20-06-2002 05:25									#61
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: In other words, do y'all think your **** don't stink?

For most American administrations, unfortunetly, yes.

quote: You are more trusting than I am then.

I tend to trust people .

	20-06-2002 05:33									#62
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Guynemer "I AM ABOVE THE LAW!"

We aren't above the law. WE ARE THE LAW!

	20-06-2002 06:03									#63
	Suffering from ads?

Isn't this a little vague to be considered a War Crime? I would be interested who decides what is humiliating and degrading and if it is bad enough to put someone on trial. In other others words, Generally Recognized by whom?

quote: Article 8 (2) (b) (xxi) War crime of outrages upon personal dignity Elements 1. The perpetrator humiliated, degraded or otherwise violated the dignity of one or more persons. 2. The severity of the humiliation, degradation or other violation was of such degree as to be generally recognized as an outrage upon personal dignity. 3. The conduct took place in the context of and was associated with an international armed conflict. 4. The perpetrator was aware of factual circumstances that established the existence of an armed conflict.

	20-06-2002 06:14									#64
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Note that I am in favor of this more because we'll hopefully get out of peacekeeping, not so much that I want special rules for American soldiers, although I do believe "following orders" is a very valid defense (in cases where there is no actual sworn duty to refuse illegal orders and the soldier is aware the order is illegal, and there is no threat of serious reprisals including imprisonment or death for refusing said orders).

I'll just be happy to see US soldiers out of foreign brush fires and tribal **** measuring contests.

	20-06-2002 06:18									#65
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Bush, you better have a damn good reason for doing this.

	20-06-2002 06:32									#66
	Remove this text

The problem is that the US possesses the only military force that is both large and highly mobile. Russia and China have large military foces, but they can't move theirs across the globe in a timely manner. Some of our NATO allies have mobile forces but they're not large. Two of the world's developed nations have forces that constitutionally can not be deployed outside their borders. It stands to reason then that the UN will look to the US to carry out missions that require large scale military interventions, yet it may be precisely that type of mission which would entail the greatest risk of producing an incident that would attract the world court's attention. Some politicians feel then that the US is being put into a position of special jeopardy, because American forces will be called upon to do the type of job most likely to incur a penalty.

	20-06-2002 06:42									#67
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Isn't this a little vague to be considered a War Crime? I would be interested who decides what is humiliating and degrading and if it is bad enough to put someone on trial. In other others words, Generally Recognized by whom?

Such as making POW's drink urine, etc. You are just so paranoid that you think they are out to get you. US law is vague too you know. People decide what the law means, but usually they don't change it simply to get at someone. I just think you are waaay too paranoid to be anywhere near the State Department (you'll think they are a tool for the UN ).

	20-06-2002 07:43									#68
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: Isn't this a little vague to be considered a War Crime? I would be interested who decides what is humiliating and degrading and if it is bad enough to put someone on trial. In other others words, Generally Recognized by whom? Such as making POW's drink urine, etc. You are just so paranoid that you think they are out to get you. US law is vague too you know. People decide what the law means, but usually they don't change it simply to get at someone. I just think you are waaay too paranoid to be anywhere near the State Department (you'll think they are a tool for the UN ).

So you like vauge laws? Aren't the cases of Muslims being "rounded" up in the US based on "vauge" laws and concerns? How do you like those? But you say that is different maybe. Well think about how all those people probably feel when someone in Washington says it's for the greater good and you are just being paranoid. We aren't out to get you.

Tell me Imran what exactly are the benifits to us in this?

	20-06-2002 12:32									#69
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: Well we were systematicaly spying for several years. When is spying a war crime? Again, not understand anything.

When you ram your flying pig into a Chinese fighter?

	20-06-2002 13:22									#70
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Well, the Rome Statute signatory nations could retaliate by ceasing to cooperate in the "War on Terror". I foresee a situation in which the ICC nations share info among themselves on terrorist threats to fellow ICC nations, but cut the US out of the loop.

There is profound hypocrisy here. How can the US complain about "everyone expecting the US to be the world's policeman", then resent any attempt by the rest of the world to establish truly international laws and institutions? It's somewhat similar to the bizarre US military's resentment of the EU's "rapid reaction force": the EU doesn't want to hide forever behind Uncle Sam, why is this surprising or undesirable?

	20-06-2002 13:40									#71
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

GP:

"The Euros all have the "little brother complex"."

Seems more like some Yanks have a severe younger brother complex. Why this need for permament self-aggrandization ?

"(like a teenager questioning a parent.)"

No, like a divorce in the making.

"I just tak em at that and ditcht the childish attitude of looking for perfection..."

If you hadn't an entire industry busy telling yourself and us foreigners how great you are, we'd care a lot less.

	20-06-2002 14:27									#72
	Inflate your Upload Space

We often hear our "beloved" governments tells us, when they make new acts "to protect law and order":

If you do not do anything wrong, then you have nothing to fear! What's your problem.

Now it seems like the time has come, where at least one government (the US) faces this same question.

	20-06-2002 17:31									#73
	Full PM-box? Change here!

The fear that many Americans have I think is in losing the right to trial by a jury of their peers. The problem with the ICC is that its jurisdiction is too broad. I think that the Neurenberg trials were just because of the obvious horror that spread to many nations.

The ICC however is abhorent to many Americans because they are supposedly fighting to maintain their freedoms as guaranteed under the constitution (speedy trial, jury, etc.) and in the process of defending those rights and liberties they themselves may be dragged before a world court which denies them those rights. Different cultures have different standards of justice.

The idea of being judged by a jury of your peers means that the people who are judging you understand you and can relate to your struggle, justifications and sense of justice based upon the shared culture, and in wartime, the shared struggle. If Europe was fighting along with America (except on a token level) in these world conflicts like we were in WW2 then the idea would be more palatable.

	20-06-2002 18:17									#74
	Get a bigger avatar today!

However, they would not be losing the right not to be tried by "weird foreigners". They never had it in the first place!

For instance, Yemen is an ICC member. If an American perpetrated an alleged war crime in Yemen, would he rather be tried by the ICC using internationally-recognised legal standards, or by a purely Yemeni court? I don't know what Yemeni law is like: do you?

	20-06-2002 18:27									#75
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

We are talking about two different things. Anyone is subject to the laws of a foreign nation he is visiting and I think most people understand that. When we toured the west Pacific for example during the Vietnam War we fully understood that if we offended the local people by breaking their laws that we had to answer to their courts. The problem is an American citizen coming home after the war and being denied his rights by being forced before the ICC. This can happen years later.

	20-06-2002 18:45									#76
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

"The problem is an American citizen coming home after the war and being denied his rights by being forced before the ICC. This can happen years later."

If the US conducts a fair trial on the charges, the ICC will play no role.

That there is no trial by jury is a weakness, although that would be quite difficult in an international court. As for fears about rights - it is way more likely you'll get screwed in some plea bargain than convicted by the ICC - at all, or wrongfully.

	20-06-2002 19:50									#77
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Blah. Not a good move here by the Bushmeister. I understand concerns about the court being used to target Americans unfairly, but I think those concerns have been blown out of proportion. Besides, if political pressure really will have an effect on this court, then that means we can influence it too. Silly Bushman, he should know that we're pretty good at applying pressure.

Guy,

Great call on the South Park reference. It fits pretty well here. I have another one:

"Paranoia strikes deep. Into your life it will creep. It starts when you're always afraid. Step out of line, the men come and take you away."

-Arrian

	20-06-2002 20:04									#78
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Arrian Blah. Not a good move here by the Bushmeister. I understand concerns about the court being used to target Americans unfairly, but I think those concerns have been blown out of proportion. Besides, if political pressure really will have an effect on this court, then that means we can influence it too. Silly Bushman, he should know that we're pretty good at applying pressure.

While I agree with Arrian's post that Bush is making a mistake here, I can understand resistance, Even if it's based on ignorance. The top dog is always a little paranoid about all the little insignificant dogs scheming together to get an advantage over the top dog. Is it paranoia if everyone is actually out to get you? The prez is a little touchy these days.

RAH

	20-06-2002 20:08									#79
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

This is fully within the United States rights and a good case can be made that it is warranted. It is entirely reasonable to suggest that if peacekeeping would put U.S. soldiers or policymakers in the "special jeopardy" referenced by Strangelove, then the government must do its best to shield its soldiers and policymakers.

Looked at this way, it is not sufficient to make the case that we will get more out of this court than the court will get out of us (I fully expect this to be the case--perhaps in spades).

	20-06-2002 20:14									#80
	Put an end to popups!

Of course, there's no chance at all that the rest of the world will agree to the principle that "war criminals must be brought to justice unless they happen to be American". So the US will never obtain the blanket exemption that Bush is seeking.

Therefore "U.S. will withdraw from U.N. peacekeeping unless troops are exempted from world court" actually means "U.S. will withdraw from U.N. peacekeeping".

If he wants to withdraw from U.N. peacekeeping, then why not say so?

	20-06-2002 20:16									#81
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Diplomacy doesn't work by substitution, Jack. It is important to make known why you are doing what you are doing. Perhaps accommodations can be made in some instances.

	20-06-2002 20:25									#82
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by rah The top dog is always a little paranoid about all the little insignificant dogs scheming together to get an advantage over the top dog. RAH

I'd say this top dog is a bit too busy sniffing his own arse.

	20-06-2002 20:29									#83
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

You'll get no arguement from me.
But when you're the top dog, you can, even if it's stupid.
I say enjoy it while you can. It's always subject to change.

	20-06-2002 20:39									#84
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Dan: In some respects, you do have to admit that this is an odd decision for the Bush administration. It is tantamount to shouting before the world that war crimes are SOP for the US armed forces.

Of course there are instances, I can see where the ICC can become a bludgeon against the normal exercise of US policy but I don't think that Bush mentioned that before the UN.

	20-06-2002 20:40									#85
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: So you like vauge laws?

Well seeing how much of the Constitution (especially the Bill of Rights) consists of vague laws, I'd have to say yes.

The benefits to us joining are to solidify the AMERICAN Norm, that War Crimes, Crimes Against Humanity, etc. are wrong. They are norms that have been by America and Europe for the last 50 years (at least). Arrian might remember the comment, I made. Where it is better to solidify our norms NOW, before we fall from power and then have no way to push our norms on the international stage.

And Dan, accomodations should not be made. A court cannot and should not, say that a certain group of people is exempted. That is ludicrious.

	20-06-2002 20:48									#86
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by rah But when you're the top dog, you can, even if it's stupid.

The whole thing was designed to fill a legal vacuum, for areas with non- or malfunctioning legal systems. It is of course possible that the ICC can disagree with US courts, but the ICC's main job will be areas like Congo.

	20-06-2002 20:51									#87
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Well, reading all of this, I would have to say it's time for the USA to end all it's outside involments that don't directly concern our interests.

NOWHERE in our Constitution does it say we have to help anybody but the USA, nor police anybody.
If people want to be charitable, it can be done through private organizations, but I don't care for it to be done by the US government.

I know this makes a lot of Europeans and many Americans mad to say that, but it's truth.
We have NO such obligation, we always did it because we felt it right and moralistic.

But it's clear Europe wants to have a number of pan-national organizations handle everything from trade to peacekeeping, so I say fine, let them.

For myself personally, I want none of that.
This is my personal opinion, it doesn't represent the USA government's.

Frankly, we don't have the right to tell other nations how to handle their affairs, nor should we ever.
By the same token, they have no right to tell the USA what to do either.

Some Euro said 'let them stew in their own juices" in this thread, I say fine.

You go your way, we will go ours, let's put an end to Nato, and move the UN to Europe, and the USA can go back to carring about the USA, and you people can handle the rest.
I think that's perfectly acceptable.

	20-06-2002 20:57									#88
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Chris, isolationism doesn't work. It hurts more than it helps. We don't exist in a void, and we aren't powerful enough to engage in autarky. We depend on other countries around the world, and should engage them. Isolationism is never the answer and furthermore is hurtful to our economic interests, which DOES impact domestically.

	20-06-2002 21:00									#89
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Roland The whole thing was designed to fill a legal vacuum, for areas with non- or malfunctioning legal systems.

That's one of the problems I have with international tribunals: They give the international community a rationale for neglecting the development of native justice systems in countries subject to them. It smacks of a "White Man's Burden."

	20-06-2002 21:04									#90
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Even though some justices aren't white?

And if there is NO native justice system, then why should international criminals go free?