The UN is becoming more stupid by the day.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
"That's why I was curious who you thought would carry out this trial of yours."

Universal jurisdiction is a nice thing. After leaving office, Bush, Blair, Rumsfeld, Cheney and the whole gang are open to prosecution from Albania to Vietnam. There's also maybe 30 years to get the bastards. Many things can happen....

You are talking about the supposed International Criminal Court. The US is not a member and neither is around 30 other countries last I heard. I suppose I could sit in my house and declare myself the International, super dopper, really cool, International Court but if other people don't recognize my authority then it's all a waste of time.

I'm not trying to be belligerent but if the EU tried to go after members or former members of the US government then I'd expect the US to react very hostilely. Even without violence there are numerous ways we can "influence" people into getting our way. Just look at what happened to Belgium's extra territoriality laws.

Remember there is currently a law before Congress in which any nation which does not agree to exclude US citizens from the EU's so called ICC then that nation will be ineligible for US foreign aid, military aid, favored trading status, and the US must oppose all loans to be made to that country. Seeings how all World Bank and IMF loans need at least a US abstention to pass I don't see any country committing economic suicide to fulfill the wishes of Europe's anti-American xenophobes.

[HershOstropoler]

Oerdin:

"You are talking about the supposed International Criminal Court."

No.

"The US is not a member and neither is around 30 other countries last I heard.... but if other people don't recognize my authority then it's all a waste of time."

The only problem is getting the bastards. The ICC has no jurisdiction over your Iraq war crime - not because the US is not a member, but mostly because Iraq is not a member.

"Even without violence there are numerous ways we can "influence" people into getting our way. Just look at what happened to Belgium's extra territoriality laws."

The extraterritoriality is perfectly legitimate. What turned it into a permanent embarassment was the possibility that individuals start proceedings in the absence of an accused. Your "influence" has very little to do with this.

"Remember there is currently a law before Congress in which any nation which does not agree to exclude US citizens from the EU's so called ICC"

It's not the EU's court.

"then that nation will be ineligible for US foreign aid, military aid, favored trading status, and the US must oppose all loans to be made to that country. Seeings how all World Bank and IMF loans need at least a US abstention to pass I don't see any country committing economic suicide to fulfill the wishes of Europe's anti-American xenophobes."

That doesn't even amount to scratch on the ass for us. If we get Rumsie, Cheney etc on the bench, the only consideration will be whether we piss away what remains of EU-US relations. by the time that might happen, I think you will have already finished that anyway.

[Dinner]

The ICC is an EU idea and it continues to be predominently an EU institution; window dressing aside. If the EU's ICC decided to go after Americans then the accusses or thus likely to be accussed simply won't go to the EU and no third party would dare to extrodite them for fear of tripping the US law I spoke of above. How do you get them then?

Further, what is to stop the US from simply inventing a competing court and trying EU politicians for similiarly worthless, trumped up, politically motivated charges? Is that a road we really want to go down? Wouldn't it be better to go after people who have commited crimes instead of just offended the sensabilities of silly leftests?

[Drake Tungsten]

I like the UN more after watching Ali G visit the place. Boutros Boutros Boutros Ghali is one cool guy.

[HershOstropoler]

"The ICC is an EU idea and it continues to be predominently an EU institution"

You are really relying too heavily on US propaganda.

As of 14 July 2003, 91 countries have ratified the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Out of them 22 are African Countries, 22 are from Europe (non EU countries), 18 are from Latin America and the Caribbean, 15 are EU member States, 12 are from Asia and the Pacific, 1 is from North America, 1 is from the Middle East.

http://www.icc-cpi.int/php/statesparties/allregions.php

The main reason why the EU has the strongest influence is that the US decided to not sign up.

"and no third party would dare to extrodite them for fear of tripping the US law I spoke of above."

That remains to be seen. Not everyone depends on you. Also let the hatred against you boil on for some years, some countries my well say just ****'em.

"Further, what is to stop the US from simply inventing a competing court and trying EU politicians for similiarly worthless, trumped up, politically motivated charges?"

You did that already for Latim America. Remember Noriega?

"Wouldn't it be better to go after people who have commited crimes instead of just offended the sensabilities of silly leftests?"

Starting a war of aggression is one of the most serious crimes.

[Dinner]

It is really hard to justify your position that it was a war of aggression given some 18 UN resolutions and several on going resolutions (never repealed) authorizing force against Iraq. If you recall the resolution passed in 1990 authorized UN forces, lead by America, to both force Iraq out of Kuwait and to take "any and all actions necessary to safe guard the region from further Iraqi aggression". That particular quote stuck in my mind because it has been so widely quoted during the run up to the latest round of fighting.

One of the funny things about writing your own UN resolutions is you get to word it as vaguely or precise as you please. It seems clear the 1st Bush administration deliberately wrote the 1990 resolution to be as broad as possible and specifically to never have an expiration date. How can you claim it is illegal when it was specifically authorized by the Security Council? Maybe the council should read the fine print closer next time.

Also Noriaga was tried under American law for being a drug smuggler. No international court was used that I can remember.

[HershOstropoler]

"If you recall the resolution passed in 1990 authorized UN forces, lead by America, to both force Iraq out of Kuwait and do take "any and all actions necessary to safe guard the region from further Iraqi aggression"."

I'm not going to check the resolution now, but the Bush I admin said itself they had no mandate to topple Saddam - that was their excuse to let the Kurds and Shiites get massacred. Also the SC passed a ceasefire resolution. Where does that one say "Hostilities will be resumed at America's pleasure" ?

"How can you claim it is illegal when it was specifically authorized by the Security Council?"

Specifically?

"Also Noriaga was tried under American law for being a drug smuggler. No international court was used that I can remember."

I was talking about "politically motivated charges". That was a political trial, or are you really denying that?