By: FormlessOne
I'm looking forward to being a member of the only generation in American history whose President was actually worred about being tried as a war criminal (never mind being actually tried as a war...
View ArticleBy: Zurishaddai
Not much is being made here of some of what I heard reported about this move: (1) some countries such as NATO allies are exempted, (2) as far as Colombia goes "anti-narcotic" aid will not be affected....
View ArticleBy: RylandDotNet
If something is not illegal here, how can my government give me up to an alien court to which I have no allegiance? I'm not sure I understand your question. Are you asking if ICC will prosecute you for...
View ArticleBy: thirteen
You're already bent over and submitting, thirteen, and there's nothing you can do about it I think the fact that I am complaining is proof enough that I am not submitting. I will agree to being almost...
View ArticleBy: Slothrup
It is this obsession with US recalcitrance rather than actual results that makes the internationalists look silly. It is the US recalcitrance that has derailed any other debate about the court. If the...
View ArticleBy: RylandDotNet
thirteen said: Most international bodies have no authority that I am willing to submit to. Well, I don't blame you - nobody wants to submit to any authority when they commit a crime. But that's not up...
View ArticleBy: xtian
With the US the only bully in the locker room, what does the rest of the world have to focus their opinions? Maybe if there were more women in the gym the US temper would be smoother. ehehe It stands...
View ArticleBy: riviera
Is the US the big target of the ICC? No, though the ICC is a big target of the US. If so, then boo hoo, if not, then just do it without us. Well, since it's not so, then why can't the US stop...
View ArticleBy: Wood
Here's an idea, let's see the ICC do something worthwhile in the world. OK, so you can't nail G Bush. Is there anyone else in the world breaking the international "law"? Honestly, the US isn't going to...
View ArticleBy: Perigee
Well, I kinda like this whole thing... although not for the reasons other Merikans might accept. For decades now, the American Government Stipend has been used as a carrot to foreign governments to...
View ArticleBy: thirteen
I will respond to Norm later. For now, I was and am opposed to Nafta, even tho I may consider some of the restrictions within the states to be opressive. In choosing between the loss of choice (as a...
View ArticleBy: Slothrup
Many national laws check state sovereignty. And so on. A lot of the people who are against the ICC don't have a single complaint about NAFTA, even though, by signing NAFTA, the US Federal Government...
View ArticleBy: norm
What I cannot figure is why my crime in Rwanda is not left to a Rwandan court. The easiest answer is that there were are no properly constituted and functioning Rwandan courts. Criminal laws function...
View ArticleBy: signal
I for one, am glad the US will stop financing one side of the war in Colombia. Now if it would only stop financing the other side, that would be great!
View ArticleBy: thirteen
Why should Rwanda not use any court it chooses, or refer the matter to an international court if it so wishes? I addressed that in the next sentence. Like The Hague, I suppose? I do not consider it a...
View ArticleBy: Blue Stone
"What I cannot figure is why my crime in Rwanda is not left to a Rwandan court. " Why should Rwanda not use any court it chooses, or refer the matter to an international court if it so wishes? " The...
View ArticleBy: y2karl
The US attitude to the ICC seems to me to be part of their increasing attitude of unilateralism in foreign policy. Whilst the Iraq war could well herald a period of activity, contempt for the UN (look...
View ArticleBy: thirteen
If you had committed genocide in Rwanda, you could and should be tried by the ICC. I can certainly accept the idea that Russia will try me for a Russian crime. I can accept that I can be extradited to...
View ArticleBy: norm
13's answer begs the question of jurisdiction versus citizenship. Is it not the same betrayal if Cook county turned you over to Illinois? To the feds? The addition of another layer of liability does...
View ArticleBy: talos
but I do not recognize the International court as having any legitimate power over me I would consider it a fundamental betrayal of my rights. In the US that's true. But commit a murder in Russia, say,...
View ArticleBy: thirteen
Not that they would ever want me, but I do not recognize the International court as having any legitimate power over me. If my government recognized that court as being able to legally detain me, I...
View ArticleBy: RylandDotNet
The old "if you don't like it, then leave" argument :) I remember some pro-war types using the same logic. Yeah, because the cases are exactly alike. Brilliant, jsonic. Of course I'm not advocating...
View ArticleBy: talos
Ummm swerdloff: the link you posted concerns Belgian courts. They do have jurisdiction over Belgium. The story has nothing to do (except in a logically fallacious reasoning-by-stretched-analogy way)...
View ArticleBy: Slothrup
The US has been escalating its military presence in Colombia for many years that pulling out now is almost equivalent to delivering the country to the marxist guerrilla and/or the drug lords....
View ArticleBy: nkyad
Postroad: the whole ICC discussion aside, it is still incredibly ironic to see the US Government right hand ignoring its left hand this way. The US has been escalating its military presence in Colombia...
View ArticleBy: Ignatius J. Reilly
jsonic : The two are distinct in that the UN is an ageographic, voluntary "club.""If you don't like it leave" is a fine sentiment for a purely voluntary and unnecessary (as opposed to one's needing to...
View ArticleBy: Slothrup
There's a certain irony in the US asking Serbia to sign a treaty saying that Serbia promises not to extradite US citizens to the ICC -- regardless of what the US citizen has done. What kind of message...
View ArticleBy: swerdloff
Let's see why - Anyone remember this one? That's the reason - as soon as the ICC opened, Americans started to be indicted. And since America isn't a signatory, how this international tribunal could...
View ArticleBy: jsonic
then you are morally bound to uphold your obligations to that organization, even when the voting doesn't go your way. Either that, or you withdraw from the organization. You can't have it both ways....
View ArticleBy: RylandDotNet
Why on earth should the American govt give funds and aid to countries that have an opposite position of that taken by the American govt, whether you agree or not with that position? Well, it's not a...
View ArticleBy: johnnyboy
Why on earth should the American govt give funds and aid to countries that have an opposite position of that taken by the American govt, whether you agree or not with that position? -unpalatable to...
View ArticleBy: holycola
"...the Bush administration is afraid the tribunal in The Hague, Netherlands, backed by most European countries, might hear politically motivated prosecutions of U.S. military and civilian leaders. Let...
View ArticleBy: taumeson
talos---fantastic comment. unreason: look at Geneva Convention regarding POWs (somebody had to break it out), specifically Article 4 (A)(6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach...
View ArticleBy: talos
unreason: you might want to take a look at this: Article 5 of the Third Geneva Convention : The present Convention shall apply to the persons referred to in Article 4 from the time they fall into the...
View ArticleBy: matteo
The Iraqi army, for the most part, is different, since they mostly wore uniforms, etc due process = fashion statement cool
View ArticleBy: graventy
That's bullshit, unreason. The term 'enemy combatant' exists only so we can hold them indefinitely without following international law. Simple as that. Are you trying to tell me that the 'action' in...
View ArticleBy: RylandDotNet
So, the US is under no obligation to treat them as POW's. If they aren't POWs, then they are civilian prisoners, entitled to due process of law under our Constitution, whether they are citizens or not.
View ArticleBy: unreason
Some people have asked about camp X-ray, and treatment of the inmates there as POW's: According to international law, you only get POW status if you're part of an actual army, and wear recognizable...
View ArticleBy: talos
fuzz: I agree that the ICC (like all international bodies) will be susceptible to pressure especially from the more powerful states (which makes the USA's refusal to support the ICC even more bizarre)....
View ArticleBy: RylandDotNet
Fuzz - some of your questions may be answered on the International Criminal Court website - I was just skimming at the "ICC at a glance" and "Basic Documents" pages in particular. I'm not sure, but I...
View ArticleBy: MrBaliHai
The issue of US unilateralism in foreign policy is certainly a valid point to raise here, but it's not the only factor to consider. There are serious legalquestions about whether or not our...
View ArticleBy: planetkyoto
The Bush soundbite I'll never hear, though I long to: "How's the food in here, Slobo?"
View ArticleBy: Postroad
A good deal of meandering in the comments but if I might get back to a central truth: you may or may not like the positionm the UJS (Bush group) has re the Courts--and if like the UN they often are...
View ArticleBy: yeahyeahyeahwhoo
i'm sure instead of military aid, that money will be going to build schools or enforce SEC regulations.
View ArticleBy: notsnot
Fuzz brings up some very good points. However, the issue at hand/keyboard is the removal of aid from countries that back the court. Bush is ostensibly scared of "politically motivated [hearings]", but...
View ArticleBy: fuzz
If you do nothing wrong then what is there to be scared of? These are the exact words used by the Bush Administratin to justify the worst excesses of the Patriot Act. I'm astounded that you seem to be...
View ArticleBy: prentiz
ednopantz - I hardly think the ICC would seek to prosecute US servicemen for shaving off beards when they could be looking at the whole issue of illegal imprisonment in the first place. Frankly if...
View ArticleBy: cortex
in theory the ultimate goal is to stop cocaine entering in the U.S. So who is affected negatively by a unilateral pull of aid? Poor black drug users who get caught up in the DEA backlash?
View Article
