US Opts Out of World Court

[TCO]

I really don't care so much about the laughing at us. That is sort of a trendy thing. When they need us to pull the bacon out of the fire like WW2, they know where to come.

If the focus of this document is limiting US transgressions, than it is not adressing the real problems around the world...

I respect Roland's brains and his knolwedge but not his judgement on foreign affairs or on some aspects of the law of war (this is based on his remarks made after the Chinese F-8 knocked down our P-3). I don't trust people like that wrt our interests.

Also Imarn, just because it's international doesn't mean it's automatically good. Becoming more bound by supernational structures is not neccesarily going to improve things.

[Roland]

"It's a feel good exercise for academic lawyers..."

Like the Treaties of Rome ? Like the federalist papers ? Btw, the ICC differs from the ECJ in many ways - the ECJ is more like the US cupreme court, just more poerful.

"what situations would it swing into action for."

genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes (with detailed definitions); and the lack of state action; essentially Art 17:

Issues of admissibility

1. Having regard to paragraph 10 of the Preamble and article 1, the Court shall determine that a case is inadmissible where:

(a) The case is being investigated or prosecuted by a State which has jurisdiction over it, unless the State is unwilling or unable genuinely to carry out the investigation or prosecution;

(b) The case has been investigated by a State which has jurisdiction over it and the State has decided not to prosecute the person concerned, unless the decision resulted from the unwillingness or inability of the State genuinely to prosecute;

(c) The person concerned has already been tried for conduct which is the subject of the complaint, and a trial by the Court is not permitted under article 20, paragraph 3;

(d) The case is not of sufficient gravity to justify further action by the Court.

2. In order to determine unwillingness in a particular case, the Court shall consider, having regard to the principles of due process recognized by international law, whether one or more of the following exist, as applicable:

(a) The proceedings were or are being undertaken or the national decision was made for the purpose of shielding the person concerned from criminal responsibility for crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court referred to in article 5;

(b) There has been an unjustified delay in the proceedings which in the circumstances is inconsistent with an intent to bring the person concerned to justice;

(c) The proceedings were not or are not being conducted independently or impartially, and they were or are being conducted in a manner which, in the circumstances, is inconsistent with an intent to bring the person concerned to justice.

3. In order to determine inability in a particular case, the Court shall consider whether, due to a total or substantial collapse or unavailability of its national judicial system, the State is unable to obtain the accused or the necessary evidence and testimony or otherwise unable to carry out its proceedings.

[TCO]

Well like Bismark said...

Originally posted by Roland

And we were part of the frontline, you had the luxury of being etappe.

...God looks after drunkards and America. (I'm doubly blessed here... )

We are blessed as a country with great geography. I think that we did the right thing in taking up the mantle of Cold War leadership. but certainly we could have gone another way. A Sweden/Switzerland model...

I don't think the draft was such an effective instrument either in USA or in W.E. I think a top nothc professional army which of course includes longer service times is more effective. Also we had the draft from beginning of Korean War through end of Viet Nam War. Elvis was one of our top soldiers...)

[TCO]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

I mean what situations would it swing into action for. "Not another Calley but X." Define X.

AHH... well it swings into action for crimes of genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, which are not prosecuted (truely... ie, can't be a sham trial) in the state which the people who committed the crime come from. Since the US prosecuted Calley, the ICC can't take it up.

Who defines sham. What if Kitty Horse decides that X years in jail for Calley was not enough. He needs to hang. (I actually would have no problem with him hanging...mind you...but would be worried about a process which becomes too responsive to political pressure...I prefer keeping some of those things in the Constitution which we fought for at the founding of this country.)

[TCO]

Originally posted by Roland

"what situations would it swing into action for."

genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes (with detailed definitions); and the lack of state action; essentially Art 17:

(your inserted quote dissapeared when I replied)

Still seems like there is plenty of wiggle room in all that legal language to let an ICC act capriciously. I don't have confidence that it wouldn't.

[Roland]

"If the focus of this document is limiting US transgressions..."

It is about the Pinochets and Saddams of the world, not the Bushes and Blairs.

"(this is based on his remarks made after the Chinese F-8 knocked down our P-3)"

Ehm... whenhowwhatwhy ?

"I don't trust people like that wrt our interests."

I simply don't care about "your interests". Oh btw, I'd also have some reservations about the ICC. But for god's sake, know what you are talking about before making sweeping judgments based on speculation or Bush propaganda.

[TCO]

You don't have to care about our interests. We will take care of that.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Btw, the ICC differs from the ECJ in many ways - the ECJ is more like the US cupreme court, just more poerful.

I know, I was just using it to make a point of a court becoming more powerful over time.

Who defines sham. What if Kitty Horse decides that X years in jail for Calley was not enough. He needs to hang.

Sham is defined by the justices who would decide the cases to hear. A case in the US would probably not be deemed to be sham. A case in Zimbabwe, where the guy got off, and was obviously not a true trial, then perhaps they would decide it was a sham trial.

Just because they get a case, doesn't mean that they have to accept it... like SCOTUS.

And the ICC wouldn't be able to hang anyone (I believe the UN frowns on that) .

[Roland]

"We will take care of that."

I have some serious doubts about that.

"Still seems like there is plenty of wiggle room in all that legal language"
That's like saying there's a lot of water in the ocean.

[TCO]

Imran, ok. That's another problem I have with it. I want capital punishment included...

[Imran Siddiqui]

Still seems like there is plenty of wiggle room in all that legal language to let an ICC act capriciously. I don't have confidence that it wouldn't.

There is lot of room for the SCOTUS to act capriciously .

It is about the Pinochets and Saddams of the world, not the Bushes and Blairs.

Exactly. The Bush's and Blair's a propaganda tool used to defeat it.... without realizing that they would never be arrested.

You don't have to care about our interests. We will take care of that.

I believe joining this court is in our interests. Internationalism is in our interests. If it isn't... then why are we in the UN?

[TCO]

Originally posted by Roland
"We will take care of that."

I have some serious doubts about that.

Oh...so we need Papa Roland to look after us? But you said you weren't interested!

"Still seems like there is plenty of wiggle room in all that legal language"
That's like saying there's a lot of water in the ocean.

Of course...so the key is how much can we trust the process/people etc. From what I've seen of the average UN yahoos...I worry. don't want to get people like the French figure skating judges in there...

[Imran Siddiqui]

Of course...so the key is how much can we trust the process/people etc. From what I've seen of the average UN yahoos...I worry. don't want to get people like the French Figure sakting judges in there...

That is the Olympics... cheating is an international sport there .

The people that will be the justices will be highly respected justices from various UN countries (IIRC). A US Appeal Court Justice might even be included on it .

[Roland]

I don't care about your interests. But I'm just fascinated with your inept and corrupt government. Beats even ours in that regard, and that's no small achievement.

It may surprise you that the UN does not nominate figure skating judges.

Btw, what tickled your balls so much about the spy plane affair ?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Ah, one thing I forgot (silly me), is that Lt. Calley couldn't be tried under the ICC.

The ICC states that any crime has be 'widespread' or 'systematic'. One massacre wouldn't cut it.