27-05-2002 12:46									#121
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

I see you people had another great gift from the halluzination company.

Just a couple spoilers:

1. Kissinger . ICC statute is NOT retroactive. No way.

2. Iraq and China. Did not sign. Great company the US got there. As a sidenote, Iran and Israel did sign (not ratify yet).

3. The evil Hague against the US - most or all war crimes covered are under universal jurisdiction anyway. So if a US citizen commits a war crime in Columbia or Afganistan, he can be indicted and tried in a court anywhere - Brazil, France, Burkina Faso...

4. The bombing off-target - bollocks. Read the ICC statute. I'm getting tired of doing of the work of the research-impaired.

	27-05-2002 13:32									#122
	Tired of ads?

looks like no big loss that we don't sign. seems like a publics work project for academic lawyers...

	27-05-2002 13:59									#123
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

The fact is that USA, feel the right to judge any foreigner for war crime, but deny this right to UN.

They simply impose their law. Not an humanist law, but the good old natural law of the Stronger.

Most American citizens will not be against that. Many feel that they are superior than the rest of humanity. For the other which could have some doubt on that fact, CNN will explain them that the other are Bad and USA is defending justice and God.

	27-05-2002 14:00									#124
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Well it is actually beneficial. If you sign we'll likely get a US judge on that court, which will most likely result in a mix of America's best legal farces: the OJ Simpson and the Bush/Gore election trial.

Now, what is the ICC, Mr apple pie ? A papertiger ABM for lawyers, or a horrible threat to US... whatever ?

	27-05-2002 14:22									#125
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

just a silly waste of time...

	27-05-2002 14:23									#126
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by GP just a silly waste of time...

So is life. (Should be wearing black today, I guess...)

	27-05-2002 15:43									#127
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Europe had plenty of double standards during the age when they ruled the world.

of course two wrongs make a right huh?

nationalist: if the UK is so pro US, then why is it so much against the US when it comes to this ICC? They, with France, have voiced the strongest criticism on the USA for it's proposal. And before you're getting off on the idea of the US invading Europe, please note that France has nukes too.

quote: Marcus, the interchange regarding us being the only country wanting Slobo tried was surreal.

Sorry about the confusion. I know you weren't the only one, and the "yes you are" was meant as a reply agains the US being in favor, not the "only one" being in favor. I only realised that just yet, so let me say it here.

the US wasn't the only nation in favor of putting Slobo on trial

happy?

	27-05-2002 23:26									#128
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Saint Marcus nationalist: if the UK is so pro US, then why is it so much against the US when it comes to this ICC? They, with France, have voiced the strongest criticism on the USA for it's proposal. And before you're getting off on the idea of the US invading Europe, please note that France has nukes too.

Britain would not end its long term friendship with the U.S. over something as trivial as the ICC.

Yes, France has Nukes. So what? If we would invade France (something the we never will do ), the French would never use Nukes on their own territory. It would kill more French the Americans. They wouldn't have to political will to use them. I don't think that France has the technology to hit the U.S. mainland with Nukes, but if they do they should remeber just how many more nukes we have than them. No, the French will never nuke an American. We could invade if we wanted to, but we really don't want to. I think that Europeans ashould look East if they fear invasion. The Turks are coming for you.

	27-05-2002 23:59									#129
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by nationalist Britain would not end its long term friendship with the U.S. over something as trivial as the ICC.

No but that combined with Kyoto, the US's stance on weapon's proliferation treaties have severely damaged it over the last 18 months - if it were not for sympathy aroused by the events of 11/9 then the rift would be greater.

quote: Originally posted by nationalist The French would never use Nukes on their own territory. It would kill more French the Americans. They wouldn't have to political will to use them.

I assume that from your statement that the Americans would also not have the political will to use them on American soil either.

quote: Originally posted by nationalist I don't think that France has the technology to hit the U.S. mainland with Nukes, but if they do they should remember just how many more nukes we have than them.

The French SLBM's have a range of 3000 miles, they can put around 600 warheads on those submarines - so what if you can hit back with five times that much, which 600 cities don't you need?

	28-05-2002 00:04									#130
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Still can't understand why Americans can't bear the idea that they can be judged for a WAR CRIME or a HUMANITY CRIME by a foreigner court. You fear that it can be used against USA. Doh. I don't think it's so easy to put someone in trial for these two kind of crime. I would even say it's much difficult than it should. Using ICC as a tool against USA is just paranoia, or more probably some kind of excuse.
Because if not for this reason, the only one that is left is just that Americans can't bear the idea that they can be judged by anything but themselves. Why imply that they consider that nobody but them is able to do a fair trial.
Think about it honnestly a few seconds before answering, this can be more true than you would like to admit.

	28-05-2002 00:19									#131
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Akka le Vil Still can't understand why Americans can't bear the idea that they can be judged for a WAR CRIME or a HUMANITY CRIME by a foreigner court. You fear that it can be used against USA. Doh.

I think Rah summed it up best...think about what he said.

BTW: you really do need to restrain Marcus. He's going to bring more and more converts to my side...

	28-05-2002 00:19									#132
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Saint Marcus Sorry about the confusion. I know you weren't the only one, and the "yes you are" was meant as a reply agains the US being in favor, not the "only one" being in favor. I only realised that just yet, so let me say it here. the US wasn't the only nation in favor of putting Slobo on trial happy?

	28-05-2002 01:00									#133
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: There is absolutely no justification whatsoever for overthrowing sovreign democratic states.

No, there isn't. However, it isn't a 'crime against humanity', at least not to the ICC.

quote: The EU would love to get its hands on Ariel Sharone and lock him up for trial for example and some would like to drag Ronald Reagan to the Hague.

Scare tactics. The ICC can't charge someone who committed a crime before the Rome Statute comes into effect (also known as no ex post facto).

quote: Can you imagine the Secretary of State on an official mission to Greece, for example, being arrested and taken to the Hague?

Impossible. Diplomats are protected under the Vienna Convention.

quote: It should be pretty obvious that we are not going to join some organization like this that is an excuse for Euro leftists to attack American rightists.

But it really isn't. I don't see the court being able to haul ANY American up there. Even Kissenger, for all his crimes, would not be arrested, because most of his 'evil' was overthrowing governments, which the ICC doesn't care about.

---

And yes, The United States is being hypocritical. We think nothing of trying Slobo (and if we ever get our hands on Saddam, there is a trial in his future), but we can't fathom some court having jurisdiction over us, even though there is a great (and I'm mean 99.9% great) probability that no American will ever be arrested because of a war crime.

And yes, Saint Marcus is hurting the ICC cause, A LOT. He is making this seem like an anti-US court, when it very much isn't so.

	28-05-2002 01:10									#134
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Akka le Vil Still can't understand why Americans can't bear the idea that they can be judged for a WAR CRIME or a HUMANITY CRIME by a foreigner court. You fear that it can be used against USA. Doh. I don't think it's so easy to put someone in trial for these two kind of crime. I would even say it's much difficult than it should. Using ICC as a tool against USA is just paranoia, or more probably some kind of excuse. Because if not for this reason, the only one that is left is just that Americans can't bear the idea that they can be judged by anything but themselves. Why imply that they consider that nobody but them is able to do a fair trial. Think about it honnestly a few seconds before answering, this can be more true than you would like to admit.

One of the members here has as his sig a quote from Chomsky to the effect that every American president is guitly of war crimes if judged by the standards of Nuremberg. Are you saying, Akka, that there is absolutely no interpretion of the new treaty that could apply to a US ex-president? There are certainly a lot of people in the world that are anti-United States and who truly believe that all presidents are guilty of war crimes.

Do you have a link to the treaty itself?

	28-05-2002 02:27									#135
	Inflate your Upload Space

Now, what I don't get is why you guys keep taking Saint Marcus' rantings seriously. What's next, good old Ted Kaczynski giving us the straight dope on the US govt?

	28-05-2002 05:48									#136
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Attached is a link to a description of the elements of the various war crimes for which one could be prosecuted. I can see how American presidents on down to the lowest shoulder can be charged with "war crimes" by an enemy of the US bent on "war by other means."

http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instre...tsofcrimes.html

	28-05-2002 05:52									#137
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Give specific examples please.

And please tell me how charging of crimes by one party automatically leads to arrest.

I swear, we get to the ICC and anti-ICC people forget how basic legal systems work. They seem to think that charging crimes leads immediatly to prosecution and jail time.

	28-05-2002 06:06									#138
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: "The EU would love to get its hands on Ariel Sharone and lock him up for trial for example and some would like to drag Ronald Reagan to the Hague." Scare tactics. The ICC can't charge someone who committed a crime before the Rome Statute comes into effect (also known as no ex post facto).

No problem. If Sharon keeps up his current policies, they will have reasons to pick him up only a week after the statute comes into effect.

	28-05-2002 11:36									#139
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by el freako No but that combined with Kyoto, the US's stance on weapon's proliferation treaties have severely damaged it over the last 18 months - if it were not for sympathy aroused by the events of 11/9 then the rift would be greater.

What are you talking about here? Are you saying that Britain is pro Nuclear-proliferation? Are they angry that we signed START III?

quote: I assume that from your statement that the Americans would also not have the political will to use them on American soil either.

No, we wouldn't. What country would use nuclear weapons on its own soil, near its own citizens? (excluding controlled testing purposes, such as U.S. in the southwest.)

quote: The French SLBM's have a range of 3000 miles, they can put around 600 warheads on those submarines - so what if you can hit back with five times that much, which 600 cities don't you need?

I think your numbers are off. According to my International security class I took last semester, France has at most 48 SLBMs, which can hold at most 6 warheads apiece. But it doesn't matter. The U.S. and France are not going to go to nuclear war.

	28-05-2002 11:38									#140
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Jaakko Now, what I don't get is why you guys keep taking Saint Marcus' rantings seriously. What's next, good old Ted Kaczynski giving us the straight dope on the US govt?

	28-05-2002 11:41									#141
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by rah Originally I thought the US should have signed this agreement. But thanks to all the comments by the euroknowitalls here, I now understand why we didn't. RAH

I second that sentiment.

	28-05-2002 12:20									#142
	Remove this text

Rah: You are sooooooo easily influenced....

	28-05-2002 13:08									#143
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by nationalist Yes, France has Nukes. So what? If we would invade France (something the we never will do ), the French would never use Nukes on their own territory. It would kill more French the Americans. They wouldn't have to political will to use them. I don't think that France has the technology to hit the U.S. mainland with Nukes, but if they do they should remeber just how many more nukes we have than them. No, the French will never nuke an American. We could invade if we wanted to, but we really don't want to. I think that Europeans ashould look East if they fear invasion. The Turks are coming for you.

Using nuke, damn I hope not. But still I'm not sure we have the capacity to reach USA as USA are still our ally actually.

Since in case of war, if we use nukes we will certainly use Nuke to destroy groups of war-ships. No more.

Using nukes on enemy cities will be use only if our foe have the only objective to annihilate us.

This is only my point of view of the good use of Nukes.

---

People are too easly speaking about war. USA citizen must understand that war is not only a funny show at the TV where the "Good" guys kill the "Bad" guys.

2 W.W. were suffisant, weren't it ?

The rest of world enjoy watching soccer. Americans, wars ...

	28-05-2002 13:25									#144
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Eli This court is a tool of harrasing countries on political background and used only against the weak and unpopular.

not if it is a permanent one, unlike the one in the hague

	28-05-2002 13:27									#145
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by KrazyHorse If Americans travel to foreign countries aren't they subject to the laws of those countries?

um, yes, but at the same time those countries are subject to american jurisdiction

	28-05-2002 13:32									#146
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Each american tourist is an sleeping invasion forces waiting the good moment to act !

	28-05-2002 13:42									#147
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

I have read through the treaty and note the following:

There is no immunity for government officials. Article 27.

A military commander is responsible for acts of all under his command. Article 28 The president of the United States is commander in chief.

The case can be brought be any state that is party, by the SC, or by the Prosecutor. If a state is a party, it submits to jurisdiction. Even if it has not become a party, its nationals are still subject to being prosecuted for war crimes on referral by a party state if the crimes were committed in the referring party-state's territory.

There are a number of procedural details concerning evidence, etc. before the trial is authorized. Arrest is not automatic.

Just for your amusement, one of the war crimes is causing environmental damage Article 8(2)(b)(iv). Another is using land mines. Article 8(2)(b)(xx). Another is "humiliation." 8(2)(b)(xxi).

	28-05-2002 13:42									#148
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

"but at the same time those countries are subject to american jurisdiction"

I wished the Yanks would take the spirit of their 11th amendment seriously....

	28-05-2002 13:56									#149
	Increase Your PM Length

Ned:

There is functional immunity (ie while in office); one article refers to that but I can't be arsed to look it up again.

As for your "amusement": destruction of the environment like poisoning water or soils is hardly funny. Land mines subject to their ban which is incomplete. Humiliation "within the established framework of international law", and art 17 1. d) (sufficient gravity).

And if you have reservations regarding Art 8, make use of Art 124 and watch how it develops in practice.

	28-05-2002 14:55									#150
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Roland Land mines subject to their ban which is incomplete. Humiliation "within the established framework of international law", and art 17 1. d) (sufficient gravity).

If I remember well, China and USA were two of the 4-5 countries that refused to ban mines some times ago...