time in other countries, David.

	08-05-2002 00:38									#257
	Re: Re: Re: GP Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by MrFun 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.

Just in case this was missed.

	08-05-2002 01:20									#258
	Increase Your PM Length

already responded by telling you to stop with the silly revisionaism. That school of history is passe...

	08-05-2002 01:23									#259
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: This is a great and free country and it has been a huge force for freedom in its history. Spend some time in other countries, David.

Wow, way to address NONE of my points

quote: We had to pick our battles, stud.

Which battles are those? Supporting dictatorships with little populae support, ie the Korean and Vietnam Wars?

	08-05-2002 01:29									#260
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by GP already responded by telling you to stop with the silly revisionaism. That school of history is passe...

So then you never heard of the imperial policies of United States in the guise of "our little brown brothers" that was based on white supremacy??

Right, I forgot -- the true history of our country is that we NEVER had any wars of conquests and our country was NEVER internationally racist.

	08-05-2002 01:32									#261
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

I like this - a former member of the military telling two history majors that the US wasn't aggressive and imperialist, and that it didn't oppose freedom in many cases

	08-05-2002 01:37									#262
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd I like this - a former member of the military telling two history majors that the US wasn't aggressive and imperialist, and that it didn't oppose freedom in many cases

Go figure, David.

In fact, the reason why we had to suppress the rebellion in the Phillipines in the early 1900's, was because our "little brown brothers" were not capable of ruling themselves.


Oh, and that bit about Amerindians --- they ALWAYS attacked us, and we NEVER attacked them.

Oh, and that bit about Latin American countries --- it's NOT economic colonialism and exploitation, it's our Good Neighbor policy.

	08-05-2002 01:40									#263
	Increase Your PM Length

Oh, and don't forget WW1, making the world safe for democracy

	08-05-2002 02:26									#264
	glass still half empty Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd Oh, and don't forget WW1, making the world safe for democracy

You're like a little child who sees every flaw in his parent's actions. But misses the overall things that they do for him...

	08-05-2002 02:28									#265
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by MrFun So then you never heard of the imperial policies of United States in the guise of "our little brown brothers" that was based on white supremacy?? Right, I forgot -- the true history of our country is that we NEVER had any wars of conquests and our country was NEVER internationally racist.

Take a historiography course.

	08-05-2002 02:40									#266
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by GP I know you feel that way. I disagree with you as do most Americans. Being subjected to control by people with these kinds of beliefs makes me that much less interested in participating in this court. FYI: You should at least parrot Roland's statements regarding Saddam versus Bush. It gives you more traction to push this thing through. If you insist that it's all about restraining the evil eagle, you're not gonna get anywhere...

I think the court should be used to restrain the evil anybody, and I honestly don't see its major target as the US. Now, would you please list the specific problems with the agreement as it stands now (the ones that would prevent you from signing)?

There's been a lot of bluster that the court wouldn't be fair, would simply be an anti-American tool, etc. Why? Are the protections for defendants insufficient? Has the proposed judicial pool demonstrated bias? Are the rules too harsh?

I get the feeling that you only want this if you are given a guarantee nothing bad would be said about the US in the court...

	08-05-2002 02:45									#267
	Remove this text

I'm shocked, I can't say more.

Maybe just this: Glo-ba-li-za-tion.

	08-05-2002 02:46									#268
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

I've just seen that a "kangaroo court" the UN can be...

Sorry, Kitty will have to be off for a while this evening. Am cooking dinner for the neighbors...

	08-05-2002 03:12									#269
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

GP, UN general assembly can be kangaroo court (highly political, not judicial).

What examples of UN judicial commissions are you referring to?

	08-05-2002 04:30									#270
	Put an end to popups!

Damn- leave a thread alone for a little while, and accumulates pages.

"
They would all have to follow international law."

Well here in the USA, SCOTUS has to follow the Constitution. That doesn't mean you don't have a lot of different interpretations of it.

"And US states all have different laws. Should we only have justices from a certain area for the SCOTUS?"

Different laws, yes, but generally the same legal system. All states save for Louisiana have the common law tradition and a legal system that is generally the same. It is no where near as drastic as a system that will have party judges, Sharia Judges, etc.

"It is much smarter to increase political globalization if we are promoting economic globalization."

How does a court designed to try war crimes go along with increased trade.