US calls for a Netherlands Invasion Clause

[Ned]

Attached is a link to a description of the elements of the various war crimes for which one could be prosecuted. I can see how American presidents on down to the lowest shoulder can be charged with "war crimes" by an enemy of the US bent on "war by other means."

http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/iccelementsofcrimes.html

[Imran Siddiqui]

Give specific examples please.

And please tell me how charging of crimes by one party automatically leads to arrest.

I swear, we get to the ICC and anti-ICC people forget how basic legal systems work. They seem to think that charging crimes leads immediatly to prosecution and jail time.

[axi]

"The EU would love to get its hands on Ariel Sharone and lock him up for trial for example and some would like to drag Ronald Reagan to the Hague."

Scare tactics. The ICC can't charge someone who committed a crime before the Rome Statute comes into effect (also known as no ex post facto).

No problem. If Sharon keeps up his current policies, they will have reasons to pick him up only a week after the statute comes into effect.

[nationalist]

Originally posted by el freako


No but that combined with Kyoto, the US's stance on weapon's proliferation treaties have severely damaged it over the last 18 months - if it were not for sympathy aroused by the events of 11/9 then the rift would be greater.

What are you talking about here? Are you saying that Britain is pro Nuclear-proliferation? Are they angry that we signed START III?

I assume that from your statement that the Americans would also not have the political will to use them on American soil either.

No, we wouldn't. What country would use nuclear weapons on its own soil, near its own citizens? (excluding controlled testing purposes, such as U.S. in the southwest.)

The French SLBM's have a range of 3000 miles, they can put around 600 warheads on those submarines - so what if you can hit back with five times that much, which 600 cities don't you need?

I think your numbers are off. According to my International security class I took last semester, France has at most 48 SLBMs, which can hold at most 6 warheads apiece. But it doesn't matter. The U.S. and France are not going to go to nuclear war.

[nationalist]

Originally posted by Jaakko
Now, what I don't get is why you guys keep taking Saint Marcus' rantings seriously. What's next, good old Ted Kaczynski giving us the straight dope on the US govt?

[Gatekeeper]

Originally posted by rah
Originally I thought the US should have signed this agreement. But thanks to all the comments by the euroknowitalls here, I now understand why we didn't.

RAH

I second that sentiment.

[Roland]

Rah: You are sooooooo easily influenced....

[ZoboZeWarrior]

Originally posted by nationalist
Yes, France has Nukes. So what? If we would invade France (something the we never will do ), the French would never use Nukes on their own territory. It would kill more French the Americans. They wouldn't have to political will to use them. I don't think that France has the technology to hit the U.S. mainland with Nukes, but if they do they should remeber just how many more nukes we have than them. No, the French will never nuke an American. We could invade if we wanted to, but we really don't want to. I think that Europeans ashould look East if they fear invasion. The Turks are coming for you.

Using nuke, damn I hope not. But still I'm not sure we have the capacity to reach USA as USA are still our ally actually.

Since in case of war, if we use nukes we will certainly use Nuke to destroy groups of war-ships. No more.

Using nukes on enemy cities will be use only if our foe have the only objective to annihilate us.

This is only my point of view of the good use of Nukes.

---

People are too easly speaking about war. USA citizen must understand that war is not only a funny show at the TV where the "Good" guys kill the "Bad" guys.

2 W.W. were suffisant, weren't it ?

The rest of world enjoy watching soccer. Americans, wars ...

[Fidel]

Originally posted by Eli


This court is a tool of harrasing countries on political background and used only against the weak and unpopular.

not if it is a permanent one, unlike the one in the hague

[Fidel]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
If Americans travel to foreign countries aren't they subject to the laws of those countries?

um, yes, but at the same time those countries are subject to american jurisdiction

[ZoboZeWarrior]

Each american tourist is an sleeping invasion forces waiting the good moment to act !

[Ned]

I have read through the treaty and note the following:

There is no immunity for government officials. Article 27.

A military commander is responsible for acts of all under his command. Article 28 The president of the United States is commander in chief.

The case can be brought be any state that is party, by the SC, or by the Prosecutor. If a state is a party, it submits to jurisdiction. Even if it has not become a party, its nationals are still subject to being prosecuted for war crimes on referral by a party state if the crimes were committed in the referring party-state's territory.

There are a number of procedural details concerning evidence, etc. before the trial is authorized. Arrest is not automatic.

Just for your amusement, one of the war crimes is causing environmental damage Article 8(2)(b)(iv). Another is using land mines. Article 8(2)(b)(xx). Another is "humiliation." 8(2)(b)(xxi).

[Roland]

"but at the same time those countries are subject to american jurisdiction"

I wished the Yanks would take the spirit of their 11th amendment seriously....

[Roland]

Ned:

There is functional immunity (ie while in office); one article refers to that but I can't be arsed to look it up again.

As for your "amusement": destruction of the environment like poisoning water or soils is hardly funny. Land mines subject to their ban which is incomplete. Humiliation "within the established framework of international law", and art 17 1. d) (sufficient gravity).

And if you have reservations regarding Art 8, make use of Art 124 and watch how it develops in practice.

[Akka]

Originally posted by Roland
Land mines subject to their ban which is incomplete. Humiliation "within the established framework of international law", and art 17 1. d) (sufficient gravity).

If I remember well, China and USA were two of the 4-5 countries that refused to ban mines some times ago...