International Criminal Court

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

Originally posted by fable

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.

It has everything to do with it. The ICC is supposed to be able to try anyone from anywhere in the world when it believes the local jurisdiction didn't sufficiently handle the case. The court operates under rules dreamed up by left-wing Eurocrats not the US Constitution. It is wrong to agree to this even in principle.

fable · Post by **fable** » Thu Jul 11, 2002 3:28 pm

Originally posted by PosterX

It has everything to do with it. The ICC is supposed to be able to try anyone from anywhere in the world when it believes the local jurisdiction didn't sufficiently handle the case.

No offense, but this is wrong. The ICC has *no* such mandate, and nothing like it. The ICC couldn't retry OJ. The ICC's powers do extend globally; this is implicit within its concept. But the Rome Statute is dedicated to enforcing a series of what might be termed "norms of human rights" that concern themselves with war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity.

PosterX · Post by **PosterX** » Thu Jul 11, 2002 3:51 pm

Originally posted by fable

No offense, but this is wrong. The ICC has *no* such mandate, and nothing like it. The ICC couldn't retry OJ. The ICC's powers do extend globally; this is implicit within its concept. But the Rome Statute is dedicated to enforcing a series of what might be termed "norms of human rights" that concern themselves with war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity.

I know that. The problem is that there is no jury, no confrontation of accusers, no subpoena of witnesses. These are fundamental principles of the US Constitution. I don't want people sitting in some office in The Hague deciding what US troops did or did not do in Bosnia, or Iraq, or anywhere else. The US government can not agree to give a foreign power jurisdiction over US citizens.

fable · Post by **fable** » Thu Jul 11, 2002 4:16 pm

Originally posted by PosterX

I know that. The problem is that there is no jury, no confrontation of accusers, no subpoena of witnesses. These are fundamental principles of the US Constitution. I don't want people sitting in some office in The Hague deciding what US troops did or did not do in Bosnia, or Iraq, or anywhere else. The US government can not agree to give a foreign power jurisdiction over US citizens.

If you've been following the UN Tribunal's actions in trying war crimes related to Rwanda and Bosnia, then you know that there is confrontation of accusers, complete access to lawyers, family members and government representatives, and subpoena of witnesses. Even Milosevic is getting the chance to cross examine any witness brought against him by the prosecution. These rules also form part of the ICC.

PosterX · Post by **PosterX** » Thu Jul 11, 2002 5:43 pm

Originally posted by fable

If you've been following the UN Tribunal's actions in trying war crimes related to Rwanda and Bosnia, then you know that there is confrontation of accusers, complete access to lawyers, family members and government representatives, and subpoena of witnesses. Even Milosevic is getting the chance to cross examine any witness brought against him by the prosecution. These rules also form part of the ICC.

I don't think this is true of the ICC. Even if it is this isn't the only flaw. Another is the criminalizing of "acts of agression". No one knows what this is supposed to mean. It could outlaw things like a US attack on Iraq, the US attack on Afghanistan, and other preemptive military action.

In reality I expect the US to have de facto exemption to the ICC anyway. I just don't like the idea of giving an international body the authority to try citizens from any country.

Weasel · Post by **Weasel** » Thu Jul 11, 2002 6:06 pm

Originally posted by fable
@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?

If I had my way this would be the case. No peacekeepers ...unless for each mission there is a clause. If the US is not needed in the mission...not reason to have the clause.

This would not..(if I was the one deciding) be limiting aid. I'm not a greedy person and I'm willing to help countries. If I had my way...aid would be cut in half to the big aid receivers of today...(Egypt, Israel, ect..) and more given to the countries of Africa. I would expect more freedom for the people of these countries...but I would not expect them to change governments.

If the judge had your charactar Fable, I wouldn't worry one bit. I would be the first in line demanding the US sign. I can say the same about CE, HLD, Mr.Sleep...most of the people here at GB. But I consider this bunch the exception to the rule.

For the court to be fair in my opinion...countries like Iraq, Iran, Syria must be a part of it...they must have the right to have citzens of their countries be able to be judges. The draw back being...most of the high ranking people are corrupted (IMHO) and this is not to say the judge will be if he/she came from that country...but the odds are he/she might. The odds are one form the US might be as well...but not as much as from the three listed.

When I see the ICC...I see another UN. A noble goal gone wrong. Politics have made it useless..(Except for the aid part it does...which is the only reason I still believe the US should be a part of it.)

(More later..I have a headache and I blame it on Fable.

) j/k

fable · Post by **fable** » Thu Jul 11, 2002 6:25 pm

Originally posted by PosterX

I don't think this is true of the ICC. Even if it is this isn't the only flaw. Another is the criminalizing of "acts of agression". No one knows what this is supposed to mean. It could outlaw things like a US attack on Iraq, the US attack on Afghanistan, and other preemptive military action.

Actually, it was left deliberately vague so that member states could define it, and everybody on the international level *does* know what it means--it's already been used by member states as a justification for the ICC to try terrorists.

Rob-hin · Post by **Rob-hin** » Fri Jul 12, 2002 5:40 am

Originally posted by RandomThug
@Rob Hin

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.
thug

Well America is X times bigger then The Netherlands. So it would be strange if we did give as much help as the USA. Europe tries to help as a community, but this doesn't always work perfect. That's the problem if you work together. In my opinion America does to many things solo. They have done VERY good this in the past however.

I think the news people in America get to see is very USA centerd too, the rest isn't as important as American news. That way, it would easely seem America does more then the rest of the world.
But I've never been to Amirica so I can't be sure about this.

Don't get me wrong BTW. I like America, but it woudn't hurt to work together with us.

(A bit off topic but for example. The Nature agreement against polution, I don't know how to call it in Englisch. But the whole world signed it except America because it would be bad for their economy.)

Ps. America is a great force indeed. But everybody has warheads so it seems... So what's real power today?

RandomThug · Post by **RandomThug** » Fri Jul 12, 2002 10:10 am

@ rob hin

Your definitly right about america be centralized and egotistical about tiself, but is that really wrong? We are proud as hell of who we are, so we talk about ourselves. There is a LARGE community of americans who are well lectured on all events foreign and local.

As you pointed out, we are HUGE. While the majority of other countries as well look at us with glasses, in the sense they dont see the part of America that is objective and knowledgeable, just the hicks and the rednecks.

And about the warhead thing... not everyone has the balls... and as my dad put it.

"It took Al queda four years to plan that attack, in a day they hurt us bad, four (five, six i forget) months later... it took us a month to level thier country..."

I know thats not all relevant but my dads a General Contractor, not some philosopher.

thug

fable · Post by **fable** » Fri Jul 12, 2002 2:56 pm

"It took Al queda four years to plan that attack, in a day they hurt us bad, four (five, six i forget) months later... it took us a month to level thier country..."

We didn't level "their" country. We toppled the government of a country, but Al-Qu'ida was merely resident there, as they are in many other nations (including, to a lesser extent, Holland, Italy, and Canada). Nor has it been shown that there is a greater concentration of Al-Qu'ida operatives in Afghanistan than in any other nations. The main thing we were aiming for, the head of the Al-Qu'ida network, bin Laden, is still at large. Despite some fancy verbal footwork, the Bush administration failed to bring him in.

PosterX · Post by **PosterX** » Fri Jul 12, 2002 4:16 pm

One thing everyone must realize is that the US is not first among equals. The US not only has the greatest ability to effect the world but what happens in the world greatly effects us. The reason the US appears to act unilaterally is that we have more options available to us. Europe only has diplomacy as their solution while the US has other options available. So when a problem calls for another solution the US has to act unilaterally.

Rob-hin · Post by **Rob-hin** » Mon Jul 15, 2002 4:54 am

Sorry about the late response, I'v been sick.

I've just hoped the USA would work more together with us.
But I think we managed to get a reasonable agreement about the ICC after all.

So were getting there!

Tamerlane · Post by **Tamerlane** » Mon Jul 15, 2002 5:01 am

The US have said that there will be serious reprecussions should any of their soldiers be accused under the ICC. Whilst that may lead to a removal of troops from U.N peacekeeping, which will greatly tarnish a great deal of alliances which they have or go even further is anybodies guess. With the exception of Powell, I don't trust any one of the members in Bush's cabinet.

EDIT

@ Rob-hin, this isn't the first time that I've noticed this, but why does it say at the bottom of your post. Last edited on never

fable · Post by **fable** » Mon Jul 15, 2002 5:48 am

I've removed a pair of posts having nothing to do with the ICC. Guys, if you want to discuss someone's spiffy sig, please do it in PMs. Thanks.

CM · Post by CM » Tue Jul 16, 2002 12:02 am

Man this thread took off.

Random Thug, i disagree that the world expects the US to be involved or get involved unilaterally. I dont think any country likes it soverignty violated or being told what to do. The US has interfered where it does not belong, and only does so when its interests are at stake. Only then. That is why the US vetoed and said there was no genocide in Rwanda.

Take the gulf war as an example. The US did not have to get involved, but as oil was at stake they sent in troops. There were no soliders during the Iran Iraq war. As kuwait was/is the second largest exporter of oil to the US, it was important that the US got involved.

Bottom line is, the US does need to get involved at all. It didnt in the case of Rwanda, Ethopia and Eriteria etc, and things are working. The US fashions itself as the big brother and thinks what it does is good for everybody. Many times it isnt.

The ICC is an international court that does not override domestic law, unless the countries sign and ratify it. I for one am very happy that it is power and that everybody will be held accountable, instead of biased favoritism for those helping out another country and the losers getting a raw deal.

PosterX. Aggression is a violation of the law, set down in Westphalia. Hitler did it. He was violating law. When the Soviets did it in Afghanistan it was a violation of the Law. When Saddam did it it was a violation of the law. When the US does it is a violation fo the law. But many countries rather kiss up than take a legal and moral stand.

Tom · Post by **Tom** » Tue Jul 16, 2002 1:41 am

Just like rich people have a moral obligation to help poor people so rich countries have a moral obligation to help poor countries its that simple.
Thus I think that USA like other rich countries have to help in a number of ways among these with peace keeping. I see the ICC as an extension of this where there could be a large amount of corporation between the countries.
It is a court that is truly needed to deal with crimes against humanity that takes place in many countries. The USA is very unlikely to have any personnel dragged before the court since I don't think USA or its personnel will perpetrate any serious crimes. Furthermore I don't think USA have committed any crimes the ICC would consider since the Vietnam war.

HighLordDave · Post by **HighLordDave** » Tue Jul 16, 2002 3:36 am

I think the problem for the US is not having someone convicted of a war crime, which as our friend Tom says is very unlikely because American soldiers are generally not as savage as some others in the world, but rather that even being indicted for a war crime would likely end a soldier's career. If a young Army Captain who is bucking for promotion suddenly finds himself at the center of an international investigation, no matter if charges are ever pursued, he/she will always be a pariah and an "accused war criminal". That will probably result in being "passed over" for promotion and eventual dismissal from the service.

It is my opinion that the United States should participate in the International Criminal Court. If we're going to be the world's leader (and we are), then we need to set an example by not placing ourselves above international law. Since we have called for certain people to be brought to international justice (ie-Slobodon Milosivec, Saddam Hussein, etc.), then we must be willing to subject our own citizens and soldiers to the same prosecution for the same actions.

However, I also understand Dubya's concerns because I think there are some countries who will trump up charges against American soldiers for the sake of turning them into an international show over nothing.

CM · Post by CM » Tue Jul 16, 2002 3:44 am

Originally posted by HighLordDave
I think the problem for the US is not having someone convicted of a war crime, which as our friend Tom says is very unlikely because American soldiers are generally not as savage as some others in the world, but rather that even being indicted for a war crime would likely end a soldier's career. If a young Army Captain who is bucking for promotion suddenly finds himself at the center of an international investigation, no matter if charges are ever pursued, he/she will always be a pariah and an "accused war criminal". That will probably result in being "passed over" for promotion and eventual dismissal from the service.

However I dont think the ICC would consider a charge without substantial proof. In a court system, you cant accuse anybody without proof. There has to be circumstantial evidence or a very large likelihood that the person is responsible, and then an investigation will take place. This isnt the mock court, where one nation can say whatever it wishes and the ICC has to look into it. The ICC can very well say that it is not responsible or doesnt need to look into it.

Second the ICC does not over-ride domestic laws, thus the state has the right to try their own soliders. Only when the ICC deems that they have not done enough will they intervene. They cant just pick the guy up, like in the case of Milosovic and charge him or her.

Rudar Dimble · Post by **Rudar Dimble** » Tue Jul 16, 2002 4:13 am

My problem with America and the ICC is this:

they ARE all over the world (as Bush himself stated) to bring "people to justice" (as poor Bush loves to say).
So THEY can bring other people from other countries to justice, but it is illegal for US to do that with their criminals??

Sorry, but I find this very contradictorial (sp??)

If they don't want to participate in the ICC, they should back off from other countries. Otherwise you take the risk of being brought to justice.

In the end the USA will lose many of it's allies (although this would create a very dangerous situation). They want everyone to help them, but the refuse to behave normally. The arrogance of the US governement (and Bush in particular) is out of proportions.

This is my opinion, but I understand that the Americans here won't agree with me...

Rob-hin · Post by **Rob-hin** » Tue Jul 16, 2002 8:28 am

You do have a point about this Rudar.
If you interfere with other countries, there shoult be rules about what you can and can't do. If you don't follow those rules, then you should be punished. By not accepting the ICC, you put yourself above the law.