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

[Sixchan]

Leave then!

Let some more moderate and calm people have their debate.

[Ned]

Lemmy:

[Saint Marcus]

just put the first person on my ignore list.

wow

[Lemmy]

Leave then!

that didn't sound very calm

[Sixchan]

Were it not calm, I would have posted it in capitals. I thought you said you were leaving the debate?

And I wonder whether it was me or Ned who got on Marcus' ignore list. Oh well, if it was me, I've really nothing against the guy or anything, but if he doesn't like me, fine.

[morb]

the worst thing about this is that the court is completely unaccountable to anyone. there is nothing to balance it out. what's to stop this court from overreaching its bounds? who's to say if a trial was fair?

if this court is allowed to exist and practice, i think it will be highly suceptible to corruption and/or carrying out of its political agenda. which is what the US officials fear will happen and rightly oppose the court in its current form.

comments...

[Ned]

Originally posted by morb
the worst thing about this is that the court is completely unaccountable to anyone. there is nothing to balance it out. what's to stop this court from overreaching its bounds? who's to say if a trial was fair?

if this court is allowed to exist and practice, i think it will be highly suceptible to corruption and/or carrying out of its political agenda. which is what the US officials fear will happen and rightly oppose the court in its current form.

comments...

Morb, You were noting earlier that essential guarantee's to Americans found in our fifth and sixth amendments are not present in the ICC. Because of this, there are many who believe that even if we were to ratify the ICC in its current form, it would be constitutional. However, I trust that Congress would never ratify this agreement until "details" like this are fixed.

The ICC is a travesty. Somehow, the negotiations for a treaty got completely out of control. Where once the US lead the parade to call for the ICC, we now find ourselves fighting what is ostensibly a right-minded treaty.

It would be interesting to see an article on the negotiations written by one of the Clinton team.

[Sixchan]

If run correctly, it is a great idea, but only if people agree on it. The problems the US has with the court have to be sorted out before anything meaningful can be done by the ICC.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Sixchan
If run correctly, it is a great idea, but only if people agree on it. The problems the US has with the court have to be sorted out before anything meaningful can be done by the ICC.

Sixchan, this is now so painfully obvious that it is a wonder why we had to get this far before some sanity and common sense began to emerge. In reading some of the history of the negotiations, our concerns were heard and compromises were made, but in the end we apparantly never made it perfectly clear that certain points were deal breakers. This has to be a problem with our negotiating team. However, I am not sure, and would like to read more about it.

[Gatekeeper]

Lemmy:

What is your definition of a war criminal? Would the incident a few days ago — where U.S. elements wiped out an apparent wedding party — count such?

Gatekeeper

[Roland]

Chris:

"Are you saying it's an attempt at disolving national governments to be replaced with a single government"

Why dissolve ? Two levels. It's called federalism.

"...or is it an attempt to create a free market not emcombered with various national taxes and tariffs?"

It is an attempt to form a political union through economic integration (and no, not like NAFTA which is a free trade area and thereby s couple steps of integration below). We almost got the EDC in 1954, forgot ? After that failed with the bloody french *****, we went on to the EEC. Same goal.

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

And economic policy. The EU has roughly the same economic powers as the US federal government. That's not political ? If not, what is ?

Gatekeeper:

" Various European nations sign deals with Afghanistan so their troops within that nation will not be brought before the ICC if something happens."

Show me those "deals", and show me the ICC in it.
Good luck hunting. You'll need it to find more than one document, and that one has a general clause. Which was likely included due to pressure from the US. Also, it only refers to immunity from Afghan authorities. How this affects ICC jurisdiction is another matter (Which I'd have to check, but I'm getting tired of it. Maybe I should just do it poly style and make it up as I go along).

morb:

"...the worst thing about this is that the court is completely unaccountable to anyone. there is nothing to balance it out. what's to stop this court from overreaching its bounds?"

You want to discuss ultra vires doctrine in international law ? Fine. Go ahead and explain why it doesn't apply to the ICC. Or does it ? Where do you see the shortcomings ? Material non-act, I assume ?

Ned:

"It would be interesting to see an article on the negotiations written by one of the Clinton team."

I think there was an op-ed in the NYT by Clinton's negotiator a while ago. Unfortunately I can't remember his name.

[Gatekeeper]

Roland:

I assure you that I do not "make up" things as I go along. Your suggestion, even as indirect as it is, is not welcome.

Gatekeeper

[Roland]

Wasn't directed at you personally. But when we're at it:

"Various European nations sign deals with Afghanistan so their troops within that nation will not be brought before the ICC if something happens."

You didn't make that up ? Then show me the deals.

[Gatekeeper]

Roland:

Not intentionally. That was how I thought things boiled down to after reading various accounts — including some buried deep within this now 11-page thread.

Perhaps "deals" weren't signed per se, but isn't the intention still the same? To safeguard one's peacekeeping forces from undue judicial activism?

My apologies for being human. Guess I can't be the "super journalist" 24/7.

Gatekeeper

[Roland]

I'm just tired of people repeating the produce of crappy journalism. There was one deal between the Afghan government and the Commander of ISAF about technical military issues. That contained a standard immunity clause from the local authorities, which was extended to tranfer to "international tribunals". It is unclear how this got into the agreement, but given the US administration's hysteria about the ICC it looks like their handwriting.

Unless this affects ICC jurisdiction european nations would still have to fully cooperate with the ICC.