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

[Saint Marcus]

Country B could simply extradite the accused to the country where he commited the warcrimes (and this is usually done with criminals, an American who murders a dutchmen will be extradited to Holland), and that country will then extradite him to the ICC. It is well within international law.

[Sixchan]

Well, Ned, what about my latest idea? Would that satisfy your average American?

[Imran Siddiqui]

What I want to know is how come we think we can act like such *******s and bullies and not think it'll come and bite us on the ass?

[Saint Marcus]

Imran. What changed? We used to not get along at all. You labeled me the "biggest close minded bigot on OT" at one point. Now you keep agreeing with me (to some extend). How did that happen? Is it cause of the things going on in the ME?

[Ned]

Originally posted by Saint Marcus


The US has protected many warcriminals over the years. Since the US doesn't deal with them itself, someone else must. That's what the ICC is for.

I know of Kerrey. Name one other notorious war criminal we have "protected."

Negative. Using landmines isn't a warcrime by ICC standards. However, using landmines for the specific purpose of killing civilians is.

xx) Employing weapons, projectiles and material and methods of warfare which are of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering or which are inherently indiscriminate in violation of the international law of armed conflict, provided that such weapons, projectiles and material and methods of warfare are the subject of a comprehensive prohibition and are included in an annex to this Statute, by an amendment in accordance with the relevant provisions set forth in articles 121 and 123."

I interpret this to mean land mines because the are "comprehensively proscribed."

Negative. Agression isn't a warcrime by ICC standards. However, intentional agression targetted against civilians is a warcrime.

Article 5


Crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court

1. The jurisdiction of the Court shall be limited to the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole. The Court has jurisdiction in accordance with this Statute with respect to the following crimes:

(a) The crime of genocide;
(b) Crimes against humanity;

(c) War crimes;

(d) The crime of aggression.

Your constitution doesn't apply to other countries. If Bosnia thinks an American commited (war)crimes it can arrest that American, and put it on trial in Bosnia by Bosnian standards. If Bosnia decides to hand the American over to the ICC for trial and possible punishment, it is their right. Your constitution doesn't protect people abroad. That is what international law is about. If you do something in a country that is considered a crime there, you can expect to be arrested. The country you commited the crime in can then chose what to do with you, by THEIR laws and constitution, not by YOUR laws and constitution.

Now this gets to the heart of the issue, doesn't it? Our Armed Forces are in Bosnia to keep the peace. This is an official mission. The Bosnians are under our jurisdiction, not the other way around. The Bosnians have no "right" to arrest a member of our Armed Forces for War Crimes or other crimes within the purview of the ICC. War Crimes are completely differenct in nature from a simple crime committed by an off-duty soldier. They are acts of the Armed Forces themselves.

Attempting to arrest a member of the Armed Forces would in effect be a military action against Armed Forces that would justify a military response.

[Sixchan]

Come on Ned, don't ignore me.

Maybe, if given a court marshall, the ICC should be able to demand a record of the trial, and to examine the evidence. If the ICC believes that the trial was not conducted fairly (innocent or guilty) then they can recommend a ICC trial to the Security Council If a majority of permanant members of the security council believe the trial was unfair, they can approve further investigation by the ICC. If the ICC still believes it was unfair after further invastigation, it can put forward evidence to support its view, and then can put up a recommendation for re-trial to the whole security council (or just the 5 main members).

Also, the defendant could be tried with an impartial jury with all the rights defendants enjoy in a western country such as the US or UK. This would ensure that the ICC couldn't create a politically motivated case, as there would have to be strong evidence that the country in question's own government did not conduct a fair trial.

What do you think? Would most americans be happy with this?

[Ned]

Originally posted by Sixchan
Maybe, if given a court marshall, the ICC should be able to demand a record of the trial, and to examine the evidence. If the ICC believes that the trial was not conducted fairly (innocent or guilty) then they can recommend a ICC trial to the Security Council If a majority of permanant members of the security council believe the trial was unfair, they can approve further investigation by the ICC. If the ICC still believes it was unfair after further invastigation, it can put forward evidence to support its view, and then can put up a recommendation for re-trial to the whole security council (or just the 5 main members).

Also, the defendant could be tried with an impartial jury with all the rights defendants enjoy in a western country such as the US or UK. This would ensure that the ICC couldn't create a politically motivated case, as there would have to be strong evidence that the country in question's own government did not conduct a fair trial.

Sixchan, This would be a major step in the right direction as I believe all investigations should be approved by the SC.

As to due process, it seems to me all prior war crime trials have been conducted as court marshalls, with the accused have very few "rights." The new ICC improves considerably on this, but it does not provide, as far a I can tell, for trial by jury. But if this right is guaranteed to criminal defendants by their own constitutions, I believe it should be guaranteed to the accused as a condition for their country consenting to having that person tried by the ICC.

In a recent broohaha, the Germans refused to give the US evidence against a terrorist on the grounds that the US would use the information to convict the fellow, of all things, and then potentially execute him. The German constitution forbids the death penalty.

If the Germans can withhold evidence based upon their own constitution, we should also be entitled to refuse to turn an individual over for trial by the ICC when the ICC does not accord the accused the same rights he has under our own constitution.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Saint Marcus
It's a shame a country so nice could elect rulers so bad.

Saint Marcus, Thanks for the compliment on our country.

As to "rulers," do you condemn both Bush and Clinton on this issue?

[Sixchan]

Well, yes and no. Perhaps guidelines should be set out so that they get their country's rights within reason. If we were to put Saddam on trial in the ICC and he said his constitution demanded he have a Jury comprised of his brothers and sisters, we could hardly allow that! So I'd reccommend a system based on the constitutional and judicial rights of various European countries and the US, so that it satisfys all but doesn't leave this loophole for the M.E. dictators to slip through.

[Jon Miller]

see basically not all countries are equal

some are better than others

so having a court be set up for everyong does not make sense

Jon Miller

[Sixchan]

It's not that all countries aren't equal, it's just that some country's leaders are the people the ICC is there to stop! Imagine if the Nuremburg trials had had the Nazi Party members as a jury.

[Ned]

Sixchan, In principle, I agree with your proposition.

[Saint Marcus]

Saint Marcus, Thanks for the compliment on our country.

I've visited the country many times, and plan on going back a lot more.

As to "rulers," do you condemn both Bush and Clinton on this issue?

Bush for sure. Clinton as well, though he would at least negotiate on the issue (which in the end made the final version of the treaty change). And he signed it of course, that was a start. But of course, he should have done way more.

And by rulers, I don't mean just the presidents. The Senate, in particular, is way worse in many cases.

There are many good elected official in the US federal governement and congres/senate, but the vast mayority isn't, especcially when it comes to foreign affairs.

[Imran Siddiqui]

You labeled me the "biggest close minded bigot on OT" at one point. Now you keep agreeing with me (to some extend).

You still are the "biggest close minded bigot on the OT" . Unless you are trolling. I just agree with you on the ICC, so don't push it .

[Saint Marcus]

It's not just the ICC. If it were I wouldn't be so shocked.