02-07-2002 22:33									#241
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

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.

	02-07-2002 22:39									#242
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Chris:

"Despite Roland's comment earlier, the EU is not politics and you all know it"

That's quite a weak "argument". What is it if not politics ?

I guess 90 % of Yanks said the Euro would never happen. One clown in Harvard even predicted a war about it. Get an update.

Dino: "Where does it say that in the Rome Statute?"

I was talking about national law.

	02-07-2002 22:42									#243
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Roland Dino: "Where does it say that in the Rome Statute?" I was talking about national law.

But that's not what I was talking about.

	02-07-2002 22:47									#244
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Roland That's quite a weak "argument". What is it if not politics ?

In what context?
Are you saying it's an attempt at disolving national governments to be replaced with a single government, or is it an attempt to create a free market not emcombered with various national taxes and tariffs?
You tell me.

quote: I guess 90 % of Yanks said the Euro would never happen. One clown in Harvard even predicted a war about it. Get an update.

I don't remember anyone really commenting on it, but isn't a single currency in-line with economics?

	02-07-2002 23:00									#245
	Suffering from ads?

quote: In what context? Are you saying it's an attempt at disolving national governments to be replaced with a single government, or is it an attempt to create a free market not emcombered with various national taxes and tariffs? You tell me.

Technically, it's the latter, but it would appear now to be a precursor to the former.

	02-07-2002 23:08									#246
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Yet, for the here and now, it's still economics.

	02-07-2002 23:11									#247
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by DinoDoc But that's not what I was talking about.

DinoDoc, If what you are talking about is Double Jeopardy, the ICC has a provision on that:

Article 20


Ne bis in idem


1. Except as provided in this Statute, no person shall be tried before the Court with respect to conduct which formed the basis of crimes for which the person has been convicted or acquitted by the Court.

2. No person shall be tried by another court for a crime referred to in article 5 for which that person has already been convicted or acquitted by the Court.

3. No person who has been tried by another court for conduct also proscribed under article 6, 7 or 8 shall be tried by the Court with respect to the same conduct unless the proceedings in the other court:

(a) Were for the purpose of shielding the person concerned from criminal responsibility for crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court; or
(b) Otherwise were not conducted independently or impartially in accordance with the norms of due process recognized by international law and were conducted in a manner which, in the circumstances, was inconsistent with an intent to bring the person concerned to justice.

	02-07-2002 23:47									#248
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

The French once (or do they still?) had concerns as well:

"In December 1997, a dispute broke out between France and the Yugoslavia tribunal. French defense minister Alain Richard stated that France would refuse to permit its officers who served in the multinational peacekeeping force during the war in Bosnia to answer subpoenas and testify before the tribunal. He said that France is unwilling to expose its officers to possibly adversarial questioning that could implicate French military personnel in not stopping the war crimes they witnessed.

Allowing an international tribunal to subpoena peacekeeping troops could interfere with how peacekeeping commanders make their decisions in the future; that is, commanders would feel pressure to put their soldiers in harm's way when they otherwise would not, or risk being second-guessed if they or their soldiers were called before an international court to provide testimony about crimes they witnessed but did not stop. As a result, peacekeeping troops could find themselves effectively forced into combat situations to avoid a court-induced perception that they were negligent bystanders."

Sharon at the camps; the Dutch at Sebrenicia; Clinton in Kosovo - all have been accused of war crimes for failing to stop a massacre. The French concerns are not hypothetical.

	02-07-2002 23:55									#249
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Note to DinoDoc, the ICC sits in judgment on whether the national prosecution was "adequate" for double-jeopardy purposes. If the US were to decide that there should be no prosecution at all because it was politically motivated or for some other reason, we would have no way to stop the ICC from arresting the accused and placing him or her on trial at the Hague.

	03-07-2002 00:17									#250
	Suffering from ads?

In answer to my own question about the SC, apparently Clinton did ask for it. Other nations objected-saying that it was unacceptable that the five permanent members would have a veto. The Germans proposed a compromise where the SC could block an investigation. This is now Article 16:

Article 16


Deferral of investigation or prosecution


No investigation or prosecution may be commenced or proceeded with under this Statute for a period of 12 months after the Security Council, in a resolution adopted under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, has requested the Court to that effect; that request may be renewed by the Council under the same conditions."

The ICC cannot be amended for seven years. I suggest that the SC put out a blanket suspension of the ICC until it is amended to require SC approval.

	03-07-2002 00:42									#251
	Support Apolyton

Everyone:

Regarding ICC jurisdiction, it seems to me that folks are taking differing routes to achieve the same goal: immunity for their peace-keeping troops from the new court.

Various European nations sign deals with Afghanistan so their troops within that nation will not be brought before the ICC if something happens. It is not unimaginable to think that this process would simply repeat itself with other peace-keeping missions. Meanwhile, the United States simply seeks blanket immunity for its troops participating in all peace-keeping missions. Differing routes, same result: immunity from any possible action by the ICC.

Regarding the outcome of the 1990-91 Persian Gulf War: It has always been my perspective that U.S. and allied forces did not march on Baghdad because our Arab allies at the time did *not* want Saddam Hussein brought down. Why? They feared it might lead to the break-up of Iraq and, basically, anarchy that could threaten their own regimes. In particular, I think a newly-risen Kurdistan was something certain U.S. allies didn't want.

We had more than 500,000 troops on the ground. We could have taken Baghdad and, more than likely, captured or killed Hussein. But it's hard to do that when you have allies whose views don't coincide with the finality of U.S. goals. Besides, wasn't the U.N. position on the war such that the goal was the liberation only of Kuwait and not the destruction of Iraq? If that's the case, then all these current-day questions posed by some of our European friends regarding the Persian Gulf War are, at worst, deliberate trolls or, at best, ill-educated positions.

Gatekeeper

	03-07-2002 00:53									#252
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Gatekeeper Everyone: Regarding ICC jurisdiction, it seems to me that folks are taking differing routes to achieve the same goal: immunity for their peace-keeping troops from the new court. Various European nations sign deals with Afghanistan so their troops within that nation will not be brought before the ICC if something happens. It is not unimaginable to think that this process would simply repeat itself with other peace-keeping missions. Meanwhile, the United States simply seeks blanket immunity for its troops participating in all peace-keeping missions. Differing routes, same result: immunity from any possible action by the ICC. Regarding the outcome of the 1990-91 Persian Gulf War: It has always been my perspective that U.S. and allied forces did not march on Baghdad because our Arab allies at the time did *not* want Saddam Hussein brought down. Why? They feared it might lead to the break-up of Iraq and, basically, anarchy that could threaten their own regimes. In particular, I think a newly-risen Kurdistan was something certain U.S. allies didn't want. We had more than 500,000 troops on the ground. We could have taken Baghdad and, more than likely, captured or killed Hussein. But it's hard to do that when you have allies whose views don't coincide with the finality of U.S. goals. Besides, wasn't the U.N. position on the war such that the goal was the liberation only of Kuwait and not the destruction of Iraq? If that's the case, then all these current-day questions posed by some of our European friends regarding the Persian Gulf War are, at worst, deliberate trolls or, at best, ill-educated positions. Gatekeeper

With everyone seeking exemption from the ICC (or Yugoslav panels) for "authorized" UN or Nato missions, it is clear that SC approval for prosecutions was the right path in the first place. Clinton was right.

On Iraq, I believe Bush intended to comlete the encirclement of the Iraqi forces and then possibly proceed on to Bagdad if Saddam did not surrender.

However, the Highway of Death forced a premature end to the hostilities.

	03-07-2002 00:58									#253
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Gatekeeper Various European nations sign deals with Afghanistan so their troops within that nation will not be brought before the ICC if something happens. It is not unimaginable to think that this process would simply repeat itself with other peace-keeping missions. Meanwhile, the United States simply seeks blanket immunity for its troops participating in all peace-keeping missions. Differing routes, same result: immunity from any possible action by the ICC.

quote: Originally posted by Lemmy no they didn't, afghanistan signed a treaty that they would not turn in people they captured to the ICC, if anyone else captures suspected war criminals, the ICC can do with them whatever they want. The US however wants the ICC to ignore war crimes by any US soldier.

quote: Originally posted by Lemmy quote: Under the terms of the accord, Afghanistan agreed that all members of the force, including U.S. liaison officers, "may not be surrendered to, or otherwise transferred to, the custody of an international tribunal or any other entity or state without the express consent of the contributing nation. Imran pointed this out before, it only states that Afghanistan may not turn them over to the ICC. This does not garantuee immunity.

	03-07-2002 01:03									#254
	Inflate your Upload Space

Lemmy, what do you have to say about the French dispute with the Yugoslav war crimes tribunal?

	03-07-2002 01:09									#255
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

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

quote: Originally posted by Lemmy ... i'm pulling out of this discussion. There is nothing left that i want to prove, or discuss.

	03-07-2002 01:11									#256
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Leave then!

Let some more moderate and calm people have their debate.

	03-07-2002 01:13									#257
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Lemmy:

	03-07-2002 02:26									#258
	Inflate your Upload Space

just put the first person on my ignore list.

wow

	03-07-2002 02:55									#259
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Leave then!

that didn't sound very calm

	03-07-2002 03:52									#260
	Suffering from ads?

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.

	03-07-2002 04:22									#261
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

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? who's to say if a trial was fair?

if this court is allowed to exist and practice, i think it will be highly suceptible to corruption and/or carrying out of its political agenda. which is what the US officials fear will happen and rightly oppose the court in its current form.

comments...

	03-07-2002 05:53									#262
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by 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? who's to say if a trial was fair? if this court is allowed to exist and practice, i think it will be highly suceptible to corruption and/or carrying out of its political agenda. which is what the US officials fear will happen and rightly oppose the court in its current form. comments...

Morb, You were noting earlier that essential guarantee's to Americans found in our fifth and sixth amendments are not present in the ICC. Because of this, there are many who believe that even if we were to ratify the ICC in its current form, it would be constitutional. However, I trust that Congress would never ratify this agreement until "details" like this are fixed.

The ICC is a travesty. Somehow, the negotiations for a treaty got completely out of control. Where once the US lead the parade to call for the ICC, we now find ourselves fighting what is ostensibly a right-minded treaty.

It would be interesting to see an article on the negotiations written by one of the Clinton team.

	03-07-2002 05:59									#263
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

If run correctly, it is a great idea, but only if people agree on it. The problems the US has with the court have to be sorted out before anything meaningful can be done by the ICC.

	03-07-2002 06:17									#264
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Sixchan If run correctly, it is a great idea, but only if people agree on it. The problems the US has with the court have to be sorted out before anything meaningful can be done by the ICC.

Sixchan, this is now so painfully obvious that it is a wonder why we had to get this far before some sanity and common sense began to emerge. In reading some of the history of the negotiations, our concerns were heard and compromises were made, but in the end we apparantly never made it perfectly clear that certain points were deal breakers. This has to be a problem with our negotiating team. However, I am not sure, and would like to read more about it.

	03-07-2002 12:18									#265
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

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

	03-07-2002 12:22									#266
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Chris:

"Are you saying it's an attempt at disolving national governments to be replaced with a single government"

Why dissolve ? Two levels. It's called federalism.

"...or is it an attempt to create a free market not emcombered with various national taxes and tariffs?"

It is an attempt to form a political union through economic integration (and no, not like NAFTA which is a free trade area and thereby s couple steps of integration below). We almost got the EDC in 1954, forgot ? After that failed with the bloody french *****, we went on to the EEC. Same goal.

"I don't remember anyone really commenting on it, but isn't a single currency in-line with economics?"

And economic policy. The EU has roughly the same economic powers as the US federal government. That's not political ? If not, what is ?

Gatekeeper:

" Various European nations sign deals with Afghanistan so their troops within that nation will not be brought before the ICC if something happens."

Show me those "deals", and show me the ICC in it.
Good luck hunting. You'll need it to find more than one document, and that one has a general clause. Which was likely included due to pressure from the US. Also, it only refers to immunity from Afghan authorities. How this affects ICC jurisdiction is another matter (Which I'd have to check, but I'm getting tired of it. Maybe I should just do it poly style and make it up as I go along).

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 ?

Ned:

"It would be interesting to see an article on the negotiations written by one of the Clinton team."

I think there was an op-ed in the NYT by Clinton's negotiator a while ago. Unfortunately I can't remember his name.

	03-07-2002 13:06									#267
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Roland:

I assure you that I do not "make up" things as I go along. Your suggestion, even as indirect as it is, is not welcome.

Gatekeeper

	03-07-2002 13:11									#268
	Got spare money?

Wasn't directed at you personally. But when we're at it:

"Various European nations sign deals with Afghanistan so their troops within that nation will not be brought before the ICC if something happens."

You didn't make that up ? Then show me the deals.

	03-07-2002 13:17									#269
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Roland:

Not intentionally. That was how I thought things boiled down to after reading various accounts — including some buried deep within this now 11-page thread.

Perhaps "deals" weren't signed per se, but isn't the intention still the same? To safeguard one's peacekeeping forces from undue judicial activism?

My apologies for being human. Guess I can't be the "super journalist" 24/7.

Gatekeeper

	03-07-2002 13:26									#270
	Support Apolyton

I'm just tired of people repeating the produce of crappy journalism. There was one deal between the Afghan government and the Commander of ISAF about technical military issues. That contained a standard immunity clause from the local authorities, which was extended to tranfer to "international tribunals". It is unclear how this got into the agreement, but given the US administration's hysteria about the ICC it looks like their handwriting.

Unless this affects ICC jurisdiction european nations would still have to fully cooperate with the ICC.