03-07-2002 13:36									#271
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Roland:

Complex issues such as this require articles as starting off points. I shall see what I can scrounge up on the ICC via the raw news wires when I'm at work later today (if I have time ... they got me on 1A). If I find anything, I'll post the articles (in a new thread) as time allows.

We had a wire-supplied Q and A article not too long ago on the ICC; perhaps I can find that if it hasn't been purged from the computer memory core yet.

Gatekeeper

	03-07-2002 14:22									#272
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Sixchan Were it not calm, I would have posted it in capitals. I thought you said you were leaving the debate? And I wonder whether it was me or Ned who got on Marcus' ignore list. Oh well, if it was me, I've really nothing against the guy or anything, but if he doesn't like me, fine.

i also never posted in capitals.
I don't think Marcus put either you or Ned on his ignore list.
At the time i said i had nothing left to discuss, but now new points have been raised, which i do want to discuss.

quote: Originally posted by Ned Lemmy, what do you have to say about the French dispute with the Yugoslav war crimes tribunal?

Don't know the details, but i think about it the same way as i think about the US's policy, and about the European deal in Afghanistan, it sucks.

quote: Originally posted by Gatekeeper Lemmy: What is your definition of a war criminal? Would the incident a few days ago — where U.S. elements wiped out an apparent wedding party — count such? Gatekeeper

My definition doesn't really matter, since i'm not a judge, but if you really want to know, a general description then:
Someone who intentionally kills masses (i say masses, cos otherwise it would be a murderer imo) of unarmed civilians or soldiers who had clearly surrendered, and posed no threat whatsoever.
I don't know the details about the wedding incident, but i doubt the US did it just to kill some civilians, i assume that their where known terrorists there.
Also if there wasn't any terrorist there, but the US had substantial evidence that their was one there ie. wrong infomation, their intent was still right, taking out a serious threat, and not killing civilians. Althoug then they should take more care into gathering intel the next time.

	03-07-2002 15:43									#273
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Saint Marcus Tell me, did the US help us back in 1940 when we actually were invaded by the Germans?

Are you kidding? Your army was bigger than ours back then, what the hell were we going to do?

	03-07-2002 17:14									#274
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: And I wonder whether it was me or Ned who got on Marcus' ignore list. Oh well, if it was me, I've really nothing against the guy or anything, but if he doesn't like me, fine.

neither. And I got nothing against you. I certainly don't have anything against Ned, he's great fun. I really like his posts.

quote: Are you kidding? Your army was bigger than ours back then, what the hell were we going to do?

yeah may be. The US military was pretty crappy at that time.

But in all seriousness, the US could have declared war on Germany, and send (at least) his navy over to aid the British in their struggle. They could, and should, have entered the war sooner. Of course they waited till they were declared war on. That's their choice though. But it does show how inclined the US is to help us. Should Germany invade us again, as Ned predicts () the US will do exactly the same as in 1940 to help us. Absolutely nothing substantial.

	03-07-2002 17:34									#275
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Saint Marcus yeah may be. The US military was pretty crappy at that time.

They weren't as crappy as they were small. The U.S. Army had 100,000 men in 1939.

quote: Originally posted by Saint Marcus But in all seriousness, the US could have declared war on Germany, and send (at least) his navy over to aid the British in their struggle. They could, and should, have entered the war sooner. Of course they waited till they were declared war on. That's their choice though. But it does show how inclined the US is to help us. Should Germany invade us again, as Ned predicts () the US will do exactly the same as in 1940 to help us. Absolutely nothing substantial.

Hey pick up a book sometime. Read about the Atlantic Charter and the war at sea, where the U.S. fought an undeclared war against Germany starting in 1940 in order to aid Britain in their struggle. Your accusations are completely groundless here, and your assumption that the U.S. should have for some reason guaranteed the integrity of the NL after the fact is laughable. Really, I'm laughing at it right now. No one on the planet would be willing to help you in such a situation except those countries who were already stuck in a war with Germany.

	03-07-2002 20:30									#276
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Yesterday the US again resurrected the Clinton plan for SC "approval" of ICC investigations, which amounts to a US veto:

From an AP story running now on CNN:

quote: The U.S. has put forward a plan to members of the U.N. Security Council that would allow the U.S. and the other four permanent members to veto investigations into peacekeepers launched by the court -- first permanent international war crimes tribunal.

	03-07-2002 20:33									#277
	Increase Your PM Length

Well, that's OK, but I think that it should have to be a joint Veto, i.e. the Security Council, or at least 2 of the permanant members must agree to the proposed blociking before it become an actual veto.

	03-07-2002 20:38									#278
	Suffering from ads?

yeah. otherwise it would be like the Cold War, in which the US blocked all Russian proposals, and the Russians blocked all US proposals. It would lead to a stalemate between, most likely France, and the USA.

Which were the 5 permanent seats again? USA, Russia, UK, France, ???

Last edited by Saint Marcus on 03-07-2002 at 20:45

	03-07-2002 20:42									#279
	Inflate your Upload Space

UK and Britain?

China, France, Russia, UK, USA.

	03-07-2002 20:44									#280
	Put an end to popups!

I meant UK and France. sorry

	03-07-2002 22:30									#281
	Increase Your PM Length

We shall see about the more than "one" permanent member needed for a veto. I suspect that the US would bank on the UK to support it if push came to shove. Besides, as you say, it would "look" better.

	03-07-2002 22:34									#282
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

"Look better". There's a compelling reason indeed.

	03-07-2002 23:13									#283
	Inflate your Upload Space

Hey, Saint Marcus, here is post from VetLegion, a Croatian:

quote: DT are ****ING NAZI SCUM OF THE EARTH!!! quote: In Germany as customer of the German Telekom: that same telecom bought croatian telecom (hrvatski telekom - HT) for petty money and rised the prices emediatelly!! now it is known among the people as Hitler Telekom - and rightly so they have a monopoly and they do stuff here they would NEVER dare do in germany!! - they increased prices immediately after they bought the company - they wanted to charge the listing of calls you get with bill - they spend huge amounts of money on commercials although they are a MONOPOLY - they kill internet with huge prices and lack of competition and intentionaly slow on new technologies quote: €12.99/month for a DSL line €25.00/month for unlimited in time and traffic volume internet access (768k down). I just checked... DSL is now introduced in croatia basic package (384/64) is for 35 euro per month with maximum upload + download = 1 GB per month it costs 200 euro to install compare that with domestic prices in GERMANY !!!! Then compare German salaries with ours!!! ****ing colonial scum! PS Sir Ralph, nothing personal I hate DT with a reason so I had to let it out

	03-07-2002 23:52									#284
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

ADSL cost in the Netherlands:
~25 euro for the line
~25 euro for the subscription
fair use data limit. (512/128)
modem costs vary from 174 euro to 274 euro.

	04-07-2002 00:01									#285
	Suffering from ads?

Wrong thread.

	04-07-2002 00:03									#286
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

strangely enough, it isn't

	04-07-2002 00:39									#287
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Lemmy, Does Holland use Deutsche Telekom as well?

	04-07-2002 00:45									#288
	Full PM-box? Change here!

no

	04-07-2002 02:38									#289
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

I think I missed something along the way.

*looks at thread title*
*looks at the first 11 pages*
*looks at last few posts*

What? I don't undertand.

	04-07-2002 02:57									#290
	Suffering from ads?

Sixchan, part of this dicussion concerned a US pullout from Europe. St. Marcus and Roland were the strongest EU advocates of that position. I simply asked whether they trusted Germany? St. Marcus assured us that at least Holland did.

Well, this little rant from VetLegion indicates there is still some resentment of Germany in Europe. Whether this is strong enough to prevent the EU from being successful and remain unified is still anyone's guess.

On a similar note, in England today they are running an anti-Euro piece in movie theaters that has Hitler declaiming, "Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Euro!" The people in England are laughing while the French are besides themselves with "anger."

The common factor to the continuing resentment of Croatia and France vs. the lightheartedness of England is that the former two nations were under German occupation during the war.

	04-07-2002 03:18									#291
	Inflate your Upload Space

Ah, I didn't connect them.
But this would seem much more like resentment against the phone company, which just happens to be German.

Never heard about it in Scotland, but I expect the film's being shown here. I always found the 'ein volk' thing funny, particularly when American companies use it inadvertanly.
Budwiser WC poster: One World, One Game, One Beer.
Microsoft IE advert: One World, One Web, One Program.
Hitler: Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Euro!

	04-07-2002 04:44									#292
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

A (admittedly stupid) question here...The U.S. wants immunity for its peacekeepers or for its armed forces overseas in general?

If it's just for peacekeepers, I see no problem, at least for the moment in granting it, at least as an experimental measure.

If it's for the U.S. armed forces as a whole...then no, that's not the correct thing to do, sheesh.

That would be, IMHO: That the U.S. joins the International Court, and from the inside works towards changing and fine-tuning the procedure so that U.S. citizens aren't politically discriminated.

And in the remote case that it does happen, such attempts aren't likely to succeed, and the Court isn't retroactive anyways so Kissinger and company shouldn't groan about it ( but about other suits outside of the Court's jurisdiction, that's another matter).

	04-07-2002 05:03									#293
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

If the SC must approve any ICC investigation, then the US, the UK, France, China and Russia would have a veto over any investigation, peacekeeping or not.

It appears that Bush does not want any American tried ever by the ICC because such a prosecution would necessarily be "political" - we have a perfectly adequate criminal justice system to try officers who exceed their authority, and if the actions were under orders of the president of the United States, we probably would go to war rather than let our president be arrested and tried by the ICC.

Last edited by Ned on 04-07-2002 at 05:26

	04-07-2002 05:42									#294
	Suffering from ads?

quote: morb: "...the worst thing about this is that the court is completely unaccountable to anyone. there is nothing to balance it out. what's to stop this court from overreaching its bounds?" You want to discuss ultra vires doctrine in international law ? Fine. Go ahead and explain why it doesn't apply to the ICC. Or does it ? Where do you see the shortcomings ? Material non-act, I assume ?

no. that's my point. is the ICC going to change its prosecution practices depending on the prosecuted's country of origin? unlikely. and even if they did, they'd have to have access to people who know everything about every legal system which is not possible.

my original point is that a legal system should work WITHIN a system of government, not BE a system of government. Is there another international body of government at this point which is opposit to but equal in power to the ICC? no!

are you just going to trust the court unconditionally?

like I mentioned before. if you guys in europe want to set up an "international" court of Europe for members of the EU-only, that's fine, if you think this will bring you closer to the goal of unity. but it is not in my interest to be subjected to a court which does not represent me. the ICC in its current form will likely have no jurisdiction in the US and hopefully most other countries outside of the EU will agree, which should limit its jurisdictional power and its entire purpose.

	04-07-2002 06:15									#295
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

It sounds like gross hypocrisy to me. The US are champions of the cause of globalisation, presumably because they stand to gain squillions from it, yet won't stand for global policing?

The fear of politically motivated accusations sounds legitimate, but surely The Netherlands liberal attitude to policing would render such allegations void far before ever bringing accusees to court?

The US stance seems to be motivated more by their newfound tendency towards isolationism that the official reason given above. I wonder if their enemies knew that their despicable actions would result in the US distancing themselves from their own allies! Osama Bin Laden must be jumping with glee at the apparent splitting of the western world He could never damage the US as well as they can damage themselves

	04-07-2002 08:01									#296
	Increase Your PM Length

Lung, the ICC would have jurisdiction over an American only if the US did not try him first in a "fair" manner. The US, if they tried a soldier, would always try him in a fair manner - far better than the ICC which provides no rights for the accused, such as the right for compulsory process and the right to confront his accusers.

The United States may, though, decide NOT to prosecute because in its view, the soldier's actions were either justified or "ordered." If the former, we will not permit an ICC procesutor to second guess our own view of the evidence. If the ICC were to proceed nontheless and arrest the soldier, we reserve the right to forcibly remove him from the jurisdiction of the ICC. This could get real ugly.

Finally, if the action were ordered, the ICC would be sitting in judgment of the United States. That is an act of war.

Although Clinton signed the treaty, he said he would never send it to the Senate to be ratified. The ICC, not being an arm of the SC, is simply wrongheaded.

	04-07-2002 08:05									#297
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: If the ICC were to proceed nontheless and arrest the soldier, we reserve the right to forcibly remove him from the jurisdiction of the ICC. This could get real ugly. Finally, if the action were ordered, the ICC would be sitting in judgment of the United States. That is an act of war

You're an idiot. You don't get to decide how your people are treated when they're outside your jurisdiction. Only if the ICC were to attempt to arrest someone in the US without the assent of the US gov't would that be an act of war.

Anything else is a unilateral declaration of extraterritorial rights.

	04-07-2002 08:09									#298
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Lung The fear of politically motivated accusations sounds legitimate, but surely The Netherlands liberal attitude to policing would render such allegations void far before ever bringing accusees to court?

The Netherlands doesn't have anything to do with the ICC.

	04-07-2002 08:48									#299
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by KrazyHorse quote: If the ICC were to proceed nontheless and arrest the soldier, we reserve the right to forcibly remove him from the jurisdiction of the ICC. This could get real ugly. Finally, if the action were ordered, the ICC would be sitting in judgment of the United States. That is an act of war You're an idiot. You don't get to decide how your people are treated when they're outside your jurisdiction. Only if the ICC were to attempt to arrest someone in the US without the assent of the US gov't would that be an act of war. Anything else is a unilateral declaration of extraterritorial rights.

(Besides being the most impolite person on this forum, I will reply to you.) I can assure you that if an American, once aquitted by the United States of war crimes, is arrested while on a trip abroad, we very much would care and would act in some fashion - up to and including the use of force.

	04-07-2002 09:44									#300
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by DinoDoc The Netherlands doesn't have anything to do with the ICC.

Yeah, i know, but it's less ambiguous than "Eurpoe". in any case, The Netherlands does have something to do with the ICC, by virtue of it's affiliation with the UN. It's a bit like saying Switzerland doesn't have anything to do with the Geneva Convention. Okay, so it's not the Dutch ICC, but you know what i mean, and for all intents and purposes, it was consistent with the point i was making.