OT: I'm proud to be an American...

[Puke]

Originally posted by Krsqk:
I greatly resent the pressure to surrender sovreignty to an international body when we have constitutionally guaranteed freedom from infringement by national powers.

right on, Krsqk. Have you ever seen the "twenty-nine palms" survey?

[ July 16, 2002, 21:03: Message edited by: Puke ]

[Jmenschenfresser]

USA just made a new law: its legal to invade The Netherlands..

Yea, sorry bout that Sparhawk...nothing personal, of course. Sometimes things round here get pretty outta hand and down right stupid.

[Gryphin]

Folks,
I don't know who said it and I paraphrase poorly,
~ A generation that ignores history has no future ~
Do we have any historians on the forum that have studied about the 50's in American History that can talk about the trials surrounding "Communist"?

[sparhawk]

Yes, sorry Pax my misstake (very stupid one).
It was offcourse 11 september (how could I forget, its the birthday of my wife...)

But to continue this polictical forum. Not all crimes done in a country are perse treated as a crime in that country. There are numberous country where killing of people is without any consequnce for the killers (don't have to say which countries, there too obvious, but one example from the past: Hitler). But still in other countries such killing would be stated as mass killing of men kind. So therefore is its a wise thing to make a internationale court which doesn't look at political or other things that can blind a right judgement of the case.
And probaly this trial would be give a more wiser and fair judgement than any country can!!
Because the "crime" would be seen in more than one prospective, due to the larger amount of "life wisdom" from all over the world.

Sparhawk

[Mephisto]

Well, actually, the ICC cannot prosecute you if your country is already doing it. The ICC is for prosecuting offenders who’s country is unwilling or unable to prosecute them. And how in the world would the US be unable to enforce justice in their armed forces? The US doesn't loose any sovereignty if joining the ICC but now it has damaged it as a whole as any dictator in the world will say "Why are you hunting me? Look at the US, they cannot be tried, so why should I be tried? Equal rights to all!".
The day the world got international crime law was the day the US, England, France and Russia opened the "Nürnberger trials" against the Nazi criminals for offences against mankind (and rightly so!)

Originally posted by Krsqk:

quote:

---

Well, what can I say......USA just made a new law: its legal to invade The Netherlands.. if American citizen, who have commited crimes against men kind, are held in The netherlands for trial.

[rant]I'm sorry. Where is the country of mankind? Last I knew, there was the concept of sovreignty of states, that meant each country had the right to try crimes committed in their territory. If someone wants to kill 72 million people in Lower Slobovia, then they ought to be tried according to the laws of Lower Slobovia. Not the laws of the Netherlands, not the laws of England, not the laws of the United States. There is no "world court" because there is no "world government." The day I say the pledge to the UN flag "under man" is the day I accept a world jurisdiction. Yes, there is a universal morality which condemns genocide and other despicable acts. No, there should not be a universal court to try them.[/rant]

I really shouldn't read these political threads.

[edit]I'm sorry for any offence--none intended. I greatly resent the pressure to surrender sovreignty to an international body when we have constitutionally guaranteed freedom from infringement by national powers.

---

[zen.]

Not to steer clear of the heavier themes, but does this article remind anyone else of the 'Nightwatch' (I think) from Babylon 5 and their witch hunts?

zen

[Krsqk]

"The ICC is for prosecuting offenders who’s country is unwilling or unable to prosecute them."
Unable? What's unable? What country is unable to prosecute someone? Countries where UN peacekeepers run things? And unwilling? What if you say it's a crime, but my country doesn't? Were US soldiers who fired on Vietnamese children packed with explosives criminals? How about those who ordered the use of Agent Orange? How about those who actually applied it?

"The US doesn't loose any sovereignty if joining the ICC but now it has damaged it as a whole as any dictator in the world will say 'Why are you hunting me? Look at the US, they cannot be tried, so why should I be tried? Equal rights to all!'"
See above. If the US feels their servicemen were justified in a given situation, but someone else (world opinion? the other guy?) doesn't, then you can claim the ICC has jurisdiction.

"The day the world got international crime law was the day the US, England, France and Russia opened the "Nürnberger trials" against the Nazi criminals for offences against mankind (and rightly so!)
So the ICC only has jurisdiction in wartime? Or any time? Is a civil war sufficient, or must it be an international war? What if there is no war, but UN peacekeepers are present? Or humanitarian aid?

"And probaly this trial would be give a more wiser and fair judgement than any country can!!
Because the 'crime' would be seen in more than one prospective, due to the larger amount of 'life wisdom' from all over the world."
International law has never been applied with equity or "fair judgment. If it was, then Stalin and his goons would have been tried as well for their mass slaughter of the Polish and Ukrainians, not to mention their own people! They definitely were "unwilling" to prosecute.

• Does the court have jurisdiction in peacetime? What about acts of war during peacetime? Or is it just wartime? Who is guilty--the one giving orders, or the ones carrying them out?
• What is the enforcement arm of the ICC? World public opinion isn't going to cut it. Sure, they can send peacekeepers into any third-world nation and snatch whoever they want. But what if it's the commander-in-chief of any industrialized nation? You think England would let the UN invade their country? or the US? or anyone else with a decent military? So much for sovreign states.
  

[ July 16, 2002, 23:27: Message edited by: Krsqk ]