US Opts Out of World Court

[Imran Siddiqui]

On what legal basis do they claim the right to continue holding the person in detention muchless appeal his acquittal?

Because the belief that he probably will flee and attempt to avoid the appeal.

In a case from the 1950's, secret evidence was used to deny a WWII "war bride" the opportunity to come to the U.S. and join her husband. When eventually she was granted a hearing, the secret evidence was found to be worthless because the "confidential source" that offered it turned out to be a jilted former lover of her husband.

Hi, Mr. Strawman. Once more, what happens when evidence is secret business information... or better yet, matters of national security.

I think that we are several step above trade secrets in order of importance to the defendent's life. If you can not put a person on trial before an international tribunal without allowing the defendent or his lawyer see the evidence against him, you shouldn't be putting him on trial.

I disagree. If the evidence is highly sensitive, why should it be revealed for the world to know?

You must have done very well on the sections entitled Evading the Question and Logical Fallacies.

Seeing how you are the only one here Evading Questions and using Logically Fallacies... perhaps you did much better on those sections .

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Because the belief that he probably will flee and attempt to avoid the appeal.

On what legal basis do they claim the right to continue holding the person in detention muchless appeal his acquittal?

I really would like a real answer to this question because Roland wasn't too clear on this point. In addition, it smacks of double jeopardy.

Hi, Mr. Strawman. Once more, what happens when evidence is [irrelevent]... or better yet, matters of national security.

Forgoing the use of secret evidence will NOT require the release of dangerous war criminals, Imran. It would merely require that the ICC establish fair procedures for dealing with classified information in thier cases similar to the procedures used in US criminal cases. Those procedures require the government to give the defendent an unclassified summary of the classified information. People such as those who bombed the World Trade Center and the federal building in Oklahoma City, have been successfully prosecuted under these methods. I fail to see why it couldn't work on the international scale.

I disagree. If the evidence is highly sensitive, why should it be revealed for the world to know?

See above.

[TCO]

Don't worry, Dino. There is no way we are gonna be part of this exercise in academic lawyering. Just not gonna happen. People can get buttlock over it...or they can look for something that really needs attention...not my concern...OUT.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I really would like a real answer to this question because Roland wasn't too clear on this point. In addition, it smacks of double jeopardy.

How does trying the person on appeal lead to double jeopardy? Does that mean the system of Appeals in the US is double jeopardy?

And what do you mean by what legal bases do they claim... etc, etc. I've answered your question 2 or 3 times already. Because they don't want him to flee and avoid trial. That is the legal basis... war criminals should not be allowed to avoid their trials.

Forgoing the use of secret evidence will NOT require the release of dangerous war criminals, Imran. It would merely require that the ICC establish fair procedures for dealing with classified information in thier cases similar to the procedures used in US criminal cases. Those procedures require the government to give the defendent an unclassified summary of the classified information. People such as those who bombed the World Trade Center and the federal building in Oklahoma City, have been successfully prosecuted under these methods. I fail to see why it couldn't work on the international scale.

Just because this is how it is done in the US, doesn't mean that other Western nations have unfair trials because they do not do it in the same way. Some european countries have secret evidence and their trials seem very fair.

Secondly, international courts are very different than US courts. Countries would, rightly I think, be worried about espionage from other states. By giving up sensitive information, even a summery, would help in espionage attempts.

Now, what are the specific articles we are dealing with her that deal with secret evidence?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Does that mean the system of Appeals in the US is double jeopardy?

If we hold the person in jail while we protest his acquittal, it probably would be. Do try to keep up.

Some european countries have secret evidence and their trials seem very fair.

It seems fair TO YOU.tm That was fun.

Secondly, international courts are very different than US courts.

I've already realized that. The protections for the individual seem to be much less.

Countries would, rightly I think, be worried about espionage from other states. By giving up sensitive information, even a summery, would help in espionage attempts.

How is this relevent given the fact that States don't have the final say on what information gets withheld from evidence. The ICC does.

Now, what are the specific articles we are dealing with her that deal with secret evidence?

Article 68, sections 1-6 deal with the circumstances in which closed sessions of the Court may be held and evidence may be withheld from the defense.

[Imran Siddiqui]

If we hold the person in jail while we protest his acquittal, it probably would be.

How does that even qualify under the definition of double jeopardy?!

It seems fair TO YOU

And to you as well... unless you think Europe has unfair trials, and thus aren't truly democratic .

And also to most of the people in the world.

I've already realized that. The protections for the individual seem to be much less.

Than the US. Who says the US court system is the one the rest of the world should be following?

How is this relevent given the fact that States don't have the final say on what information gets withheld from evidence. The ICC does.

Article 68, sections 1-6 deal with the circumstances in which closed sessions of the Court may be held and evidence may be withheld from the defense.

2. As an exception to the principle of public hearings provided for in article 67, the Chambers of the Court may, to protect victims and witnesses or an accused, conduct any part of the proceedings in camera or allow the presentation of evidence by electronic or other special means. In particular, such measures shall be implemented in the case of a victim of sexual violence or a child who is a victim or a witness, unless otherwise ordered by the Court, having regard to all the circumstances, particularly the views of the victim or witness.

4.Where the disclosure of evidence or information pursuant to this Statute may lead to the grave endangerment of the security of a witness or his or her family, the Prosecutor may, for the purposes of any proceedings conducted prior to the commencement of the trial, withhold such evidence or information and instead submit a summary thereof. Such measures shall be exercised in a manner which is not prejudicial to or inconsistent with the rights of the accused and a fair and impartial trial.

6. A State may make an application for necessary measures to be taken in respect of the protection of its servants or agents and the protection of confidential or sensitive information.

You wasted my time on such trivialness?!! This is absurd! How can you say that including a summery of the evidence (which means the prosecutor has a say in what information gets withheld, and the ICC can agree or disagree that certain types information may be withheld) to protect the victim from reprisals is against a fair trial?!

Hell, I have problems with this country's insistance on defendants being able to face their accusers if the accusers have a reasonable fear that they will be killed (this is the reason that it is so hard to get mob bosses convicted). And 'witness protection' programs are a crock.

In fact, I'd like the US to adopt the ICC standards in the protection of victims and witnesses. It is much more logical and fair. And I'd like to know where you think the the lawyers of the defense can't have the summary of the evidence of testimony from victims?

Are you just nitpicking at irrelevant non-issues just to be irritating? I'm sorry, but all the anti-ICC propaganda by the American far-right is simply that: propaganda, that unfortunetly many Americans have been snookered by.

[Roland]

DinoDoc:

"Article 81, section 3[c]."
" We are assuming that the defendant would be acquitted if the charges against him/her. On what legal basis do they claim the right to continue holding the person in detention?"

Why is this such a problem ? If there is appeal, the acquittal is not final.

"On what legal basis do they claim the right to continue holding the person in detention muchless appeal his acquittal?"

I do not understand that question. If the law says you can appeal an acquittal, what more does it take ?

"I hope you can see how secret evidence can taint the very notion of a fair trial..."

I ask for the 2nd time - what exactly can be withheld, what can be withheld without the court having seen it ?
And what do you mean by use of secret evidence ? One is that the public is excluded, but where do you see that the PARTIES are excluded ?

"Those procedures require the government to give the defendent an unclassified summary of the classified information. People such as those who bombed the World Trade Center and the federal building in Oklahoma City, have been successfully prosecuted under these methods. I fail to see why it couldn't work on the international scale."

Where do you see the difference to the ICC statute ?

Where the disclosure of evidence or information pursuant to this Statute may lead to the grave endangerment of the security of a witness or his or her family, the Prosecutor may, for the purposes of any proceedings conducted prior to the commencement of the trial, withhold such evidence or information and instead submit a summary thereof. Such measures shall be exercised in a manner which is not prejudicial to or inconsistent with the rights of the accused and a fair and impartial trial.

"Article 68, sections 1-6 deal with the circumstances in which closed sessions of the Court may be held and evidence may be withheld from the defense."

Where do you get the withheld evidence from ? Is it the "in camera" that gets your balls in a knot ? If so, let me quote from the draft rules of evidence and procedure, like rule 72 2.:

2. In deciding whether the evidence referred to in sub-rule 1 is relevant or admissible, a Chamber shall hear in camera the views of the Prosecutor, the defence, the witness and the victim or his or her legal representative... .

(my emphasis)

Not-public does not mean withheld from the defense. I'd be glad if you could order your points along that line and explain what kind of "secrecy" you mean where and object to for what reason.

Oh, and GP: The US will jump aboard in maybe 10 years or so.

[Ecthy]

Just to keep it stirred

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
Typical example of double standards. The US won't answer for it's own crimes but expects everyone else to tow the line

2nd that.

Why are people like Floyd actually allowed to drive cars? "Hey, that guy's in MY way on MY road in a free country where I have the NATURAL RIGHT to go MY speed. KILL! " I hear him rant on the highway... or then maybe not, but that would be evidence for a lack of consistency

[Roland]

"the NATURAL RIGHT to go MY speed"

That's a german thing. Evil communist nazi government forces americans to crawl on the highway....

[Ecthy]

Yes, but isn't that somehow opposed to his perception of natural rights, especially in the Texan desert?

[Pekka]

I don't know HOW in earth you could EVER support such action as this one! AAARGH! It's just wordsplay. Bush is good at it. Oh those nice words.. but what do they really mean? Wake up.

BUsh ... what is it good for, absolutely nothing..

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Lies don't always worry me, especially coming from politicians. Par for the course. It was the blatant violation of the Constitution and the subversion of the will of Congress I find utterly disgusting. I think it set a dangerous precedent.

In my opinion, what Reagan did was far worthier of impeachment and removal than even that evil bastard Nixon was.

What was so illegal and unconstitutional about Iran-Contra that it makes Nixon's crimes pale by comparison? The only convictions that were upheld had to do with lying btw, the actual actions which were prosecuted were all dismissed or overturned on appeal, the justification being that these actions were not illegal. Read the Boland amendment sometime, it only forbids U.S. intelligence agencies from aiding the Contras, not the executive branch in general.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

a) Why only him?

Usually international law (precedent from Nuremburg) spares the common soldier, and prosecutes the leader of the unit. Or else, we'd have to kill most of the German soldiers back then.

b) IIRC, he only served 5 years

He actually recieved a life sentance... but I think it didn't survive appeal.

Nixon commuted his sentence IIRC.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Grrr

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

And you said 1922 Hitler, remember. We're talking about a Hitler who had yet to do anything but write rotten things.

Yes, but we KNOW he was. I'd kill one man to save millions... anyday.

So when are you going to take up arms on BUSH before he kills millions.

We're going to wait until he wipes out all the annoying people in NZ first.

[Roland]

Unless a killerpretzel hits first.