The Hague Invasion Act

[Sixchan]

Playing to much MP is confusing you.
Seizing US personel is a violation of the Nato agreement, Holland would be the treaty breaker, and by the treaty, all of Europe would be at war with it.
You should examine the Nato treaty before saying such things.

Umm, wouldn't the ICC be the ones siezing them? And the ICC isn't a member of NATO, so if the US attacked Holland, which had not siezed and US personell, wouldn't the US be attacking Holland?

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by Saint Marcus
In other words, it isn't a problem if people are put on trial before a Belgian court for acts of genocide and warcrimes, but it is a problem when they are put on trial before the ICC.

That is precisly it Marky.

Doesn't entirely make sense. If the ICC as such is the problem, we should just hand over all American warcriminals to Belgium, and let them be tried and convicted there.

If they exsist, they must be tried under the laws of where they commit such a crime, UNLESS such a place has no effective court system (IE a "kangaroo court" where the verdict is preordained).
The US would object to moving to a jurisdiction just to move, and would insist that such individuals be tried under the Universal code of Military Justice (Which is far harsher then US civil courts, and much easier to convict with).

What about the Scottish court in Holland which handled the Lockerby case?

That was Britian's decision, the US has effective treaties with Britain and a solid judical system exsists.

What about the UN court in Holland which handles cases of genocide and warcrimes commited in former Yugoslavia?

I'm not convinced of the validity of this, where a man like Slobo committed his crime is where he should be tried, but the issue of fair trial becomes an issue.

As you can see, in theory a permanent "Nuremberg" type tribunal seems like a good idea, but in practice their are many questions that have yet to answered, and procedures accepted and worked out.

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by Sixchan
Umm, wouldn't the ICC be the ones siezing them? And the ICC isn't a member of NATO, so if the US attacked Holland, which had not siezed and US personell, wouldn't the US be attacking Holland?

That would imply that they have gone beyound a court mandate to being a full blown jailer, which is beyound the charter posted earlier.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Sixchan


Umm, wouldn't the ICC be the ones siezing them? And the ICC isn't a member of NATO, so if the US attacked Holland, which had not siezed and US personell, wouldn't the US be attacking Holland?

Good point. An attack on the ICC is not an attack on Holland. NATO should not be involved in defense of the ICC.

However, if the United States is conducting operations against the ICC, any intervention by Dutch forces against U.S. forces would be an act of war on United States, not the other way around. We would invoke the NATO charter to suppress Dutch aggression.

[Saint Marcus]

UNLESS such a place has no effective court system

what happeneds then?

Say Americans did commit warcrimes in Afghanistan. Afghanistan doesn't have an effective court system. Were should those Americans be tried, should the US refuse to do so (for whatever reason)?

Only answer: international court, ala the Yugoslavia court.

[Saint Marcus]

Good point. An attack on the ICC is not an attack on Holland. NATO should not be involved in defense of the ICC.

However, if the United States is conducting operations against the ICC, any intervention by Dutch forces against U.S. forces would be an act of war on United States, not the other way around. We would invoke the NATO charter to suppress Dutch aggression.

There's just one little problem. While all ICC facilities aren't on dutch soil (like embassies) all the land around it is. If American troops violate Dutch sovereignity by moving armed forces into the country without permission (which will never be given), the US is the one who commited an act of war.

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by Saint Marcus
what happeneds then?

Say Americans did commit warcrimes in Afghanistan. Afghanistan doesn't have an effective court system. Were should those Americans be tried, should the US refuse to do so (for whatever reason)?

Only answer: international court, ala the Yugoslavia court.

No, the answer is here, under provision of UCMJ.
Already said that.
Unless we agree to ICC, it has no right to US personel, and you can't get past that point.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Saint Marcus
Say Americans did commit warcrimes in Afghanistan. Afghanistan doesn't have an effective court system. Were should those Americans be tried, should the US refuse to do so (for whatever reason)?

They would get off scott free in that case, SM. To impanel an international tribunal in such a case as this would require either the consent of the US or a war in which the US was defeated.

[Garth Vader]

So the moral of the story is that if you are going to commit atrocities make sure you win

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Garth Vader
So the moral of the story is that if you are going to commit atrocities make sure you win

You should have learned that after WWII.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Saint Marcus



There's just one little problem. While all ICC facilities aren't on dutch soil (like embassies) all the land around it is. If American troops violate Dutch sovereignity by moving armed forces into the country without permission (which will never be given), the US is the one who commited an act of war.

Saint Marcus, I forsee some secret agents driving down to the ICC from the US embassy, peacefully, entering the ICC, conducting the rescue, and then driving peacefully back to the US embassy.

We would not violate Dutch sovereignty.

[KrazyHorse]

And would the heroes get the girl at the end of this?

[Saint Marcus]

Saint Marcus, I forsee some secret agents driving down to the ICC from the US embassy, peacefully, entering the ICC, conducting the rescue, and then driving peacefully back to the US embassy.

My name is Bond. James Bond.


sounds like someone has been watching to much television.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Saint Marcus
My name is Bond. James Bond.

He's thinking more along the lines of Rainbow 6 than that of MI6.

[Saint Marcus]

A group of heavily armed special forces would leave the US Embassy undetected, then travel to the ICC prison. Open the gate, move into the prison, get past all security, find the warcriminal, get him out, and go back the same way.


Of course, the US embassy would be under constant surveillance and protection should an American be in prison here for warcrimes. Same goes for the ICC facilities. And those soldiers/policemen protecting both compounds would of course have the dutch nationality. Probably most security personel inside the ICC complex would be dutch too, for logistical reasons.

Any attempt to get people out of the ICC prison would lead to dutch casualties, on dutch soil (outside the gate). And that is an act of war.