 |
| |
|
|
Lung
|
 |
of my princess Anastasia!
Mar 1999
time: 15:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
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. |
It's good to see an american judging the ICC on it's merits, as opposed to the principle of the thing which the US seems opposed to. Certainly, it's the details of the ICC which need to be figured out, not it's validity in principle.
If it meets satisafactory requirements of the US, then it can't legitimately be opposed. The proof is in the pudding, and whether the US can accept the ICC in principle is the proof whether the US is being reasonable or otherwise.
As to the so-called "act of war", it's dubious to say the least. Invading territory can reasonably be considered an act of war (which of course includes embassies), but being judged by a US court to be not guilty does not give one the right to be impervious to judgement by a neutral source. Under your logic, Saddam could order a general to commit genocide, then clear him of charges and expect him to be considered innocent of any crime. Certainly there is no comparison between an Iraqi general and a US general, but in the eyes of ANY law, it must be. Otherwise it is open to abuse. An american soldier can abuse this position of priviledge, undermining authority of not only the ICC, but american authority as well. It leaves open abuse-of-power, and creates a very dangerous precedent within US law, especially considering Bush's willingness to have trials OUTSIDE the US judicial system, which amounts to political decisions deciding judicial outcomes. If it is deemed politically expedient to clear a soldier of crimes due to the political gains made, then the rule of law becomes a farce.
Last edited by Lung on 04-07-2002 at 10:02
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:20
|
|
Lung, If you check back a few pages, I posted many of the relevant passages on whether the trial by a country was really intended to seek out the truth or was rather intended to a sham. I suspect most US servicemen would be court-marshalled rather than tried in a regular court. But, if he were exonerated on the evidence, that should be the end of it.
Most trying to pursuade the US to back down say, yes indeed, that would be the end of it because the US is a democracy and is known to have an fair and impartial judicial system.
However, the ICC has the final say. And so long as it does, there is a risk of harrassment of the US. This is what we are most worried about. More than any other country, our armed forces are stationed abroad and are at risk of being unfairly accused for political purposes.
Now as the to the act of war, this would involve arresting a high level American official for actions in his official capacity that were expressly authorized by the president. (Not an Oliver North type adventure.) To put such a peson on trial is to put the president, indeed America, on trial.
Now, this may be the fondest dream of many in the world. But I assure you, so long as the United States is still breathing, we will not permit it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
According to Ned we should be "punished" for somethign we did not do.
So I say kick americans out of europe and stuff them where the sun doesnt shine.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Lung
|
|
of my princess Anastasia!
Mar 1999
time: 15:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
Now as the to the act of war, this would involve arresting a high level American official for actions in his official capacity that were expressly authorized by the president. (Not an Oliver North type adventure.) To put such a peson on trial is to put the president, indeed America, on trial.
|
What about an Oliver North type adventure? Isn't this exactly what it's about? Sure, an Oliver North may be tried fairly in a US court, but then again, Dubbya may set up a government agency to oversee it, beyond the eyes of the judiciary and media. Dubbya may abide by the rule of law too, but really, it's not about him! It's about any Tom, ****, or Harry who comes along and circumvents the rule of law.
What i was saying before, was that if the US has issues about the ICC that haven't been addressed, then you should address them rather than dismiss the ICC entirely, which is what the US seems to be doing. It comes across as extreme post-9/11 paranoia on America's part 
Of course, it doesn't help when Europeans openly address Americans as their enemy  Collectively, we are all the good guys, so why encourage dissent? 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
|
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lung
What about an Oliver North type adventure? Isn't this exactly what it's about? Sure, an Oliver North may be tried fairly in a US court, but then again, Dubbya may set up a government agency to oversee it, beyond the eyes of the judiciary and media. Dubbya may abide by the rule of law too, but really, it's not about him! It's about any Tom, ****, or Harry who comes along and circumvents the rule of law.
What i was saying before, was that if the US has issues about the ICC that haven't been addressed, then you should address them rather than dismiss the ICC entirely, which is what the US seems to be doing. It comes across as extreme post-9/11 paranoia on America's part
Of course, it doesn't help when Europeans openly address Americans as their enemy Collectively, we are all the good guys, so why encourage dissent? |
Well, we have a functioning democracy here which seems to keep the party in power hopping from one criminal investigation to the next. As much as Reagan and Clinton did not like the investigations, they took place and many went to jail. I tend to believe that serious allogations of war crimes will be addressed.
But - the Vietnamese have accussed Senator Kerrey, who once ran for president and may again, of a deliberate massacre of civilians in Vietnam. One of his own people have confirmed the report. Yet no one in the US has made a move to put the man on trial. This bothers me.
But there is more. It makes a land mines a crime. We alone still apparently need land mines as a part of our mission as peacekeepers in Korea.
It makes "aggression" a crime. Ramsey Clark has already circulated a draft "complaint" concerning our "aggession" in Iraq. With the Europeans so against the US policy on Iraq, can you really assure me that the ICC will not entertain a war crimes case against Bush if we go after Saddam?
Finally, there is the small matter of constitutionality. Our accused have certain rights under our constitution that cannot be waived by a treaty. These rights are not accorded an accused in the ICC. Therefor, it would simply be unconstitutional for the US to ratify this treaty. (I assume the civil rights community will be as much up in arms over the ICC as it is over our al Qaida prisoners.)
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
seraphin
|
|
bremen
Dec 2001
time: 06:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sixchan
The thing is, anyone who is Anti-American can say that, but you can be virtually certain they go to McDonalds at weekends. And I'll bet that while they post their gospel to everyone, they'll be driking Pepsi or Coca-Cola.
Something else this would suggest is that even if the US leaves Europe on its own, US culture won't. Kiddie Communists will listen to American Nu-Metal (produced by those evil corporate pigs at EMI and Sony ) and the teenie boppers will still dance to Britney Spears. Western Europe doesn't want a war. Germany is to big in the EU to want a war. France and Germany always vote the same way, so no wars between them. The UK has good relations with all the EU countries.
A war won't happen. People can say to look at history, and that proves another war will happen, but looking at history shows Ameican Civil War, and what's the chances of that. The EU is slowly dissolving national identity, and while nationalists hold out, it won't be long before we have a USE, and when we do, all the threat of war goes, and only then can Europe hope to compete together with the other US. But by then the USA's culture will be so dominant that a centre-left-wing view and geography will be the only way to tell the two apart. |
(as a german) i share that point of view.
in fact i am anti-american and im not drinking coke and i consider numetal bullsh*t but i drive ford...so your argument works...
i do not dislike american culture but parts of their constitution : for example i dislike majority elections (in uk too) very much. it is totally oppositional to the intellectual fascism you favor (if i got that right) cause in the us the stupidest 20% of population decide every election and so all politics 
US cannot keep treaties - i dont know wether that is part of there culture or not
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
Nice of you to welcome me to it Ned.
Afetr all you are the masters in that.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
BTW this thread was started by anotehr fellow european so no matter how much you want it, it's not just the 17N against you.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Saint Marcus
|
 |
Scio Me Nihil Scire
Jan 1970
time: 06:20
|
|
quote:
But - the Vietnamese have accussed Senator Kerrey, who once ran for president and may again, of a deliberate massacre of civilians in Vietnam. One of his own people have confirmed the report. Yet no one in the US has made a move to put the man on trial. This bothers me. |
The US has protected many warcriminals over the years. Since the US doesn't deal with them itself, someone else must. That's what the ICC is for.
quote:
But there is more. It makes a land mines a crime. We alone still apparently need land mines as a part of our mission as peacekeepers in Korea. |
Negative. Using landmines isn't a warcrime by ICC standards. However, using landmines for the specific purpose of killing civilians is.
quote:
It makes "aggression" a crime. Ramsey Clark has already circulated a draft "complaint" concerning our "aggession" in Iraq. With the Europeans so against the US policy on Iraq, can you really assure me that the ICC will not entertain a war crimes case against Bush if we go after Saddam? |
Negative. Agression isn't a warcrime by ICC standards. However, intentional agression targetted against civilians is a warcrime.
quote:
Finally, there is the small matter of constitutionality. Our accused have certain rights under our constitution that cannot be waived by a treaty. These rights are not accorded an accused in the ICC. Therefor, it would simply be unconstitutional for the US to ratify this treaty. (I assume the civil rights community will be as much up in arms over the ICC as it is over our al Qaida prisoners.) |
Your constitution doesn't apply to other countries. If Bosnia thinks an American commited (war)crimes it can arrest that American, and put it on trial in Bosnia by Bosnian standards. If Bosnia decides to hand the American over to the ICC for trial and possible punishment, it is their right. Your constitution doesn't protect people abroad. That is what international law is about. If you do something in a country that is considered a crime there, you can expect to be arrested. The country you commited the crime in can then chose what to do with you, by THEIR laws and constitution, not by YOUR laws and constitution.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
KrazyHorse
|
 |
Macedonia
May 2001
time: 00:20
|
|
quote:
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 |
You would be lacking justification, and it would be, as I stated before, a unilateral declaration of extraterritorial rights.
For your information, I'm not rude to those I respect. You've proven yourself to be either muddleheaded, miinformed, or able to put on a superb imitation of the above.
You've got a smattering of education, but when it comes down to it, you're a Giancarlo with better grammar.
You post inane lies, obvious misinterpretations, and fraudulent chains of logic. There are innumerable people here who have the same set of opinions, when it comes down to it, but I at least hold most of them in some esteem as fit partners for discussion.
Now please explain how the principle of national sovereignty is violated by arresting foreign nationals in your own country without the approval of their home countries.
You step in somebody else's sandbox, you play by their rules. It's as old an idea as the nation itself is.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
Chris, blame it on monneypenny (=dinodoc) who had the nerve to say the Greece "sponsored" 17N in one of the finest days of our modern history, namely our success in attacking the spectre of terrorism after so long.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
|
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by KrazyHorse
quote:
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 |
You would be lacking justification, and it would be, as I stated before, a unilateral declaration of extraterritorial rights.
For your information, I'm not rude to those I respect. You've proven yourself to be either muddleheaded, miinformed, or able to put on a superb imitation of the above.
You've got a smattering of education, but when it comes down to it, you're a Giancarlo with better grammar.
You post inane lies, obvious misinterpretations, and fraudulent chains of logic. There are innumerable people here who have the same set of opinions, when it comes down to it, but I at least hold most of them in some esteem as fit partners for discussion.
Now please explain how the principle of national sovereignty is violated by arresting foreign nationals in your own country without the approval of their home countries.
You step in somebody else's sandbox, you play by their rules. It's as old an idea as the nation itself is. |
A step in the right direction, KH.
The hypo: Citizen of A country is in country B. He has committed no crime in country B. Country B arrests him, puts him in jail and throws away the key.
This is a classic case where virtually every country will at least intervene diplomatically on behalf of their national unfairly locked up. Whether this escallates into more depends on the reaction of country B
Next, country B transports the citizen to the Hague for trial under the ICC based on an accusation of country C of war crimes. If country A has already tried their citizen, fairly, and it is not a sham trial, there is no jurisdiction in the ICC. Country A would complain both to country B and demand of the ICC the immediate return of their citizen.
It is the first duty of a sovereign to protect their citizens at home or abroad. It their citizens are arrested abroad, the sovereign must assure that the citizens is accorded due process. Violation of fundamental prinicples of double jeopardy by the ICC is not due process and will provoke country A to protest, or more, depending.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:20.
Apolyton Time is 00:20. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
04-07-2002 09:54
At the end of the day, Europe is closer to the US than most everywhere else in the world. Never forget who your enemies are, or who they're likely to be. As recaciltrant as the US appear to be at times, they will never be a real threat to you like many muslim fanatics are. Do you think Saddam would stop with the US if he could ever attack them without reprisal? Get a grip! And you too, Ned! 
|