US calls for a Netherlands Invasion Clause

[Roland]

I see you people had another great gift from the halluzination company.

Just a couple spoilers:

1. Kissinger . ICC statute is NOT retroactive. No way.

2. Iraq and China. Did not sign. Great company the US got there. As a sidenote, Iran and Israel did sign (not ratify yet).

3. The evil Hague against the US - most or all war crimes covered are under universal jurisdiction anyway. So if a US citizen commits a war crime in Columbia or Afganistan, he can be indicted and tried in a court anywhere - Brazil, France, Burkina Faso...

4. The bombing off-target - bollocks. Read the ICC statute. I'm getting tired of doing of the work of the research-impaired.

[TCO]

looks like no big loss that we don't sign. seems like a publics work project for academic lawyers...

[ZoboZeWarrior]

The fact is that USA, feel the right to judge any foreigner for war crime, but deny this right to UN.

They simply impose their law. Not an humanist law, but the good old natural law of the Stronger.

Most American citizens will not be against that. Many feel that they are superior than the rest of humanity. For the other which could have some doubt on that fact, CNN will explain them that the other are Bad and USA is defending justice and God.

[Roland]

Well it is actually beneficial. If you sign we'll likely get a US judge on that court, which will most likely result in a mix of America's best legal farces: the OJ Simpson and the Bush/Gore election trial.

Now, what is the ICC, Mr apple pie ? A papertiger ABM for lawyers, or a horrible threat to US... whatever ?

[TCO]

just a silly waste of time...

[Roland]

Originally posted by GP
just a silly waste of time...

So is life. (Should be wearing black today, I guess...)

[Saint Marcus]

Europe had plenty of double standards during the age when they ruled the world.

of course two wrongs make a right huh?

nationalist: if the UK is so pro US, then why is it so much against the US when it comes to this ICC? They, with France, have voiced the strongest criticism on the USA for it's proposal. And before you're getting off on the idea of the US invading Europe, please note that France has nukes too.

Marcus, the interchange regarding us being the only country wanting Slobo tried was surreal.

Sorry about the confusion. I know you weren't the only one, and the "yes you are" was meant as a reply agains the US being in favor, not the "only one" being in favor. I only realised that just yet, so let me say it here.

the US wasn't the only nation in favor of putting Slobo on trial

happy?

[nationalist]

Originally posted by Saint Marcus

nationalist: if the UK is so pro US, then why is it so much against the US when it comes to this ICC? They, with France, have voiced the strongest criticism on the USA for it's proposal. And before you're getting off on the idea of the US invading Europe, please note that France has nukes too.

Britain would not end its long term friendship with the U.S. over something as trivial as the ICC.

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.

[el freako]

Originally posted by nationalist


Britain would not end its long term friendship with the U.S. over something as trivial as the ICC.

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.

Originally posted by nationalist

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

Originally posted by nationalist
I don't think that France has the technology to hit the U.S. mainland with Nukes, but if they do they should remember just how many more nukes we have than them.

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?

[Akka]

Still can't understand why Americans can't bear the idea that they can be judged for a WAR CRIME or a HUMANITY CRIME by a foreigner court. You fear that it can be used against USA. Doh. I don't think it's so easy to put someone in trial for these two kind of crime. I would even say it's much difficult than it should. Using ICC as a tool against USA is just paranoia, or more probably some kind of excuse.
Because if not for this reason, the only one that is left is just that Americans can't bear the idea that they can be judged by anything but themselves. Why imply that they consider that nobody but them is able to do a fair trial.
Think about it honnestly a few seconds before answering, this can be more true than you would like to admit.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Akka le Vil
Still can't understand why Americans can't bear the idea that they can be judged for a WAR CRIME or a HUMANITY CRIME by a foreigner court. You fear that it can be used against USA. Doh.

I think Rah summed it up best...think about what he said.

BTW: you really do need to restrain Marcus. He's going to bring more and more converts to my side...

[TCO]

Originally posted by Saint Marcus





Sorry about the confusion. I know you weren't the only one, and the "yes you are" was meant as a reply agains the US being in favor, not the "only one" being in favor. I only realised that just yet, so let me say it here.

the US wasn't the only nation in favor of putting Slobo on trial

happy?

[Imran Siddiqui]

There is absolutely no justification whatsoever for overthrowing sovreign democratic states.

No, there isn't. However, it isn't a 'crime against humanity', at least not to the ICC.

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).

Can you imagine the Secretary of State on an official mission to Greece, for example, being arrested and taken to the Hague?

Impossible. Diplomats are protected under the Vienna Convention.

It should be pretty obvious that we are not going to join some organization like this that is an excuse for Euro leftists to attack American rightists.

But it really isn't. I don't see the court being able to haul ANY American up there. Even Kissenger, for all his crimes, would not be arrested, because most of his 'evil' was overthrowing governments, which the ICC doesn't care about.

---

And yes, The United States is being hypocritical. We think nothing of trying Slobo (and if we ever get our hands on Saddam, there is a trial in his future), but we can't fathom some court having jurisdiction over us, even though there is a great (and I'm mean 99.9% great) probability that no American will ever be arrested because of a war crime.

And yes, Saint Marcus is hurting the ICC cause, A LOT. He is making this seem like an anti-US court, when it very much isn't so.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Akka le Vil
Still can't understand why Americans can't bear the idea that they can be judged for a WAR CRIME or a HUMANITY CRIME by a foreigner court. You fear that it can be used against USA. Doh. I don't think it's so easy to put someone in trial for these two kind of crime. I would even say it's much difficult than it should. Using ICC as a tool against USA is just paranoia, or more probably some kind of excuse.
Because if not for this reason, the only one that is left is just that Americans can't bear the idea that they can be judged by anything but themselves. Why imply that they consider that nobody but them is able to do a fair trial.
Think about it honnestly a few seconds before answering, this can be more true than you would like to admit.

One of the members here has as his sig a quote from Chomsky to the effect that every American president is guitly of war crimes if judged by the standards of Nuremberg. Are you saying, Akka, that there is absolutely no interpretion of the new treaty that could apply to a US ex-president? There are certainly a lot of people in the world that are anti-United States and who truly believe that all presidents are guilty of war crimes.

Do you have a link to the treaty itself?

[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?