1
   

U.S. Troops Must Not Be at the Mercy of the ICC

 
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Dec, 2004 03:03 pm
McGentrix wrote:
What are the Europeans doing to rectify this ill-will?

I suppose they could burn some more effigies. That always makes me want to be more European. Rolling Eyes


Ahhh...so we **** on them...and you are asking what they are doing to wipe our asses?

Egad!
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Dec, 2004 03:07 pm
Ummmm... no, more likely they **** on us and then expect us to be grateful. Then, act surprised when we are not.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Dec, 2004 03:10 pm
McGentrix wrote:
What are the Europeans doing to rectify this ill-will?


Since the current U.S. government is responsible for much of the ill-will, the onus is not on Europe to rectify it.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Dec, 2004 03:14 pm
What has the US done to be responsible for such ill-will? Invade Iraq? Use the term "freedom fries"?

Maybe if Iraq were in Europe I could understand, or could it be the Oil For Food program that we disrupted? Is that why Europe is mad at the US?

Please, explain to me why Europe is mad at us.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Dec, 2004 03:21 pm
Beth's post, while both admirable and succinct, sits a little hard on the inner eye with the two immediately above it.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Dec, 2004 03:24 pm
Yes, all the sh1t ^^^ hadn't been there when I started the post. Work interferes :wink:
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Dec, 2004 03:35 pm
LOL - [email protected] is all around us...
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Dec, 2004 04:30 pm
georgeob1 wrote:
Joe, argues that, in effect, the ICC & Treaty of Rome add nothing at all to (1) settled international law; (2) the ability of signatory nations to arrest and prosecute persons accused of violating their laws while on their territory; (3) the liability under the law of persons not in the territory of signatory nations when acts falling under the law are said to have occurred; (4) the vulnerability of.U.S. Military or government officials, acting under the legal authority of the U.S. government, to capricious or malicious misuse of the statute, the new court and its prosecutor - accountable as they are to no government.

By and large, I agree with points 1 and 2. I disagree with 3: I think the ICC's jurisdiction is actually more limited than it might be under traditional international law (see below). And I take issue with 4, in that I don't think the ICC is unaccountable to anyone.

georgeob1 wrote:
If all this is so, then several basic questions immediately arise. (1) What is the unique role, function and benefit of the law and court established by the Treaty of Rome?

Under traditional international law, crimes against humanity could be prosecuted anywhere by any state. That's how Adolf Eichmann could be tried in Israel, a state that didn't even exist at the time of Eichmann's crimes.

Most nations, however, are very reluctant to handle these kinds of prosecutions if they are not directly affected by the crimes -- and often they're reluctant even when they are directly affected. The ICC, I believe, is valuable in that it provides a forum specifically for these kinds of prosecutions. Furthermore, because it is an international tribunal, there is an added legitimacy to its decisions (no more accusations of "victor's justice" as with the Nuremberg tribunals).

Can war criminals and perpetrators of crimes against humanity be prosecuted without the ICC? Yes, of course. Is there a greater chance that they will be prosecuted under the ICC? I think so.

georgeob1 wrote:
If, both in matters of law and prosecutorial authority, the Treaty adds nothing at all to the ability of the signatory nations to deal with crimes done in their territory, what then is its purpose????? Why, if they already have this ability, do the signatory states go to such great lengths and expend so much political capital in extending the reach of the new institution to non-signatory states that oppose it???

See above.

georgeob1 wrote:
If the Treaty, its court, and prosecutor truly have no autonomy and act only in accord with the existing laws and expressed initiatives of its signatory states, confining their actions only to crimes done on their soil by accused parties over whom they already have accepted jurisdiction (and, presumably, the right of extradition subject to existing bilateral treaty), then what explains the extraordinary actions of the U. S, government in negotiating and concluding about 17 bilateral treaties, nullifying the options of the ICC with respect to U.S. citizens???

Well, Walter identified it rather nicely: self-interest. It's not that the US doesn't recognize the existence of war crimes and crimes against humanity: it's that the US doesn't want anyone else trying our war criminals.

georgeob1 wrote:
Given that this was done in the face of rather strong opposition and on occasion even threats by former allies to the nations with which we were negotiating, what could possibly explain the persistence and resolve of these contending parties?? Has so much effort been expended and rancor suffered on both sides - for nothing?? This defies belief.

All the contending parties are motivated, I'm sure, by self-interest. It's just that, in this case, one side is also serving the greater interest, while the other side is just serving itself.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Dec, 2004 08:39 pm
What accountability? To whom?

What greater interest are the signatories serving? Aren't these essentially the same states that had to be shamed into intervening in Bosnia during the slaughters being carried out by the Serbs this in their very midst>

Whose reluctance to try criminals who have committed crimes against humanity - that is apart from the rather ridiculous vagueness of the new statute itself?

Name a single issue involving a serious crime against humanity whose resolution was delayed or impaired by the lack of a court in which to try an accused who was in the custody of the victim government. Just one will suffice.

In what way is an accumulation of nations a source of greater legitimacy than just one whose people have suffered crimes?

Does the UN General Assembly posses more legitimacy than (say) Canada, or the United States? I think its track record suggests it offers substantially less.

You offer only sophistry and rationalization.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Dec, 2004 03:51 am
McGentrix wrote:
Ummmm... no, more likely they **** on us and then expect us to be grateful. Then, act surprised when we are not.


C'mon, McG...wake up!

Before your idol, George Bush, came along...we were getting along just fine with Europe. Oh, I'll grant that they sometimes laughed at us for the way the few knuckleheads (American conservatives) were treating Bill Clinton for enjoying blow jobs...but by and large, we got along fine.

Then Bush came along and started dissing everyone who wouldn't kiss his butt and go along with all his harebrained schemes.

Nope...we **** on them...not the other way around.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Dec, 2004 03:54 am
McGentrix wrote:
What has the US done to be responsible for such ill-will? Invade Iraq? Use the term "freedom fries"?

Maybe if Iraq were in Europe I could understand, or could it be the Oil For Food program that we disrupted? Is that why Europe is mad at the US?

Please, explain to me why Europe is mad at us.


No wonder you are an American conservative, McG.

Absolutely willing to rationalize every move a conservative politician makes...willing to shift the blame to the other side no matter how silly you look doing so...and then willing to feign surprise when people point out the obvious.

Yep...you are into pure kneejerk reaction...and damn near no thought. A perfect conservative.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Dec, 2004 07:31 am
So, let me get this straight... Because George Bush has decided to keep America's best interests stronger than Europes interests they got their panties in a bunch and decided they would be offended by Bush's actions?

Is that what you are saying? That Bush should be concerned about Europe instead of doing what's best for America?

I'd rather he didn't do that. If that makes me a perfect conservative, then yay for me! I am sure I am not alone in my beliefs.

How about we make a list of all the thing the Europeans are all ass-hurt about, shall we? That way we can better reationalize our feelings and maybe we can work out a plan for the Europeans to like us again. After all that is so very important...
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Dec, 2004 07:41 am
McGentrix wrote:
So, let me get this straight... Because George Bush has decided to keep America's best interests stronger than Europes interests they got their panties in a bunch and decided they would be offended by Bush's actions?



And exactly how has George Bush decided to keep America's best interests stronger than Europe's interests?



Quote:
Is that what you are saying?


No...that is what you are saying.

Jeez...if you can't even follow who says what when you are one of the people writing...how can anyone expect you to follow the really difficult stuff?


Quote:
That Bush should be concerned about Europe instead of doing what's best for America?


I would settle for Bush doing what is best for America. I hope some of that happens soon...but I am not optimistic about it at all.


Quote:
I'd rather he didn't do that. If that makes me a perfect conservative, then yay for me! I am sure I am not alone in my beliefs.


No you are not alone in your beliefs.

Lots of other people in this country are every bit as wrongheaded....and as blind to their mistake as you.



Quote:
How about we make a list of all the thing the Europeans are all ass-hurt about, shall we? That way we can better reationalize our feelings and maybe we can work out a plan for the Europeans to like us again. After all that is so very important...


If you want to make lists...make lists. If you don't think it is important to get along with neighbors...think it.

What could I tell ya?


(Note to the others: The rationalizations has begun to get thick. Unless you have a strong stomach...you might be better off tuning out for a while.)
0 Replies
 
ForeverYoung
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Dec, 2004 07:51 am
FreeDuck wrote:
Should anyone's troops be subjected to ICC authority?


No. And I'll raise you to, No one should be subjected to the ICC. It's a biased sham.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Dec, 2004 09:18 am
georgeob1 wrote:
What accountability? To whom?

To the signatories of the Rome Treaty.

georgeob1 wrote:
What greater interest are the signatories serving? Aren't these essentially the same states that had to be shamed into intervening in Bosnia during the slaughters being carried out by the Serbs this in their very midst>

They are serving the interests of justice.

georgeob1 wrote:
Whose reluctance to try criminals who have committed crimes against humanity - that is apart from the rather ridiculous vagueness of the new statute itself?

I agree that they have been reluctant to try war criminals and perpetrators of crimes against humanity, and I believe that they would be more likely to refer such cases to an international tribunal than risk the practical and political consequences of a prosecution within their own judicial systems. But then I already made that point in a previous post. I guess you missed that.

georgeob1 wrote:
Name a single issue involving a serious crime against humanity whose resolution was delayed or impaired by the lack of a court in which to try an accused who was in the custody of the victim government. Just one will suffice.

That you would ask this question is an admission that you have either been ignoring my posts or have simply not understood them. As I mentioned before, the problem isn't with the lack of courts (nations already have universal jurisdiction over the crimes listed in the Rome Treaty), the problem is with a lack of will on the part of states to prosecute the criminals.

georgeob1 wrote:
In what way is an accumulation of nations a source of greater legitimacy than just one whose people have suffered crimes?

Why were there four judges at the Nuremberg trials rather than just one?

georgeob1 wrote:
Does the UN General Assembly posses more legitimacy than (say) Canada, or the United States? I think its track record suggests it offers substantially less.

You're entitled to your opinion, no matter how misinformed.

georgeob1 wrote:
You offer only sophistry and rationalization.

In this forum, there often comes a time during a discussion where one of the participants says, in effect: "Your puny logic is no match for my strongly held beliefs." In this particular case, that participant is you and that time is now. Given your appalling lack of familiarity with my posts, I don't see much reason to continue responding to yours. I'll leave you, then, undisturbed in the complacent comfort of your strongly held beliefs.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Dec, 2004 12:06 pm
Some seem to go on with the discussion here, still without knowing about what they are talking.

Why, for instance, is this ICC 'European'?

Judges:
The President: Judge Philippe KIRSCH (Canada)
First Vice-President: Judge Akua KUENYEHIA (Ghana)
Second Vice-President: Judge Elizabeth ODIO (Costa Rica)
Judge Karl T. HUDSON-PHILLIPS (Trinidad and Tobago)
Judge Claude JORDA (France)
Judge Georghios M. PIKIS (Cyprus)
Judge Tuiloma Neroni SLADE (Samoa)
Judge Sang-Hyun SONG (Republic of Korea)
Judge Maureen Harding CLARK (Ireland)
Judge Fatoumata Dembele DIARRA (Mali)
Judge Sir Adrian FULFORD (United Kingdom)
Judge Sylvia STEINER (Brazil)
Judge Navanethem PILLAY (South Africa)
Judge Hans-Peter KAUL (Germany)
Judge Mauro POLITI (Italy)
Judge René BLATTMANN (Bolivia)
Judge Erkki KOURULA (Finland)
Judge Anita UŠACKA (Latvia)
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Dec, 2004 02:58 pm
joefromchicago wrote:


georgeob1 wrote:
What greater interest are the signatories serving? Aren't these essentially the same states that had to be shamed into intervening in Bosnia during the slaughters being carried out by the Serbs this in their very midst>

They are serving the interests of justice.

We too claim to be serving the interests of justice. Whose claim has more merit? How do you decide that? There was a degree of international justice before the ICC, and I have as yet seen no basis on which to conclude that the ICC will add something that isn'r already there.

Quote:
georgeob1 wrote:
Whose reluctance to try criminals who have committed crimes against humanity - that is apart from the rather ridiculous vagueness of the new statute itself?

I agree that they have been reluctant to try war criminals and perpetrators of crimes against humanity, and I believe that they would be more likely to refer such cases to an international tribunal than risk the practical and political consequences of a prosecution within their own judicial systems. But then I already made that point in a previous post. I guess you missed that.


I didn't miss the point. I just don't give it any value. What practical and political consequences? Perhaps you are referring to the possibility of small, weak states afraid of trying an official of a large, powerful one. However merely the act of referring the case to the ICC would bring on whatever retribution might be forthcoming from the large state. Do you think the ICC will be an effective buffer? I don't.

Quote:
georgeob1 wrote:
Name a single issue involving a serious crime against humanity whose resolution was delayed or impaired by the lack of a court in which to try an accused who was in the custody of the victim government. Just one will suffice.

That you would ask this question is an admission that you have either been ignoring my posts or have simply not understood them. As I mentioned before, the problem isn't with the lack of courts (nations already have universal jurisdiction over the crimes listed in the Rome Treaty), the problem is with a lack of will on the part of states to prosecute the criminals.

Perhaps you missed points in my posts as well. I fully agree with you that the real problem here is the lack of will - on the part of small and large, powerful countries as well - to deal with crimes against humanity at all, much less prosecute those responsible. This was amply demonstrated after the disintegration of the former Yugoslavia. Thus my point that the ICC is a remedy for a non-existent problem. It won't create the will that doesn't exist, but it will create an illusion that something beneficial has been done. My experience of life is that such illusions delay the application of real solutions - they do harm.

Quote:
georgeob1 wrote:
In what way is an accumulation of nations a source of greater legitimacy than just one whose people have suffered crimes?

Why were there four judges at the Nuremberg trials rather than just one?


Nuremberg was merely an application of victor's justice. There were four justices only to placate the mutual suspicions of the victors. That feature added no justice and overall little justice was done at Nuremberg. The court prosecuted only the losers - it made no attempt to apply the same standards of law and justice to the winners. It is hardly a good model for what you are undertaking to defend.

Quote:
georgeob1 wrote:
Does the UN General Assembly posses more legitimacy than (say) Canada, or the United States? I think its track record suggests it offers substantially less.

You're entitled to your opinion, no matter how misinformed.

Clearly our opinions differ, and those differences are arguable. However please don't characterize my views as "misinformed". I know well whom the General Assembly has appointed to UN commissions on human rights and other matters and I see very little legitimacy in these actions.

Quote:
georgeob1 wrote:
You offer only sophistry and rationalization.

In this forum, there often comes a time during a discussion where one of the participants says, in effect: "Your puny logic is no match for my strongly held beliefs." In this particular case, that participant is you and that time is now. Given your appalling lack of familiarity with my posts, I don't see much reason to continue responding to yours. I'll leave you, then, undisturbed in the complacent comfort of your strongly held beliefs.


Well my phrase "only sophistry" was excessive: "some isolated instances of sophistry" would have been more accurate. Same, however goes for your "appalling lack of familiarity…". I missed a detail here and there, but in fact read and understood your posts quite well.

We do disagree about a lot here, but it really comes down to a few basic points. (1) Is the UN and the organizations created in association with it a fit nucleus for the rapid growth of international law and the processes for administering - but not enforcing - it? (2) Given the lack of either the means or the will among nations to enforce international law, is it wise for us to promote any added means for administering it at all, considering that unenforced law is a threat to all law? (3) A principal tenant evident in the statements and actions of our former European allies is that the now unchallenged power of the United States is a more serious problem than others, such as unrest in the former Ottoman Empire; poverty & disease and lack of political development in Africa; and nuclear proliferation. Is it wise or in the national interest of the United States to accommodate this principle, or should we resist its application at every turn? I believe it is on these points where our disagreement is born, not the arcane legal issues in the ICC.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Dec, 2004 03:31 pm
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Some seem to go on with the discussion here, still without knowing about what they are talking.

Why, for instance, is this ICC 'European'?

Judges:
The President: Judge Philippe KIRSCH (Canada)
First Vice-President: Judge Akua KUENYEHIA (Ghana)
Second Vice-President: Judge Elizabeth ODIO (Costa Rica)
Judge Karl T. HUDSON-PHILLIPS (Trinidad and Tobago)
Judge Claude JORDA (France)
Judge Georghios M. PIKIS (Cyprus)
Judge Tuiloma Neroni SLADE (Samoa)
Judge Sang-Hyun SONG (Republic of Korea)
Judge Maureen Harding CLARK (Ireland)
Judge Fatoumata Dembele DIARRA (Mali)
Judge Sir Adrian FULFORD (United Kingdom)
Judge Sylvia STEINER (Brazil)
Judge Navanethem PILLAY (South Africa)
Judge Hans-Peter KAUL (Germany)
Judge Mauro POLITI (Italy)
Judge René BLATTMANN (Bolivia)
Judge Erkki KOURULA (Finland)
Judge Anita UŠACKA (Latvia)


OK so its not all European. However your list of judges convinces me I would never wish to surrender my right to a trial by a jury of my peers, who would better understand my motives and the situation I faced, to such a tribunal as this. I would even prefer a national court in any of the countries they represent, knowing my government would represent its interests to them. Finally I note that a Canadian is president and the list includes a Frenchman - I seriously don't trust the good wishes of either country.


Lastly I would never willingly put my fate in the hands of a Irish woman. I have spent too many years escaping their clutches. I prefer Latin (even German) women.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Dec, 2004 04:22 pm
georgeob1 wrote:
Finally I note that a Canadian is president and the list includes a Frenchman - I seriously don't trust the good wishes of either country.


I know of your prejudices against these countries.

I didn't know, however, that they are so strong that you neglect the academic reputation by citizens of these countries just because of their nationalty.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Dec, 2004 04:54 pm
I'm quite willing to accept the acadenic credentials and judicial qualifications of these individuals, however, not their widespread prejudicies and neuroses towards my country. I do not consent to putting any of them in a position of authority over me or those sworn to protect me. I don;t claim this as an act of justice on my part, just one of prudence and common sense.

Further I don't believed I have adopted any prejudices as the term is usually used against France and Canada. Instead I prudently take note of the all too widespread preudicies Canadians and Frenchmen express about my country.

However it is really Irish women that I fear the most. (And I am Irish.)
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/19/2019 at 11:32:11