European Hypocracy

[spartak]

Originally posted by JohnIII

Yes, that was what he was doing, and I agree with you that Northern Hemisphere rugby is superior.

[spartak]

Nice one Chris. Looks like all the eurocoms got what they deserved.

[Immortal Wombat]

damn them

[JohnIII]

Yes, being Brits we get to laugh at the whole US vs Europe thing rather smugly, knowing that in Mornington Crescent's Ministry of Serendipity, we have the secret government of the world.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Regardless of Hypocrisy of posters or governments, what this message clearly tells is that their is a genuine fear by the Euro govs that the ICC would be a kangaroo court. Any nation acting in a policing capacity for the UN would be putting themsleves at risk. And since the US is in most/many instances the police force du jour for the UN it would be most at risk. Seems the Euro's have justified the US stance 100%.

Big mean old US.

[DinoDoc]

Hear, hear Ogie!

[Ned]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


given the host nation consents - well considering the situation Afghan is in, their desperate need for peacekeepers, did they really have any choice but to agee? I mean if you can do this, I suppose we could have gotten consent from the govt of the Republic of Viet Nam. The real point, if the court is to be fair, and if (as the US has been told) it wont impact countries that have their own bona fide judicial systems to deal with war crimes, WHY did the euro govt think this deal to be necessary??? Evidently they think the court MIGHT be invoked against peacekeepers from democratic countries, and they are NOT willing to trust their soldiers to its mercies. But those are just the arguments the US has been making.

Please help me here - I dont like unilateralism, and Id really like to be for this court, but the Euro action does
seem to confirm the opinions of the unilateralists.

LOTM

Excellent post.

[Ramo]

The agreement was reached in "a great rush" and with no public debate, a U.N.-based European diplomat said.

It seems pretty obvious that the people of these European states haven't had the chance to oppose their goverments.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Could someone remind me what punishments were levied as a result of My Lai? No, don't bother.

That's why we need this court, and I'd happily piss on the grave of any politician who tries to wriggle out of it. Whichever nation they happen to infect.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Hear, Hear... Laz, er... Ron Jeremy.

[Jack the Bodiless]

Originally posted by Ron Jeremy
Could someone remind me what punishments were levied as a result of My Lai? No, don't bother.

That's why we need this court, and I'd happily piss on the grave of any politician who tries to wriggle out of it. Whichever nation they happen to infect.

Well said.

This loophole is nuts. I can see it being invoked in every peacekeeping operation. But I guess that hardly any government would have signed if it wasn't there. Such is political reality.

Hopefully, it can be closed in future amendments.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Jack: You'd have to allow the ICC Prosecutor to be allowed to bring cases of his accord. This loophole is nuts, and these governments should be ashamed for doing it.

[DinoDoc]

Could someone point out the offending loophole in the Rome Statute? I admit to missing it in my first reading of it.

[Ned]

Imran, I thnk the ICC does permit the Prosecutor to bring cases regardless of a request of a member state which is the victim of war crimes, etc.. The only requirement is that the action be against a national of a state that has signed the ICC.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Imran, I thnk the ICC does permit the Prosecutor to bring cases regardless of a request of a member state which is the victim of war crimes, etc.. The only requirement is that the action be against a national of a state that has signed the ICC.

In that case, then Europe's pressuring Afghanistan to sign this garbage would be totally useless, would it not?