The Hague Invasion Act

[Lincoln]

There will be a shootout in Texas if OBL gets captured alive by Bush. That there stuff is in the constitution...

[Panag]

Originally posted by Lincoln
There will be a shootout in Texas if OBL gets captured alive by Bush. That there stuff is in the constitution...

hi



have a nice day

P.S. , in all 50 states and the federal district , ...

[Ned]

Originally posted by Sprayber
Article 8 (2) (a) (ii)-2
War crime of inhuman treatment


Elements

1. The perpetrator inflicted severe physical or mental pain or suffering upon one or more persons.
2. Such person or persons were protected under one or more of the Geneva Conventions of 1949.
3. The perpetrator was aware of the factual circumstances that established that protected status.
4. The conduct took place in the context of and was associated with an international armed conflict.
5. The perpetrator was aware of factual circumstances that established the existence of an armed conflict.



Will one of you legal gurus tell me what this is saying?

Sprayber, This certainly would include torturing POW's, or making the Palestinians suffer assuming, of course, the are protected under the 4th Geneva Convention which requires a conflict between two contracting parties, i.e., two parties to the treaty.

The whole of the ICC is like this. Murder per se is not covered. However, a deliberate attack on a civilian population in a war is.

Which gets back to an earlier post by Roland that this statute is just like a statute on murder. It is not. It wholly depends upon the acts of a government. Under principles established in our prosecution of the Japanese after WWII, even the president of the United States can be tried for the crimes committed by those under his command. The opposite is also true. Acting under order is not an execuse.

I believe that if this statute had been on the books during WWII, virtually all the US command structure would have been prosecuted for war crimes. We know at the time, use of nuclear weapons was intended to shorten the war and ultimately save lives. However, under the ICC, such and intent is no excuse. Our president would be guilty.

The statute is flawed in concept and execution. The United States is wholly justified in being actively hostile to any state that signs it.

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by Saint Marcus


Funny. That's exactly what you are did in Afghanistan, Iraq, etc, etc, etc.

Bad troll Marky, they declared war on the US, remember?

You have to do a LOT better then that, your slipping into the minor leagues old boy.

[Saint Marcus]

Bad troll Marky, they declared war on the US, remember?

Iraq did not declare war on the USA. Nor did the Afghan governement (the Taliban at that time).

And harboring enemies of another nation isn't a declaration of war, otherwise the US would also have declared war on China.

You have a very selective memory.

We know at the time, use of nuclear weapons was intended to shorten the war and ultimately save lives.

American lives. And it's still disgusting and sick that the Americans, who claimed to be the good guys, wiped out two entire cities with nuclear weapons.

The United States is wholly justified in being actively hostile to any state that signs it.

Too bad only you see it that way. whine, whine, *****, *****. The world's laughing in your face.

[Jon Miller]

the use of nuclear weapons saved japanese lives also

I do not see why people don't understand this

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

nobody declares war officially on anybody anymore

but unofficially war was declared and waged

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

I think that the decision to use nuclear weapons was one of the greatest decisions Truman made.

Jon Miller

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Saint Marcus American lives. And it's still disgusting and sick that the Americans, who claimed to be the good guys, wiped out two entire cities with nuclear weapons.

Not to threadjack, but I lived in Nagasaki, with a view of ground zero and the peace memorial out my apartment's bedroom window.

A good friend of mine for many years, Nakagawa Masako, was born in Hiroshima. Her father was a doctor at the time the bomb was dropped, he provided what medical aid he could at the time, 20 years later he died of radiation related cancers.

My ex-brother-in-law, 11 years old in 1945, was being trained at that time to "die for the emperor" and to fight American troops with a bamboo spear. He wasn't being trained that way, to later fight with a rifle. He was trained as part of a spearmen formation of kids, that was to make suicide attacks.

In 1945, the Japanese directed citizens to turn in to the government gold, silver, all metals, jewelry, anything of hard asset or direct production value, and the civilian population was nearly (and in some cases, actually) starved to support the "needs" of the military. 80% of the country's dwindling GDP was directed to the war effort.

Infant and child mortality rates were up drastically nationwide, due primarily to malnutrion and lack of medical supplies, because all priority was given to the military, and the civilian population was supposed to accept it without complaint, "for the good of the nation."

Even after the bombs were dropped, there were active plots to assassinate government officials and the emperor himself to prevent any surrender, the radicals involved preferring national mass suicide and a fight to the death, to the last man, woman and child.

Dropping those bombs saved hundreds of thousands of Japanese lives, perhaps millions, depending on how much and how fanatic resistance on the ground would have been. If you read the history of the Sengoku Jidai, and Hagakure, you have a little idea of how fanatical the Japanese would have been given the mentality of the time.

[Chris 62]

You miss again, dear boy...

Originally posted by Saint Marcus
iraq did not declare war on the USA. Nor did the Afghan governement (the Taliban at that time).

Did Iraq invade a US ally?
Don't bother, you know the answer.
Did Afghanistan support a terrorist organization that attacked the US?
Again, you know the answer.
Your trolls are going down hill, you have lost the touch.

And harboring enemies of another nation isn't a declaration of war, otherwise the US would also have declared war on China.

Harboring and ading and abetting are different things.
But you knew that already.

You have a very selective memory.

Talking to yourself again?

American lives. And it's still disgusting and sick that the Americans, who claimed to be the good guys, wiped out two entire cities with nuclear weapons.

Yes, just like it was sick to lord it over Indonesia for three centuries.
You have some point?

Too bad only you see it that way. whine, whine, *****, *****. The world's laughing in your face.

Looks like your nomal crybaby whine, actually.

[Roland]

Originally posted by Chris 62
Show me the provision for a world court Roland.

In ANY international law, and in any accord the US has signed.

Just in case you really don't know it: the "provision" is the ICC statute.
If you mean the power or competence to base it on, it is in the treaty-making power of sovereign states (refer to the Vienna Convention on Treaty Law if you really want something to read).
As for "accord" the US has signed - the US has signed the ICC statute.
Or do you mean ratified ? But we don't need that, unless you deny that the treaty-making-power rule does apply to the US.
As for the US not having ratified the ICC statute - it is not applicable to the US as a consequence.
If you think this is a treaty infringing on third parties, explain.
As for the ICC - it does not depend on US ratification to come into existance. Or do you deny the existance of the ECJ and the ECHR because the US has nothing to do with the respective regional instruments ? But oddly enough, US nationals can (and do) bring cases before these courts.

Originally posted by rah
I don't know what's funnier.
The Americans that are claiming we're all powerful.
Or the others claiming we're powerless.

Funny thing is that raving US rightwingers and raving euro leftwingers usually agree on the "US all powerful" thing. We really should dedicate some island to nutopia and bring'em together there....

[Ned]

Roland, From a legal point of view, were WWII to recur, would America be obligated under the new ICC to invade Japan rather than use nuclear weapons - even if the purpose was to shorten the war and save lives?

[Roland]

The ICJ has advised (sort of a legal opinion, no ruling) that the use of nuclear weapons violates international law. Not very convincing reasoning there, IMO.

Materially, the ICC is based on existing international law. If there were a ban, the question arises of circumstances excluding illegality or culpability. But overall under the current standing of international law, America would be obligated not to use nuclear weapons - but this is regardless of the ICC.

[Ned]

Well, Roland, the ICC certainly present a problem. We undertook the bombing of German cities in order to shorten the war and save lives, particularly the lives of Allied soldiers and Jewish prisoners. Similarly we undertook the bombing of Japanese cities to shorten the war and save lives, particularly the lives of U.S. soldiers. In neither case was the bombing necessary to win the war. The failure to bomb, however, would have lengthened the war and increased Allied casualties.

It seems to me that the ICC should not get involved in second-guessing these kinds of decisions.

I believe also that I personally am alive today due to my country's actions in bombing Japan. My dad was an army company commander who would have been part of the Allied invasion of Japan. He may not have survived.

I know, or at least I think I know, that if the matter were put to a vote of the American people, the vote would be even today be to bomb Japan in order to shorten the war and save lives. To say that this is a war crime under the ICC makes it very difficult for this nation to participate in that treaty, in my humble opinion.

[Chris 62]

He who laughs last laughs best...

Is this what you are referring to Roland?

http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/icc/docs/icc-statute.htm

or maybe we should look at the status:

http://untreaty.un.org/ENGLISH/bible/englishinternetbible/partI/chapterXVIII/treaty10.asp

Notice under acceptance and ratifacation, there is NOTHING in the USA box.

Now, I'm no big shot laywer like you, but for an agreement to be binding on the USA, they would have to agree to it, no?

Care to try again?