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

[Lemmy]

strangely enough, it isn't

[Ned]

Lemmy, Does Holland use Deutsche Telekom as well?

[Lemmy]

no

[Sixchan]

I think I missed something along the way.

*looks at thread title*
*looks at the first 11 pages*
*looks at last few posts*

What? I don't undertand.

[Ned]

Sixchan, part of this dicussion concerned a US pullout from Europe. St. Marcus and Roland were the strongest EU advocates of that position. I simply asked whether they trusted Germany? St. Marcus assured us that at least Holland did.

Well, this little rant from VetLegion indicates there is still some resentment of Germany in Europe. Whether this is strong enough to prevent the EU from being successful and remain unified is still anyone's guess.

On a similar note, in England today they are running an anti-Euro piece in movie theaters that has Hitler declaiming, "Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Euro!" The people in England are laughing while the French are besides themselves with "anger."

The common factor to the continuing resentment of Croatia and France vs. the lightheartedness of England is that the former two nations were under German occupation during the war.

[Sixchan]

Ah, I didn't connect them.
But this would seem much more like resentment against the phone company, which just happens to be German.

Never heard about it in Scotland, but I expect the film's being shown here. I always found the 'ein volk' thing funny, particularly when American companies use it inadvertanly.
Budwiser WC poster: One World, One Game, One Beer.
Microsoft IE advert: One World, One Web, One Program.
Hitler: Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Euro!

[JCG]

A (admittedly stupid) question here...The U.S. wants immunity for its peacekeepers or for its armed forces overseas in general?

If it's just for peacekeepers, I see no problem, at least for the moment in granting it, at least as an experimental measure.

If it's for the U.S. armed forces as a whole...then no, that's not the correct thing to do, sheesh.

That would be, IMHO: That the U.S. joins the International Court, and from the inside works towards changing and fine-tuning the procedure so that U.S. citizens aren't politically discriminated.

And in the remote case that it does happen, such attempts aren't likely to succeed, and the Court isn't retroactive anyways so Kissinger and company shouldn't groan about it ( but about other suits outside of the Court's jurisdiction, that's another matter).

[Ned]

If the SC must approve any ICC investigation, then the US, the UK, France, China and Russia would have a veto over any investigation, peacekeeping or not.

It appears that Bush does not want any American tried ever by the ICC because such a prosecution would necessarily be "political" - we have a perfectly adequate criminal justice system to try officers who exceed their authority, and if the actions were under orders of the president of the United States, we probably would go to war rather than let our president be arrested and tried by the ICC.

[morb]

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 ?

no. that's my point. is the ICC going to change its prosecution practices depending on the prosecuted's country of origin? unlikely. and even if they did, they'd have to have access to people who know everything about every legal system which is not possible.

my original point is that a legal system should work WITHIN a system of government, not BE a system of government. Is there another international body of government at this point which is opposit to but equal in power to the ICC? no!

are you just going to trust the court unconditionally?

like I mentioned before. if you guys in europe want to set up an "international" court of Europe for members of the EU-only, that's fine, if you think this will bring you closer to the goal of unity. but it is not in my interest to be subjected to a court which does not represent me. the ICC in its current form will likely have no jurisdiction in the US and hopefully most other countries outside of the EU will agree, which should limit its jurisdictional power and its entire purpose.

[Lung]

It sounds like gross hypocrisy to me. The US are champions of the cause of globalisation, presumably because they stand to gain squillions from it, yet won't stand for global policing?

The fear of politically motivated accusations sounds legitimate, but surely The Netherlands liberal attitude to policing would render such allegations void far before ever bringing accusees to court?

The US stance seems to be motivated more by their newfound tendency towards isolationism that the official reason given above. I wonder if their enemies knew that their despicable actions would result in the US distancing themselves from their own allies! Osama Bin Laden must be jumping with glee at the apparent splitting of the western world He could never damage the US as well as they can damage themselves

[Ned]

Lung, the ICC would have jurisdiction over an American only if the US did not try him first in a "fair" manner. The US, if they tried a soldier, would always try him in a fair manner - far better than the ICC which provides no rights for the accused, such as the right for compulsory process and the right to confront his accusers.

The United States may, though, decide NOT to prosecute because in its view, the soldier's actions were either justified or "ordered." If the former, we will not permit an ICC procesutor to second guess our own view of the evidence. If the ICC were to proceed nontheless and arrest the soldier, we reserve the right to forcibly remove him from the jurisdiction of the ICC. This could get real ugly.

Finally, if the action were ordered, the ICC would be sitting in judgment of the United States. That is an act of war.

Although Clinton signed the treaty, he said he would never send it to the Senate to be ratified. The ICC, not being an arm of the SC, is simply wrongheaded.

[KrazyHorse]

If the ICC were to proceed nontheless and arrest the soldier, we reserve the right to forcibly remove him from the jurisdiction of the ICC. This could get real ugly.

Finally, if the action were ordered, the ICC would be sitting in judgment of the United States. That is an act of war

You're an idiot. You don't get to decide how your people are treated when they're outside your jurisdiction. Only if the ICC were to attempt to arrest someone in the US without the assent of the US gov't would that be an act of war.

Anything else is a unilateral declaration of extraterritorial rights.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Lung
The fear of politically motivated accusations sounds legitimate, but surely The Netherlands liberal attitude to policing would render such allegations void far before ever bringing accusees to court?

The Netherlands doesn't have anything to do with the ICC.

[Ned]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

If the ICC were to proceed nontheless and arrest the soldier, we reserve the right to forcibly remove him from the jurisdiction of the ICC. This could get real ugly.

Finally, if the action were ordered, the ICC would be sitting in judgment of the United States. That is an act of war

You're an idiot. You don't get to decide how your people are treated when they're outside your jurisdiction. Only if the ICC were to attempt to arrest someone in the US without the assent of the US gov't would that be an act of war.

Anything else is a unilateral declaration of extraterritorial rights.

(Besides being the most impolite person on this forum, I will reply to you.) I can assure you that if an American, once aquitted by the United States of war crimes, is arrested while on a trip abroad, we very much would care and would act in some fashion - up to and including the use of force.

[Lung]

Originally posted by DinoDoc


The Netherlands doesn't have anything to do with the ICC.

Yeah, i know, but it's less ambiguous than "Eurpoe". in any case, The Netherlands does have something to do with the ICC, by virtue of it's affiliation with the UN. It's a bit like saying Switzerland doesn't have anything to do with the Geneva Convention. Okay, so it's not the Dutch ICC, but you know what i mean, and for all intents and purposes, it was consistent with the point i was making.