 |
| |
|
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Saint Marcus
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. |
I know of Kerrey. Name one other notorious war criminal we have "protected."
quote:
Negative. Using landmines isn't a warcrime by ICC standards. However, using landmines for the specific purpose of killing civilians is. |
xx) Employing weapons, projectiles and material and methods of warfare which are of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering or which are inherently indiscriminate in violation of the international law of armed conflict, provided that such weapons, projectiles and material and methods of warfare are the subject of a comprehensive prohibition and are included in an annex to this Statute, by an amendment in accordance with the relevant provisions set forth in articles 121 and 123."
I interpret this to mean land mines because the are "comprehensively proscribed."
quote:
Negative. Agression isn't a warcrime by ICC standards. However, intentional agression targetted against civilians is a warcrime. |
Article 5
Crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court
1. The jurisdiction of the Court shall be limited to the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole. The Court has jurisdiction in accordance with this Statute with respect to the following crimes:
(a) The crime of genocide;
(b) Crimes against humanity;
(c) War crimes;
(d) The crime of aggression.
quote:
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.
|
Now this gets to the heart of the issue, doesn't it? Our Armed Forces are in Bosnia to keep the peace. This is an official mission. The Bosnians are under our jurisdiction, not the other way around. The Bosnians have no "right" to arrest a member of our Armed Forces for War Crimes or other crimes within the purview of the ICC. War Crimes are completely differenct in nature from a simple crime committed by an off-duty soldier. They are acts of the Armed Forces themselves.
Attempting to arrest a member of the Armed Forces would in effect be a military action against Armed Forces that would justify a military response.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
|
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sixchan
Maybe, if given a court marshall, the ICC should be able to demand a record of the trial, and to examine the evidence. If the ICC believes that the trial was not conducted fairly (innocent or guilty) then they can recommend a ICC trial to the Security Council If a majority of permanant members of the security council believe the trial was unfair, they can approve further investigation by the ICC. If the ICC still believes it was unfair after further invastigation, it can put forward evidence to support its view, and then can put up a recommendation for re-trial to the whole security council (or just the 5 main members).
Also, the defendant could be tried with an impartial jury with all the rights defendants enjoy in a western country such as the US or UK. This would ensure that the ICC couldn't create a politically motivated case, as there would have to be strong evidence that the country in question's own government did not conduct a fair trial. |
Sixchan, This would be a major step in the right direction as I believe all investigations should be approved by the SC.
As to due process, it seems to me all prior war crime trials have been conducted as court marshalls, with the accused have very few "rights." The new ICC improves considerably on this, but it does not provide, as far a I can tell, for trial by jury. But if this right is guaranteed to criminal defendants by their own constitutions, I believe it should be guaranteed to the accused as a condition for their country consenting to having that person tried by the ICC.
In a recent broohaha, the Germans refused to give the US evidence against a terrorist on the grounds that the US would use the information to convict the fellow, of all things, and then potentially execute him. The German constitution forbids the death penalty.
If the Germans can withhold evidence based upon their own constitution, we should also be entitled to refuse to turn an individual over for trial by the ICC when the ICC does not accord the accused the same rights he has under our own constitution.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
see basically not all countries are equal
some are better than others
so having a court be set up for everyong does not make sense
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Saint Marcus
|
 |
Scio Me Nihil Scire
Jan 1970
time: 06:20
|
|
quote:
Saint Marcus, Thanks for the compliment on our country. |
I've visited the country many times, and plan on going back a lot more.
quote:
As to "rulers," do you condemn both Bush and Clinton on this issue? |
Bush for sure. Clinton as well, though he would at least negotiate on the issue (which in the end made the final version of the treaty change). And he signed it of course, that was a start. But of course, he should have done way more.
And by rulers, I don't mean just the presidents. The Senate, in particular, is way worse in many cases.
There are many good elected official in the US federal governement and congres/senate, but the vast mayority isn't, especcially when it comes to foreign affairs.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
KrazyHorse
|
 |
Macedonia
May 2001
time: 00:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
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. |
You have no idea where sovereignty applies, do you?
It is territorial, not attached to each citizen, wheresoever he goes.
You're like a three year-old. I've told you this at least half a dozen times so far, but you just keep making the same false assertions over and over again.
Roland is doing you a favour by calling you a dilletante; I'd just call you a fool.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
|
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Roland
That this was behind your entry in WW I is a myth. But apart from that:
Differentiate between prescriptive reach and sanction/enforcement reach of a norm.
Sanction is only in the territory of a state. But a state can make its laws prescriptive for events outside that have a connection with that state, or are under universal jurisdiction like genocide.
So a US citizen suspected of such a crime can be arrested in say germany. He can even be arrested in Germany for a crime against a german citizen in the US, although for some this is a disputed borderline case.
In those cases of jurisdiction accepted by international law, the citizenship country is limited to consular protection. This entails some minimum standards, but the peculiar US version of douple jeopardy is not among them. Trial by jury is not among them.
The US has no right whatsoever and in this case also no means to "protect" its citizens from the legitimate jurisdiction of another sovereign state, whether this state exercises it directly or through an international body upon which it has transferred that sovereign right.
End of story. |
Think, though for a moment. The Euro's are consistently not cooperating with the US in prosecuting criminals becuase we have the death penalty. You particularly protest if the person being "executed" is a citizen of a European country.
Roland, we are listening and taking you seriously on this issue.
If an American is being held or punished unfairly abroad, even our president will intervene. There is a famous incident a few years ago about a teen being caned in Singapore.
(This may be a little off-thread, but what is this "myth" about WWI?)
|
|
| |
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 23:17
. Unless you are trolling. I just agree with you on the ICC, so don't push it 
.
If it were I wouldn't be so shocked. 
|