US calls for a Netherlands Invasion Clause

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yep...

People are afraid of the ICC being politicized want politicians in the Security Council to decide when to have a tribunal! The irony is great

[Roland]

You know, politicization is good when it comes from us, bad when it comes from them...

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Arrian
Any international court will be political. I'm not saying that's a reason not to have this new court, but come on, you know there will be all sorts of political wrangling going on.

-Arrian

Much less than there would be if we merely relyed on the Security Council to call ad hoc tribunals. A permanent court would be much less likely to vote based on political beliefs, because it is composed, not of politicians, but justices... and the fact that their need not be political gains given up simply so there can be a trial in the first place.

[Imran Siddiqui]

You know, politicization is good when it comes from us, bad when it comes from them...

Oh yes them. Evil Eurocoms. Damn you Roland, why are you so socialist .

[Roland]

Ad hoc courts with political veto always smell of bias. Justice must also be seen to be done - I for one don't want patchwork justice.

[Imran Siddiqui]

That's your problem, Roland. We in the US ALWAYS see patchwork justice .

[Roland]

I know, I know....

Btw, when exactly did "trial by plea bargain" become constitutiuonal ?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Constitution? We still follow that thing?

[Roland]

At least people quote it all the time when they
a) want a gun
b) search for an authorative definition of "republic"

[Imran Siddiqui]

That's just David Floyd... we ignore him.

The scary thing is... probably half of all Americans probably don't even know how the government works.

[Ecthy]

I didn't even notice this had just turned into another Roland-Imran ****fest

As for the topic - the US will never invade any allied country, even if Americans are going to be sentenced there.

[Ned]

Roland, the primary purpose of the United Nations is to secure peace. Punishment of war criminals is only a secondary purpose. I believe the above posts have illustrated how the new International Criminal Court could be used by some to make "war by other means." A couple of good examples of the latter would be for Turkey to file accusations against the Kurds in Iraq, Greece against Turkey, India against Pakistan, Israel against the Palestinians, the Palestinians against the Israelis, Vietnam against the Cambodians. Etc. etc. etc. The fact that heretofore this is not gotten on hand was because the approval of the Security Council was needed to go forward. I think that accusations of of war crimes and intervention by United Nations into a conflict through the International Criminal Court could exacerbate an ongoing dispute which primarily needs a political settlement rather than legal intervention.

In earlier posts, you have said that it is better to have a permanent, as opposed to an ad hoc, court. Perhaps this is true. But, this does not necessarily require that Security Council approval be avoided . The one does not necessarily follow from the other.

Without Security Council approval, the International Criminal Court is a positive danger to peace.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I think that accusations of of war crimes and intervention by United Nations into a conflict through the International Criminal Court could exacerbate an ongoing dispute which primarily needs a political settlement rather than legal intervention.

Other way around. Legal intervention is the only thing that can end a conflict that can't be solved by political settlement.

Without Security Council approval, the International Criminal Court is a positive danger to peace.

Why? Why should the Security Council have vetos over court cases? This is what we call a lack of checks and balances.

[Ned]

Imran, Because the SC has the exclusive jurisdiction on matters of international security. They have to be consulted until there is a peace agreement.

[nationalist]

Originally posted by Ecthelion
I think they call it "jingoism" though, I even doubt the word "chauvinism" exists in that language.

Not certain though

We use both words, as they are not interchangable terms. I wouldn't use either to describe U.S. reaction to posts on this thread. I would call them self defense.