The US will soon run out of allies if it keeps acting like this

[Sixchan]

The thing is, anyone who is Anti-American can say that, but you can be virtually certain they go to McDonalds at weekends. And I'll bet that while they post their gospel to everyone, they'll be driking Pepsi or Coca-Cola.


Something else this would suggest is that even if the US leaves Europe on its own, US culture won't. Kiddie Communists will listen to American Nu-Metal (produced by those evil corporate pigs at EMI and Sony) and the teenie boppers will still dance to Britney Spears. Western Europe doesn't want a war. Germany is to big in the EU to want a war. France and Germany always vote the same way, so no wars between them. The UK has good relations with all the EU countries.

A war won't happen. People can say to look at history, and that proves another war will happen, but looking at history shows Ameican Civil War, and what's the chances of that. The EU is slowly dissolving national identity, and while nationalists hold out, it won't be long before we have a USE, and when we do, all the threat of war goes, and only then can Europe hope to compete together with the other US. But by then the USA's culture will be so dominant that a centre-left-wing view and geography will be the only way to tell the two apart.

[Roland]

Chris:

"Despite Roland's comment earlier, the EU is not politics and you all know it"

That's quite a weak "argument". What is it if not politics ?

I guess 90 % of Yanks said the Euro would never happen. One clown in Harvard even predicted a war about it. Get an update.

Dino: "Where does it say that in the Rome Statute?"

I was talking about national law.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Roland
Dino: "Where does it say that in the Rome Statute?"

I was talking about national law.

But that's not what I was talking about.

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by Roland
That's quite a weak "argument". What is it if not politics ?

In what context?
Are you saying it's an attempt at disolving national governments to be replaced with a single government, or is it an attempt to create a free market not emcombered with various national taxes and tariffs?
You tell me.

I guess 90 % of Yanks said the Euro would never happen. One clown in Harvard even predicted a war about it. Get an update.

I don't remember anyone really commenting on it, but isn't a single currency in-line with economics?

[Sixchan]

In what context?
Are you saying it's an attempt at disolving national governments to be replaced with a single government, or is it an attempt to create a free market not emcombered with various national taxes and tariffs?
You tell me.

Technically, it's the latter, but it would appear now to be a precursor to the former.

[Chris 62]

Yet, for the here and now, it's still economics.

[Ned]

Originally posted by DinoDoc


But that's not what I was talking about.

DinoDoc, If what you are talking about is Double Jeopardy, the ICC has a provision on that:

Article 20


Ne bis in idem


1. Except as provided in this Statute, no person shall be tried before the Court with respect to conduct which formed the basis of crimes for which the person has been convicted or acquitted by the Court.

2. No person shall be tried by another court for a crime referred to in article 5 for which that person has already been convicted or acquitted by the Court.

3. No person who has been tried by another court for conduct also proscribed under article 6, 7 or 8 shall be tried by the Court with respect to the same conduct unless the proceedings in the other court:

(a) Were for the purpose of shielding the person concerned from criminal responsibility for crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court; or
(b) Otherwise were not conducted independently or impartially in accordance with the norms of due process recognized by international law and were conducted in a manner which, in the circumstances, was inconsistent with an intent to bring the person concerned to justice.

[Ned]

The French once (or do they still?) had concerns as well:

"In December 1997, a dispute broke out between France and the Yugoslavia tribunal. French defense minister Alain Richard stated that France would refuse to permit its officers who served in the multinational peacekeeping force during the war in Bosnia to answer subpoenas and testify before the tribunal. He said that France is unwilling to expose its officers to possibly adversarial questioning that could implicate French military personnel in not stopping the war crimes they witnessed.

Allowing an international tribunal to subpoena peacekeeping troops could interfere with how peacekeeping commanders make their decisions in the future; that is, commanders would feel pressure to put their soldiers in harm's way when they otherwise would not, or risk being second-guessed if they or their soldiers were called before an international court to provide testimony about crimes they witnessed but did not stop. As a result, peacekeeping troops could find themselves effectively forced into combat situations to avoid a court-induced perception that they were negligent bystanders."

Sharon at the camps; the Dutch at Sebrenicia; Clinton in Kosovo - all have been accused of war crimes for failing to stop a massacre. The French concerns are not hypothetical.

[Ned]

Note to DinoDoc, the ICC sits in judgment on whether the national prosecution was "adequate" for double-jeopardy purposes. If the US were to decide that there should be no prosecution at all because it was politically motivated or for some other reason, we would have no way to stop the ICC from arresting the accused and placing him or her on trial at the Hague.

[Ned]

In answer to my own question about the SC, apparently Clinton did ask for it. Other nations objected-saying that it was unacceptable that the five permanent members would have a veto. The Germans proposed a compromise where the SC could block an investigation. This is now Article 16:

Article 16


Deferral of investigation or prosecution


No investigation or prosecution may be commenced or proceeded with under this Statute for a period of 12 months after the Security Council, in a resolution adopted under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, has requested the Court to that effect; that request may be renewed by the Council under the same conditions."

The ICC cannot be amended for seven years. I suggest that the SC put out a blanket suspension of the ICC until it is amended to require SC approval.

[Gatekeeper]

Everyone:

Regarding ICC jurisdiction, it seems to me that folks are taking differing routes to achieve the same goal: immunity for their peace-keeping troops from the new court.

Various European nations sign deals with Afghanistan so their troops within that nation will not be brought before the ICC if something happens. It is not unimaginable to think that this process would simply repeat itself with other peace-keeping missions. Meanwhile, the United States simply seeks blanket immunity for its troops participating in all peace-keeping missions. Differing routes, same result: immunity from any possible action by the ICC.

Regarding the outcome of the 1990-91 Persian Gulf War: It has always been my perspective that U.S. and allied forces did not march on Baghdad because our Arab allies at the time did *not* want Saddam Hussein brought down. Why? They feared it might lead to the break-up of Iraq and, basically, anarchy that could threaten their own regimes. In particular, I think a newly-risen Kurdistan was something certain U.S. allies didn't want.

We had more than 500,000 troops on the ground. We could have taken Baghdad and, more than likely, captured or killed Hussein. But it's hard to do that when you have allies whose views don't coincide with the finality of U.S. goals. Besides, wasn't the U.N. position on the war such that the goal was the liberation only of Kuwait and not the destruction of Iraq? If that's the case, then all these current-day questions posed by some of our European friends regarding the Persian Gulf War are, at worst, deliberate trolls or, at best, ill-educated positions.

Gatekeeper

[Ned]

Originally posted by Gatekeeper
Everyone:

Regarding ICC jurisdiction, it seems to me that folks are taking differing routes to achieve the same goal: immunity for their peace-keeping troops from the new court.

Various European nations sign deals with Afghanistan so their troops within that nation will not be brought before the ICC if something happens. It is not unimaginable to think that this process would simply repeat itself with other peace-keeping missions. Meanwhile, the United States simply seeks blanket immunity for its troops participating in all peace-keeping missions. Differing routes, same result: immunity from any possible action by the ICC.

Regarding the outcome of the 1990-91 Persian Gulf War: It has always been my perspective that U.S. and allied forces did not march on Baghdad because our Arab allies at the time did *not* want Saddam Hussein brought down. Why? They feared it might lead to the break-up of Iraq and, basically, anarchy that could threaten their own regimes. In particular, I think a newly-risen Kurdistan was something certain U.S. allies didn't want.

We had more than 500,000 troops on the ground. We could have taken Baghdad and, more than likely, captured or killed Hussein. But it's hard to do that when you have allies whose views don't coincide with the finality of U.S. goals. Besides, wasn't the U.N. position on the war such that the goal was the liberation only of Kuwait and not the destruction of Iraq? If that's the case, then all these current-day questions posed by some of our European friends regarding the Persian Gulf War are, at worst, deliberate trolls or, at best, ill-educated positions.

Gatekeeper

With everyone seeking exemption from the ICC (or Yugoslav panels) for "authorized" UN or Nato missions, it is clear that SC approval for prosecutions was the right path in the first place. Clinton was right.

On Iraq, I believe Bush intended to comlete the encirclement of the Iraqi forces and then possibly proceed on to Bagdad if Saddam did not surrender.

However, the Highway of Death forced a premature end to the hostilities.

[Lemmy]

Originally posted by Gatekeeper
Various European nations sign deals with Afghanistan so their troops within that nation will not be brought before the ICC if something happens. It is not unimaginable to think that this process would simply repeat itself with other peace-keeping missions. Meanwhile, the United States simply seeks blanket immunity for its troops participating in all peace-keeping missions. Differing routes, same result: immunity from any possible action by the ICC.

Originally posted by Lemmy
no they didn't, afghanistan signed a treaty that they would not turn in people they captured to the ICC, if anyone else captures suspected war criminals, the ICC can do with them whatever they want.
The US however wants the ICC to ignore war crimes by any US soldier.

Originally posted by Lemmy

Under the terms of the accord, Afghanistan agreed that all members of the force, including U.S. liaison officers, "may not be surrendered to, or otherwise transferred to, the custody of an international tribunal or any other entity or state without the express consent of the contributing nation.

Imran pointed this out before, it only states that Afghanistan may not turn them over to the ICC. This does not garantuee immunity.

[Ned]

Lemmy, what do you have to say about the French dispute with the Yugoslav war crimes tribunal?

[Lemmy]

Originally posted by Ned
Lemmy, what do you have to say about the French dispute with the Yugoslav war crimes tribunal?

Originally posted by Lemmy
... i'm pulling out of this discussion. There is nothing left that i want to prove, or discuss.