International Criminal Court

CM · Post by CM » Wed Jul 03, 2002 3:06 am

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/ ... 087200.stm

This is just pathetic.
It is common blackmail.
No soldier is above the law if they commit a crime.
I support the ICC 100%, heck did a paper on it for my Intl Law course.
It is a great institution, something we need, after Rwanda and other places.

Tamerlane · Post by **Tamerlane** » Wed Jul 03, 2002 3:15 am

Well it wasn't exactly unexpected.

The US has stated all along that they would ignore the ICC, although I guess it is disappointing that it did actually happen.

It does set a dangerous mandate for other countries to follow however. If Blair goes along with it, then we (Aus) will follow along. And before you know it, no more court.

CM · Post by CM » Wed Jul 03, 2002 3:21 am

I have no problem with the US not agreeing.
They have said so for a long time.
That is their choice and they have evey right to do that.
But they have no right to blackmail the world community,
By using their veto vote in the UNSC
As a bargaining chip.

The US position is immoral and blackmail.
The position is that if they dont get special treatment from the ICC
They will use their veto vote to block UN peacekeeping missions.
That is what i am so angry about.

Ode to a Grasshopper · Wed Jul 03, 2002 3:37 am

Presumably if there are false accusations against an American peacekeeper that were to go before the ICC they would have a fair trial and hopefully be proven innocent, the same as any other peacekeeper from any other country.

This, however, has become my latest favourite quote:
"As the United States works to bring peace around the world our diplomats and or soldiers can be dragged into the court," said President George W Bush. "That's very troubling."

CM · Post by CM » Wed Jul 03, 2002 3:39 am

Aie....bush what an idiot.
I swear the next 2 years arent going to be good for the US or the world.

Weasel · Post by **Weasel** » Wed Jul 03, 2002 3:41 am

"They do massive amounts of peacekeeping in the world and don't want their peacekeepers to be subject to some political prosecution,"

As I stated in the other thread, this is the reason I will not support the ICC.

/-\lastor · Post by **/-\lastor** » Wed Jul 03, 2002 3:47 am

Originally posted by CM
Aie....bush what an idiot.
I swear the next 2 years arent going to be good for the US or the world.

I can't help to agree, IMO Bush is a raving lunatic redneck. Pract'ly any candidate would have been better for president. When Bush was elected everyone, EVERYONE, here in Holland slapped their own faces and said "Ooooooh boy, America did it again".

CM · Post by CM » Wed Jul 03, 2002 3:50 am

But weasel that applies to all nations.
Not Just US troops.
That means US, British, EU, Pakistani, indian troops etc. come under it.
73 countries dont have a problem with it.
And China and Japan have supported it but not ratified or signed.
That is there choice.
The US has every right not to join.
But it cannot blackmail the world community through the UN and other organizations.

Weasel · Post by **Weasel** » Wed Jul 03, 2002 4:05 am

Originally posted by CM
But weasel that applies to all nations.
Not Just US troops.
That means US, British, EU, Pakistani, indian troops etc. come under it.
73 countries dont have a problem with it.
And China and Japan have supported it but not ratified or signed.
That is there choice.
The US has every right not to join.
But it cannot blackmail the world community through the UN and other organizations.

You know how many people hollar the US did this..the US did that?

Do you see people hollaring the British did this? The EU did that?

There is a difference is there not? Some (A lot) countries do not like the US at all and will use this for political gains. The UN has in the past did the same thing. The ICC will in the future try to as well.

As to the UN, I'm one of the people who thinks it's time for the US to get out of it. Or at the very least do what has been done in Afghanistan.

If a solution is not found, then in future the United States may simply not take part in such operations.

Peace Keeping

CM · Post by CM » Wed Jul 03, 2002 4:17 am

Weasel I agree that the US is in a special position concerning its troops and its military abroad.
Yes it could be used as a tool for the "enemy" nations.
However that implies the ICC and its judges are bribable or baised or just plain pathetic.
That is not true.
The best men will be chosen for the job.
Not based on country representation at all.
So the court could have 3 or more American Judges on the bench.
As it is not a UN organization, country figures dont matter.

Second the reason i raised this issue was on the acts of the US govt in the UNSC.
Do you agree with what the US is doing, is the question i guess i want people to answer.

Edit: This is from the link you provided.
3rd para:

The court will have the right to prosecute crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes committed by a citizen of - or anyone in - any state which has ratified the Rome Treaty.

From what i remember from my paper, which i could post here when i am at home.
The ICC can not charge or judge troops of countries who did not sign the convention.
Just a note, but my Intl Law paper was on why the US doesnt like the ICC.

Weasel · Post by **Weasel** » Wed Jul 03, 2002 4:31 am

Originally posted by CM
Weasel I agree that the US is in a special position concerning its troops and its military abroad.
Yes it could be used as a tool for the "enemy" nations.
However that implies the ICC and its judges are bribable or baised or just plain pathetic.
That is not true.
The best men will be chosen for the job.
Not based on country representation at all.
So the court could have 3 or more American Judges on the bench.
As it is not a UN organization, country figures dont matter.

Second the reason i raised this issue was on the acts of the US govt in the UNSC.
Do you agree with what the US is doing, is the question i guess i want people to answer.

Really I see no reason why an American judge could not do the same thing. Meaning bring politics with him to the court room. I would rather be judged by a jury.

My faith in human kind to be unbasied is at a all time low. How would the best men/women be chosen? Who judges the judges?

The second question, Do I agree with the US and it's move to try and break the ICC, no. At least this is how I see the US's use of the Veto. Instead I would have rather seen the US not sign the ICC and ask the one's who did to replace all the US personal in the field (Peace Keepers) with people from their own country.

Why this wasn't done? Far from me to understand politics...but I personally don't think the US government would like to not be involved. Some claim the US is headed back to isolation, but I really don't see it. If it was this would had been a perfect time to start back that way.

Weasel · Post by **Weasel** » Wed Jul 03, 2002 4:39 am

Originally posted by CM

Edit: This is from the link you provided.
3rd para:

From what i remember from my paper, which i could post here when i am at home.
The ICC can not charge or judge troops of countries who did not sign the convention.
Just a note, but my Intl Law paper was on why the US doesnt like the ICC.

I read that, and admit it doesn't make sense to me. Why have a court where some couldn't be charged? Most of the Nations who signed the treaty have not committed War Crimes...right? Or if they have, have taken care of it in their own courts.

Why then have a ICC? It makes no sense to me.

Pregethwr · Post by **Pregethwr** » Wed Jul 03, 2002 11:38 am

The main reason for having a ICC is so that extraordinary institutions do not have to be specially created when outrages like Rwanda and Bosnia happen, there will instead be a standing institution to deal with it.

Also it is hoped because it is set up in 'peace time' it will carry more weight and be seen as more impartial rather than victorious powers setting up courts to try the defeated leaders (such as in Yugoslavia - why should the serbs accept a court that was set up by the countries that bombed them? but if the court had always been there...)

btw I don't believe that the US would be unduly singled out, if you have never met someone who hollered about other countries you have obviously never met a Irishman, or an Algerian, or a Basque or...

CM · Post by CM » Thu Jul 11, 2002 3:30 am

Was just reading last weeks economist and it had a leaders story on the ICC. It turns out that US troops will not be prosecuted by the ICC unless the US itself fails to do so. As well as other reasons. It is a good article on why the US claim is invalid. They personally dont agree with what Bush had done.

@Weasel, the reason i guess would be so that nations cant frame other countries, also it allows the nations to deal with their own people within their domestic law. The world is far from the perfect place where human values and international law over ride domestic ones. Thus I am guessing that countries would be allowed to try their own people with their doemstic laws. If not they will be tried by the International Community and the ICC. I think it is so that people like Milosovic and Saddam cant use their own legal system to stay free.

I personally feel that the best of the judges will be chosen for the ICC and they will not allow politics to come to the table. But who knows really.

VoodooDali · Post by **VoodooDali** » Thu Jul 11, 2002 7:28 am

I agree with CM. I am horrified that we will not be a part of the ICC, and I feel that our country's stand on this issue is making us yet more enemies--in the EU at that--just what we need at this point in our history... I don't think that American soldiers should be above the law.

At the same time, I can relate to some of Weasel's points. One thing that has irked me for quite some time is the sort of double-standard (maybe not the right word) that Europe uses in judging the actions of the USA. For example, a lot of Europeans say we are too militaristic, then when there is trouble somewhere, they ask us to go deal with it. I never felt that we should have been involved in Bosnia at all--it's in Europe's backyard and they should have sent all the troops.

Rob-hin · Post by **Rob-hin** » Thu Jul 11, 2002 10:02 am

The US needs to get the idea out of their head that they are the greatest force in the world. Even if they are.
They do not accept any other powerfull authority then their own.
And when they don't agree with it, they make a law for themselves so they can INVADE The Netherlands to "rescue" US militia...come on, thats just a sign of weakness.

At the same time, I can relate to some of Weasel's points. One thing that has irked me for quite some time is the sort of double-standard (maybe not the right word) that Europe uses in judging the actions of the USA. For example, a lot of Europeans say we are too militaristic, then when there is trouble somewhere, they ask us to go deal with it. I never felt that we should have been involved in Bosnia at all--it's in Europe's backyard and they should have sent all the troops.

It's not that everybody asks for US forces. America always feel the need to interfeer. I think this remains after WW2, the feeling of policing the world. They did a lott of good things back then, but times are changing. And the USA is still a bit stuck in those times IMO.

Bush is thinking about the USA, no more. While he should be thinking of this world, we've got just one you know.

fable · Post by **fable** » Thu Jul 11, 2002 10:11 am

@Weasel, if the US doesn't want to have its peacekeepers subject to the ICC, why not simply refuse henceforth from providing peacekeepers, rather than oppose the ICC, itself? The answer is so obvious that I strongly suspect the real reason for the US objection is that the very idea of an international court is unacceptable to the unilateralists who are ascendant in the Bush administration.

PosterX · Post by **PosterX** » Thu Jul 11, 2002 1:57 pm

I don't see how giving an international body unrestrained jurisdiction over US citizens without the protections of the Constitution can be a good thing.

fable · Post by **fable** » Thu Jul 11, 2002 2:15 pm

Originally posted by PosterX
I don't see how giving an international body unrestrained jurisdiction over US citizens without the protections of the Constitution can be a good thing.

I would completely agree with the above. However, this has nothing to do with either the mandate of the ICC, nor its powers.

RandomThug · Post by **RandomThug** » Thu Jul 11, 2002 3:06 pm

@Rob Hin

After world war dos America became without choice the big brother of the world. It would appear that we "meddle" but the fact is every other country, even ones like china and such not only rely but expect us to interfer. Sure in politics they claim we are going over our boundries, but they dont protestin the un (see China in the case of Gulf War).

America sends in its Children. Our SOLDIERS my friends and family, to fight in other peoples wars to help other people. People die. America isn't stuck in some time where we think we need too, we do need to.

Also you better believe were going to continue believing we are the best, because we are god darnit. When do you ever hear of any other countries soldiers dying in the numbers our soldiers do for other countries. How many other countries send the amount of aid to places like Mexico when they have giant earthquakes. What other country gives as much as we do. there is a reason why we are so greedy, its because we are in debt for our kindness. there is a reason why we are such an easy target for politics, its because were on top. As for the ICC I agree with weasel, as for the comments against america's decisions... I say sure we make some dumb choices and sure George bush isnt the greatest.

But you have to understand Bush isnt running the whole show, much like most puppets he is just the show. Many, MANY people behind him make decisions and such...

and for comments about the next two years, screw me for being optomistic but I say when some jerk offs attack us soil I am glad as HELL a republican is in office..

p.s. I voted for the Liberal Green party. And I am not republican, I am patriotic.

America is one of the greatest country's ever, and we suffer for it.

thug