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

[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 "N�rnberger 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 "N�rnberger 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 ]

[Gozra]

This is war. Plain and complex. I think this(TIPS) is something that is one more tool to fight this war. When the war is over hopefully this will go away. IF it does not then I am more than willing to fight for the Constitution.
I do not want Bin ladin and his kind to win. I am willing to do what is takes to see that The American Constitution and America prevail. I think we could have come up with a better idea than the TIPS program. But at least we are taking some kind of action.
God Bless America

[jimbob]

Originally stated by Sparhawk:

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.

The (extremely controversial) politics surrounding the Isreal/Palestine conflict definitely demonstrate that there is very little neutrality in the world, and that the UN is an extremely political (versus moral) body. This is not to claim that there are no morals in the UN, but simply that the political nature of the body can result in questionable statements and positions. I refer you to the UN convention on human rights in South Africa Last summer when Islamic countries essentially stole the show (again) and drove through an anti-Isreal/Jewish resolution, while totally ignoring any wrong doing by Palestinian suicide bombers.

Please note, I'm not saying that Isreal is innocent of all crime, nor am I saying that only Palestinians are guilty of crime, I'm simply showing how politically driven the UN really can be. Do you really want to hand over National Soveriegnty to such a politically driven organization?

[Krsqk]

"I think this(TIPS) is something that is one more tool to fight this war. When the war is over hopefully this will go away. IF it does not then I am more than willing to fight for the Constitution."

There are only two problems with this. One, the war will never be over, for all practical purposes. There will always be people who hate freedom and who are willing to use any means to fight it. Two, no program ever "goes away" once established. The bureaucrats in charge will find another "need" for their department so they don't lose their funding.

[Phoenix-D]

"I do not want Bin ladin and his kind to win. I am willing to do what is takes to see that The American Constitution and America prevail."

This is kind of amusing when you think about it a little harder..

Oh, and does anyone else find the "outside the box but within the Constituion" commend the Justice deparment has become fond of laughable? This is of course *after* they've locked up an American citzen for a month without accusing him of anything..

Phoenix-D

[Puke]

Originally posted by The High Gryphin:
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"?

you know Gryph, i used to be proud that our country went through the McCarthy trials, that we survived the histeria and the paranoia and the prosecution. it was a good thing that our liberties and freedom of speach and personal privicy was stripped away then, because we survived it. it made us stronger. we had learned from our mistake, and would not have to repeat it again any time soon. lesser nations might have crumbled, but we stood strong.

now look at us. fifty years later, and up to the same old tricks. I expected better. Shame on us.

[TerranC]

Typing from a Cyber-cafe, just to check up on the forums before I leave:

Puke, with all due respect,
You are actually proud that your country went through the McCarthy trials?!

Now, if what you mean is It's gone, it's past and thank god that plague went away, I apologize, but the McCarthy trials showed how EASILY america collapsed under paranoia, and how others and it;s own citizens had to endure it's consequences.

Not only the commitee questioned just about EVERYBODY, save themselves, that lived in the U.S., they questioned, threatend, and blackmailed FOREIGN dignitaries and offcials, which caused the death of a Canadian Ambassador, and the commitee threatening to accuse some of the UN ambassadors as communists, save the communists themselves.

[Puke]

i didnt think i was that unclear.

i was glad we went through it, because i thought we had learned something from it, and would not have to face it again. if another governemet had gone through a similar crisis, it probably would have floundered and fell. we didnt. we learned, and got better.

now, we are doing the same thing. so we have learned NOTHING. it is a shamefull thing for us to now be repeating the same 50 year old mistakes. now any pride we may have had in our strength and resolve is thrown away by our foolhardy actions.