US calls for a Netherlands Invasion Clause

[Imran Siddiqui]

The ICC directly treads on matters under the exclusive province of the SC.

What, war crimes tribunals? How is that exclusively the province of the SC... documentation please.

The promoters tried to bypass the SC for the simple reason that there was only one country with a veto impeding their plans. That country was the US, the only country with a veto to not ratify the ICC.

That doesn't make ANY sense. Remember the US actually SIGNED the Rome Statute, so most likely any SC vote would not have been vetoed by the US at all.

Why do you keep forgeting that when you find it convenient?

Um... what in the Hell are you taking about?

You've just admitted that the whole process will still be political even after the Rome statute. So what would be the difference?

What's the different between letting SCOTUS handle court cases and Congress doing it? SCOTUS, while political, is MUCH less political.

Now, in the above statement replace SCOTUS with ICC, and Congress with the SC.

And why do you get so anty when someone hasn't responded to you in *gasp* less than 18 hours. I'm not online 24/7 .

--

And can we invade Holland now? At least that way when we annex them, they'll have a team in the World Cup .

[DinoDoc]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

What, war crimes tribunals? How is that exclusively the province of the SC... documentation please.

I think that he is refering to the fact that the SC has been the only body to create them before.

Um... what in the Hell are you taking about?

A previous thread on the exact same subject.

What's the different between letting SCOTUS handle court cases and Congress doing it? SCOTUS, while political, is MUCH less political.

I fail to see how comparisons between national and international law wash in this instance.

And why do you get so anty when someone hasn't responded to you in *gasp* less than 18 hours. I'm not online 24/7 .

It was on page three.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I think that he is refering to the fact that the SC has been the only body to create them before.

Does that mean they are the only body that can?! Is that stated in the UN Charter?

I fail to see how comparisons between national and international law wash in this instance.

Always pull this BS, no matter how close to the truth it is. Yet the analogy holds. The SC is more political than the ICC would be, just like Congress is more political than the SCOTUS is. Justices who are appointed are far more impartial than politians. Look at the ICJ for instance.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Always pull this BS, no matter how close to the truth it is. Yet the analogy holds.

By your own admission the analogy is a lie, Imran. Please try to come up with a better one.

[Ned]

Imran, Think of this, for a moment. A leader, let us say Arafat for example, stands accused of war crimes. He is trying to negotiate a settlement with the other side, let us say Israel. He agrees to an overall peace on the condition that both sides drop all complaints against the other concerning war crimes. Let us say the Israeli's agree. A peace settlement is signed.

I would suspect that the SC would block all later efforts by the families of victims to bring Arafat to trial. The SC would respect the settlement agreement and effectively to end the issue of war crimes trials.

But now let us suppose we have an independent ICC prosecuter with an agenda. Suppose he brings a war crimes complaint against Arafat anyway. Suppose Arafat is arrested. Suppose the Palestinians revolt in order to have Arafat released?

I forsee greater difficulties in achieving peace unless the issue of war crimes complaints can be resolved as a part of a peace agreement. With the SC forming an essential part of any peace process, these agreements can be enforced. But, with an rogue ICC prosecutor, they cannot.

[Imran Siddiqui]

By your own admission the analogy is a lie, Imran.

Oh look, words in my mouth. The analogy is totally true. As I said, no matter how close to the truth the analogy is you still disregard it. The analogy holds no matter how much BS you try to push.

Congress: SCOTUS :: SC: ICC

But now let us suppose we have an independent ICC prosecuter with an agenda. Suppose he brings a war crimes complaint against Arafat anyway. Suppose Arafat is arrested. Suppose the Palestinians revolt in order to have Arafat released?

And suppose they do? If the man committed war crimes then he should be arrested, no matter what the consequences. Putting in a peace treaty that he should not be charged with war crimes is illegal. It is not for the other country to decide if someone committed war crimes or not.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

But now let us suppose we have an independent ICC prosecuter with an agenda. Suppose he brings a war crimes complaint against Arafat anyway. Suppose Arafat is arrested. Suppose the Palestinians revolt in order to have Arafat released?

And suppose they do? If the man committed war crimes then he should be arrested, no matter what the consequences. Putting in a peace treaty that he should not be charged with war crimes is illegal. It is not for the other country to decide if someone committed war crimes or not.

Now that, Imran, is exactly where you and I disagree. I believe achieving peace is more important that putting a guilty party on trial. After all, we settled with Japan on the condition that the Emperor remain in power. Everyone below him went on trial for war crimes, etc. Could this peace agreement been achieved at all if the Emperor could have been brought to trial anyway by victims of Japanese aggression?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Oh look, words in my mouth. The analogy is totally true. As I said, no matter how close to the truth the analogy is you still disregard it. The analogy holds no matter how much BS you try to push.

If you insist.

Me: I highly doubt that the Rome Statute has the power to change [the currently unequal way of administering international law] unless of course you can tell me with a straight face that a Russian or Chinese general who orders the massacre of civilians is even remotely in danger of appearing before the ICC.

You then procede to admit as much in your response to me. Is that enough BS push in its direction?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Now that, Imran, is exactly where you and I disagree.

Well there you go.

Is that enough BS push in its direction?

Yes, that more than enough.

Because you are simply deflecting the question. What does this have to do with anything? How can you say that the SC isn't less polticial than the ICC, like Congress is less political then SCOTUS? If a Russian or Chinese general was accused of war crimes, the ICC would investigate, and SC would refuse to think about holding an investigation. There you are, the ICC is less political than the SC.

What? You think that if a Congressman was on trial for something that he'd have a less political trial if the Congress decided on an ad hoc court rather than leave it to the court system?

Why don't you talk about the issue and try not to deflect it onto other things?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
How can you say that the SC isn't less polticial than the ICC, like Congress is less political then SCOTUS?

I'm not talking about how political the ICC will be in comparison to any other body and never have been. I'm saying that the comparison between international and national law are specious when argueing for the ICC and that you can surely come up with a better arguement.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I'm not talking about how political the ICC will be in comparison to any other body and never have been. I'm saying that the comparison between international and national law are specious when argueing for the ICC and that you can surely come up with a better arguement.

And I wasn't comparing international and national law . I was comparing the interplay between courts and legislative bodies and using the US's court and legislative body as examples to use when talking about the UN's court and legislative body.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I was comparing the interplay between courts and legislative bodies and using the US's court and legislative body as examples to use when talking about the UN's court and legislative body.

Where the analogy falls apart in this instance is that in the US court system, equality before the law is an overriding goal. In international law, it isn't even a consideration.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I never mentioned national or international law. Streaching an analogy beyond the bounds it was stated until it falls apart is an interesting tactic, but also wrong .

[Tom201]

I believe achieving peace is more important that putting a guilty party on trial.

I agree, politics can sometimes achieve more good than a trial. But I wont establish it as a rule. When politics decide who gets to court and who not, there is no question that certain states will gang up witch each other and block any effort to try anyone of their ppl. So if you want a court at all, it has to work with as less politics influence as possible. Otherwise its just a farce and you cant really speak of a institution of fairness and justice.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Tom, that is true... if you want to use politics rather than the rule of law to get desired results, then you'll have your fear of everyone jumping on the US.

The long term gains outway the short term losses (in that example of peace).