03-07-2003 11:52									#121
	Increase Your PM Length

Oh, and SEAL marksmanship instructors are an embarrassment to the US. I guess admission standards have gone down and quality got diluted. Seriously.

But hey, that's why you need new allies!

	03-07-2003 11:53									#122
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Swampy broadleaf stuff? We're smart enough not to fight in that, so you must have run into some boyscouts. Did you make sure to check the uniforms?

	03-07-2003 11:53									#123
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by HershOstropoler "We didn't want to hurt your feelings, so we sent our clerks instead of our real operations." So you didn't send your elite bureaucrats to Redtape 2002 in Austria?

Can you imagine SOCOM, operatives embarrased by a Balkan nation of Lithuania and clerks argued to death by Elite Australian Bureaucat corps?

	03-07-2003 11:54									#124
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Btw, who is this Ann Coulted in your sig? Sounds like a sick *****.

	03-07-2003 11:56									#125
	Tired of ads?

Annie is the Darling of the rabid right. And they all want to bonk her.

	03-07-2003 11:56									#126
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Saras Oh, and SEAL marksmanship instructors are an embarrassment to the US. I guess admission standards have gone down and quality got diluted. Seriously. But hey, that's why you need new allies!

Six teams is a bit too many, plus we have to run lots of people through (any of the SOF organizations) just to get the qualification tabs, so they can ticket punch for their careers.

That really is the problem with SOCOM - all the component orgs except the USAF pararescue (who are pretty narrow specialists) are bloated.

	03-07-2003 11:58									#127
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by HershOstropoler "We didn't want to hurt your feelings, so we sent our clerks instead of our real operations." So you didn't send your elite bureaucrats to Redtape 2002 in Austria?

Our elite bureaucrats work for the State of California - they can take a state rolling in money, and play games and make it look and act virtually bankrupt.

	03-07-2003 12:02									#128
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Saras Btw, who is this Ann Coulted in your sig? Sounds like a sick *****.

She's an attention whore posing as a political pundit for the right - her previous book was called "Slander" about how all the evil libruls do nothing but besmirch the great names and noble motivations of conservatives, so there's no political dialog in the US because of these evil name-calling libruls.

Here newest book is called "Treason" and it's her explanation about how all the evil libruls are a bunch of America-hating traitors. Oh, the irony, but she's a tribute to her hair color.

Nah, Roland, don't besmirch the rabid right like that. They want her dressed in leather and carrying a whip so she can tie them up and dominate them.

	03-07-2003 12:04									#129
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Damn, I overestimated the rabid right again.

	03-07-2003 12:07									#130
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat Nah, Roland, don't besmirch the rabid right like that. They want her dressed in leather and carrying a whip so she can tie them up and dominate them.

Did a google search...

	03-07-2003 12:08									#131
	Tired of ads?

Is that a ... LATEX DRESS!!???

	03-07-2003 18:42									#132
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by HershOstropoler Ad 2. Cases can only be brought if the crime has been committed on the territory of a signatory (the two other options are no problem for the US). If say Georgia has ratified the ICC statute, and US troops commit a massacre in Georgia that falls under the crimes for which the ICC is competent, trying them is in no way extraterritorial - it is based on Georgian sovereign rights.

That explanation puts us on the same page, 'extraterritorially' at least.

quote: The whole Washington fuzz about this is not about facts or concerns, it's about idelogical hysteria.

You may call it 'ideological hysteria', I call it common sense. I don't support giving away our rights to international organizations, especially where there is no democratic representation.

quote: And your inept attempts to construe effects that aren't there doesn't change that.

Inept? My, we are a saucy little German on the other end of the world. Its easy to throw around such comments when you're unlikely to face any consequences.

Effects? By that do you mean possible bogus prosecutions?

A couple of facts

Afghanistan is a signatory.

-from the ICC website bold is mine

quote: Without doubt, the most important principle of the Statute of Rome is that the Court complements national jurisdictions and that it may only exercise its jurisdiction if the States concerned are unable or unwilling to prosecute the perpetrators of crimes which fall within the competence of the Court.

Here's a hypothetical situation for you.

What if the ICC prosecutor decides that Afghanistan is unable (by virtue of the american threat to its sovereignty from the presence of occupying troops) or is 'unwilling' to prosecute american 'war criminals' in Afghanistan. What are the protections against the president of the USA (for example) from being indicted under these conditions?

Dont give me any 'it wont happen' comments? If there are legal protections to prevent that situation (or if I've misrepresented the situation), I'd be glad to hear them.

	03-07-2003 19:01									#133
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat (a) To their conduct outside the United States, where (b) The US courts have already ruled repeatedly that US government personnel (civilian or military) are not restrained by obligations imposed by the US Constitution, but (c) foreign nationals (or US citizens) captured doing whatever by the happily unrestrained personnel described in (b) above, are also entitled to none of the protections of the US Constitution, AND (d) Such tribunals (if any) formed of US military personnel to try (if ever) such foreign nationals or US citizens need not bother with any such provisions of the UCMJ and MCM as they feel inconvenient, as the rules for such tribunals may be made up ad hoc by the executive branch of the US government.

Was there a point to all that?

quote: The US is once again trying to swing it's **** and cut a bigger swath than the rest of the world, while simultaneously getting bent that the rest of the world might actually impose some sort of international system for trying these types of offenses. Get a sense of perspective and consistency.

If you're refering to the US trying to force those countries to give them exemptions from prosecution, then I agree. It's not a good policy. Either we're in the ICC or not.

	03-07-2003 19:21									#134
	Get a bigger avatar today!

SpencerH:

"That explanation puts us on the same page, 'extraterritorially' at least."

So you'd say EU law is extraterritorial as it applies in all 15 member states?

"I don't support giving away our rights to international organizations, especially where there is no democratic representation."

Well your joining is another issue. You're not in it, few will miss you. Just accept that the ICC statute does not take away any "rights" of yours.

"Its easy to throw around such comments when you're unlikely to face any consequences."

You know, EU member states have a lot of peacekeepers around the world. If you are so worried, we should be worried too about being open to bogus prosecutions - unless you plan to engage in large scale massacres.

"What if the ICC prosecutor decides that Afghanistan is unable... to prosecute american 'war criminals' in Afghanistan. What are the protections against the president of the USA (for example) from being indicted under these conditions?"

Functional immunity. After end of term, jurisdiction applies. The ICC will preview prosecutions, IIRC. If the Court lets it go on, fine.

"If there are legal protections to prevent that situation (or if I've misrepresented the situation), I'd be glad to hear them."

I don't understand the obsession with the ICC, or what "protections" you want. Every country has universal jurisdiction over certain crimes like certain acts of terrorism and war crimes, genocide etc. After Bush is out of office, there is no legal protection for him from Albania to Zimbabwe.

What you are looking for is a political issue - legally, there's no argument for you against the ICC. The ICC will be a way better solution to those issues than the patchwork of national courts dealing with it, and it will have better guarantees than most. The thing you don't like is its potential territorial reach - but again, that is a political discomfort for you, not a legal issue.

Oddly enough, the ICC would not have jurisdiction over Bush's real war crime, the war of aggression against Iraq. For Afghanistan, there's nothing in it.

	04-07-2003 00:24									#135
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat SOCOM probably has more personnel than the entire Lithuanian armed forces.

hi ,

times 3.8 , ....

have a nice day

	04-07-2003 11:27									#136
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by panag hi , times 3.8 , .... have a nice day

Source?