The Hague Invasion Act

[Apocalypse]

I don't know one person in my real life who knows about this act. Most of them don't even know what Hague is.

[Ned]

I really like the idea of cutting of military assistance to those countries that sign the ICC. Let's start with Holland.

Saint Marcus, as I said before an earlier thread on this topic, an arrest of American for war crimes without America's consent is an act of war on United States. Please get this through your very, very thick skull. The act the war would be by Holland against the United States and not the other way around. When are you going to understand this?

The ICC is fundamentally flawed in that it does not require Security Council consent prior to bringing a case. This flaw will only cause or extend future conflicts as combatants file complaints with the ICC against the other county's leaders: War by other means.

In the case of the United States, there are all sorts of lunatics in the world more than willing to bring ICC actions against America's military and against America's leaders. The current threat to Kissinger being arrested at the request of a Chilean judge is an example. An arrest of Kissinger without United States' consent by any country is an act war on United States.

[Az]

blah , Echtlion. only 60+ countries ratified it . It's in the site.

[JohnIII]

Originally posted by Apocalypse
I don't know one person in my real life who knows about this act. Most of them don't even know what Hague is.

Well, he wasn't very inspiring, even for a Tory.

[Apocalypse]

Originally posted by JohnIII
Well, he wasn't very inspiring, even for a Tory.

I was talking about The Hague, but some people did think I was talking about the Tory.

[- Groucho -]

Don't worry too much. America doesn't have the greatest record of pulling off daring rescue missions. (Can anyone say Iran?)

Does it bother any other posters that the ICC will purport to have authority over everyone on earth after it is ratified by 60 nations, even those people whose countries have not ratified the treaty?

Even the Geneva conventions only bind signatories.

[Lincoln]

"Does it bother any other posters that the ICC will purport to have authority over everyone on earth after it is ratified by 60 nations, even those people whose countries have not ratified the treaty?"

It is the old story of absolute corruption. They think it won't apply to the "world" court.

[Roland]

Amazing what bull**** gets throuh congress. Or did you just make that up, Dino ?

"Saint Marcus, as I said before an earlier thread on this topic, an arrest of American for war crimes without America's consent is an act of war on United States."

Darling you can arrest foreign nationals on your territory, we can arrest foreign nationals on our territory, just respecting the terms of consular protection. It's called territorial principle and sovereignty. If you want the personal principle I recommend feudal Europe, roughly 500-1500.

"An arrest of Kissinger without United States' consent by any country is an act war on United States."

Not if he moves his ass into that country's jurisdiction.

"Does it bother any other posters that the ICC will purport to have authority over everyone on earth after it is ratified by 60 nations, even those people whose countries have not ratified the treaty?"

Read the detailed provisions in the ICC statute about the link between jurisdiction and ratifying states.

[Asher]

I'd LOVE to see the rest of NATO try to put up a fight against the US.

[Roland]

At the Hague ? Only if their helicopters don't crash on their own....

[ZoboZeWarrior]

Special American Forces are mostly good in Holywoodian movies.
I prefere largely British special forces. They have maybe less technological gadget, but are better trained.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Ned
I really like the idea of cutting of military assistance to those countries that sign the ICC. Let's start with Holland.

Saint Marcus, as I said before an earlier thread on this topic, an arrest of American for war crimes without America's consent is an act of war on United States. Please get this through your very, very thick skull. The act the war would be by Holland against the United States and not the other way around. When are you going to understand this?

The ICC is fundamentally flawed in that it does not require Security Council consent prior to bringing a case. This flaw will only cause or extend future conflicts as combatants file complaints with the ICC against the other county's leaders: War by other means.

In the case of the United States, there are all sorts of lunatics in the world more than willing to bring ICC actions against America's military and against America's leaders. The current threat to Kissinger being arrested at the request of a Chilean judge is an example. An arrest of Kissinger without United States' consent by any country is an act war on United States.

What a load of crap. Arresting a foreign national on your own soil isn't an act of war by any reasonable definition of that term.

The US' sovereignty does not extend to include its citizens when they are abroad. If that were the case, I'd have a very lucrative career robbing banks just south of the 49th...

[Rogan Josh]

As a matter of interest, does anyone here actually think that the US could succesfully invade Europe, assuming all the European countries were united against them?

I am not asking who would win a war, but could the US 'conquor' Europe without inside help?

(Assuming Nuclear weapons are not used - obviously no side wins if nukes are used...)

[Deathwalker]

America's should be arrested if they commit war crimes.
But please America invade Europe, they would never stand a chance. It not like they would be going to war with a third rate backwards country like there used to.

[ZoboZeWarrior]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
As a matter of interest, does anyone here actually think that the US could succesfully invade Europe, assuming all the European countries were united against them?

Not conquere, but destroying army & gouvernment, maybe.

[QUORE]
I am not asking who would win a war, but could the US 'conquor' Europe without inside help?

(Assuming Nuclear weapons are not used - obviously no side wins if nukes are used...) [/QUOTE]

If the war is getting hard for them, they would not hesitate to use it. A little propaganda on CNN, and the people of USA will not object.