EU as joke (modified)

"Bjørnar" wrote:

It's strange, almost suspicious, that the US seems more than
willing to take considerable risk in armed aggression against
other nations, against world oppinion, risking lives of thousends
of US servicemen and civilians, but backs out of something as
potentially good, "civilized", nonagressive and relation forming
as a world unified treaty on international justice.

Sounds like a good reason for sending President Bush to prison for
20 years, no?

Surely *someone* with a law degree *somewhere* would think so. And
the ICC is just the ticket to accomplish that!


SMH

On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 23:52:19 +0100, "Emmanuel Gustin" wrote:

"BUFDRVR" wrote in message
...

The current US government has been forced to take international
matters into their own hands (with the help of dozens of supporting
nations) because nations like France, Germany, Begium and Russia
are determined to "ham string" the US in the UN so bad that the next
terrorist attack kills 30,000 Americans. We are not going to let that
happen.

Get real. After 9/11 most Europeans nations were quite ready
to give support to concerted effort to combat terrorism. They
jumped off the ship when George W. Bush selected full steam
ahead in the nearest line of cliffs. Why blame us? Elect someone
to the presidency who thinks that having a thought-out policy
actually matters, and we'll talk again. The current lot seems to
think that pure military power will help them to overcome their
lack of understanding and competence.

Right now I only hear a self-hypnotising chant of "we will not
leave" from Washington. It would help more if they could actually
formulate a policy to deal with the problem, instead of killing
even their friends in Iraq.

agreement, its hopeless to argue. Belgium indicted Gen. Tommy
Franks shortly after Operation Iraqi Freedom kicked off, this
would be a daily occurance should the US sign the accord.

Try to understand the basics of our legal system. Belgium did NOT
"indict Tommy Franks". A complaint against Tommy Franks was
filed by a lawyer acting on behalf of a number of Iraqis, nothing
more. Everybody has the right to file a complaint. Most complaints
do not result in an indictment.

An indictment would only have been possible after a criminal
investigation, in a case like this handled by a judge of the
investigation (something like a US special prosecutor, but with
an obligation to impartiality), and if the chamber of council
(a kind of court dealing with procedural matters) would have
judged the evidence gathered by this investigation sufficiently
incriminating to justify a trial.

What made the Bush administration incandescent was the law
which granted courts jurisdiction in all crimes against humanity,
regardless of location or the nationality of victim or perpetrator.
I think that was an excellent principle; crimes against humanity
should be universally prosecutable. Unfortunately, the Bush
government seems to feel that Americans should enjoy universal
immunity from prosecution.

Utter, complete idiot.

PLONK

Al Minyard

"Alan Minyard" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 23:52:19 +0100, "Emmanuel Gustin"
wrote:

"BUFDRVR" wrote in message
...

The current US government has been forced to take international
matters into their own hands (with the help of dozens of supporting
nations) because nations like France, Germany, Begium and Russia
are determined to "ham string" the US in the UN so bad that the next
terrorist attack kills 30,000 Americans. We are not going to let that
happen.

Get real. After 9/11 most Europeans nations were quite ready
to give support to concerted effort to combat terrorism. They
jumped off the ship when George W. Bush selected full steam
ahead in the nearest line of cliffs. Why blame us? Elect someone
to the presidency who thinks that having a thought-out policy
actually matters, and we'll talk again. The current lot seems to
think that pure military power will help them to overcome their
lack of understanding and competence.

Right now I only hear a self-hypnotising chant of "we will not
leave" from Washington. It would help more if they could actually
formulate a policy to deal with the problem, instead of killing
even their friends in Iraq.

agreement, its hopeless to argue. Belgium indicted Gen. Tommy
Franks shortly after Operation Iraqi Freedom kicked off, this
would be a daily occurance should the US sign the accord.

Try to understand the basics of our legal system. Belgium did NOT
"indict Tommy Franks". A complaint against Tommy Franks was
filed by a lawyer acting on behalf of a number of Iraqis, nothing
more. Everybody has the right to file a complaint. Most complaints
do not result in an indictment.

An indictment would only have been possible after a criminal
investigation, in a case like this handled by a judge of the
investigation (something like a US special prosecutor, but with
an obligation to impartiality), and if the chamber of council
(a kind of court dealing with procedural matters) would have
judged the evidence gathered by this investigation sufficiently
incriminating to justify a trial.

What made the Bush administration incandescent was the law
which granted courts jurisdiction in all crimes against humanity,
regardless of location or the nationality of victim or perpetrator.
I think that was an excellent principle; crimes against humanity
should be universally prosecutable. Unfortunately, the Bush
government seems to feel that Americans should enjoy universal
immunity from prosecution.

Utter, complete idiot.

Yes, you do seem to be

PLONK

Good idea. I'm fed up reading your rabid neocon OT trash. Good bye.

John

In article ,
Stephen Harding wrote:

"Bjørnar" wrote:

The ICC issue is a good representation. 120 nations agree
on a permanent court that will prosecute war crimes and
secure international justice, but the US, apparently, feels
it shouldn't have to be held responsible for its own breaches
of international human rights and justice.

That may be the ideal but I don't think it would be the practice.

....and it wasn't.

The ICC was supposed to be such a great idea, and people in Europe
cheered it because it was supposed to "get" folks like American
Presidents, but the moment someone filed charges against the Belgian
Foreign Minister , it was suddenly a Bad Idea...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

In article ,
"Bjørnar" wrote:

Stephen Harding wrote in
:

I assure you, if the ICC came about, US military and political
persons would be spending all their time defending themselves
in "court".

There is another, IMO more important, side to this. This treaty
will prosecute and punish the ones who rightfully deserve it.

Like the Belgian Foreign Minister?

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

In article ,
"Emmanuel Gustin" wrote:

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
om...

There is another, IMO more important, side to this. This treaty
will prosecute and punish the ones who rightfully deserve it.

Like the Belgian Foreign Minister?

Why not?

Ask the Belgians. The moment someone filed charges against one of their
own, they immediately started backpedaling on the whole ICC issue.

But look at it from the other side: Would it not have been
better if Saddam's victims could have prosecuted those
who sold him the weapons to do it with?

I'm sure it would be. Except (as we have already seen) the moment they
went after someone that country didn't think should be prosecuted, the
new priority became "stop the ICC."

And this is *Belgium*. Imagine how fast France would bail, if someone
went after Chirac for aiding any of a dozen or so dictators on the
French "okay" list...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

The US is the universal target for anyones ill feelings,

I'm supprised you admit to that. Perhaps the US should start
to address that and ask themselves "why".

Because the US, as the "lone superpower" is both envied and feared throughout
the world. The "big guy" on the block will always be a target no matter his
politics or actions. The US is condemned when it doesn't act (Rwanda, Cambodia)
and condemned when it does (Iraq, Afghanistan).

but the US, apparently, feels
it shouldn't have to be held responsible for its own breaches
of international human rights and justice.

Wrong, the US believes the court will allow any nation with a grudge against
the US to force us into legally defending ourselves continuously.

The suit against Franks was
dropped.

That it was even brought in the first place is proof enough of what the ICC
would look like.

Why would the US sign up for a "justice" system that had the
power to idicted, charge etc. our serving generals for doing their
job, *legally*. The US would spend millions of US dollars every year
defending ourselves in this international "kangaroo court".

Comming from a nation where people have a spectacular tradition
for sueing one another for nothing, your statement is more than
amusing.

As such, we know exactly what frivolous lawsuits can do to the people being
sued.

MYTH: The Court will take on politically motivated cases
against U.S. citizens or soldiers.

FACT: Numerous safeguards in the ICC treaty will prevent
frivolous or politically motivated cases.

Excuse me, if I believe the US State Departments team of international law
specialists that told the Clinton administration differently.

It will have no jurisdiction over crimes
committed on U.S. soil unless the United States ratifies
its treaty.

We're not concerned with crimes committed on US soil, we're more than capable
of dealing with those. Its the BS lawsuit filed by a Saudi family against the
US in the death of their Taliban son, killed in a fire fight with US forces
that concern us.

Clinton signed the treaty on December 31, 2000.

On his way out of office Billy did a lot of things including some politically
motivated pardons that *did not* represent the will of the US people, many in
the US government or even people in his own political party.

On May 6, 2002.
Then the Bush Administration announced its intention to withdraw
the US signature. If you want to talk about kangoroo politics,
nothing like that has ever been done to my knowledge.

Well, we've never had a President as low as Billy Clinton before (including
Taft and Nixon). Bush was simply doing his job as President and obiding by the
will of those in the other branches of government, who represent the people of
the US.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

In article ,
"Emmanuel Gustin" wrote:

"Chad Irby" wrote in message

Ask the Belgians. The moment someone filed charges against one of their
own, they immediately started backpedaling on the whole ICC issue.

I am Belgian. The replacement of the law on crimes against
humanity with a much weakened-down version had very little
to do with the complaint against Louis Michel, which was in
essence a political joke.

Bull****.

The only reason that happened was that a Belgian politician was a target
of something they thought was going to be "safe."

It was caused by blunt threats from Washington.

Bull**** again. A Belgian politician was threatened, so they were
suddenly interested in softening the law. Threats from the US had
nothing to do with it.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

(BUFDRVR) wrote in
:

The US is the universal target for anyones ill feelings,

I'm supprised you admit to that. Perhaps the US should start
to address that and ask themselves "why".

Because the US, as the "lone superpower" is both envied and feared
throughout the world. The "big guy" on the block will always be a
target no matter his politics or actions. The US is condemned when it
doesn't act (Rwanda, Cambodia) and condemned when it does (Iraq,
Afghanistan).

The US is also welcomed and respected. I don't think it's
that the US is acting, but how. The "big guy" on the
block doesn't have to be a bully if he doesn't want to.


About Afghanistan, the US had mostly allies, even though it's
probaly against the principles of democracy to invade on another
nations internal affairs, but still it's neccessary to have a
critical bastion which will question the use of power and funds.


but the US, apparently, feels
it shouldn't have to be held responsible for its own breaches
of international human rights and justice.

Wrong, the US believes the court will allow any nation with a grudge
against the US to force us into legally defending ourselves
continuously.

It would be a small price to pay if it will bring more justice
to the world, and I don't think the US will have much trouble
defending itself in juridical matters. I really don't see what
the US is so afraid of, it's been a firm advocate for an
international crimes court ever since Nurnberg and has been
one of the leader in developing the standards that led up to
the ICC Rome statute.

The purpose of ICC is to "promote the rule of law and ensure
that the gravest international crimes do not go unpunished".
It's a body that might as well work for the benefit of the US as
well as against it.

And compared to some other nations and their human rights
track record, I think the US will have an easy time.


The suit against Franks was
dropped.

That it was even brought in the first place is proof enough of what
the ICC would look like.

How does this case disproove that only valid, strong cases will
have any chance of survival in the ICC?


MYTH: The Court will take on politically motivated cases
against U.S. citizens or soldiers.

FACT: Numerous safeguards in the ICC treaty will prevent
frivolous or politically motivated cases.

Excuse me, if I believe the US State Departments team of international
law specialists that told the Clinton administration differently.

Former State Department legal advisor Monroe Lei:

http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/icc/facts.htm

"The list of due process rights guaranteed by the Rome
Statute are, if anything, more detailed and comprehensive
than those in the American Bill of Rights. . . . I can
think of no right guaranteed to military personnel by the
U.S. Constitution that is not also guaranteed in the
Treaty of Rome."


Senator Dodd's letter to Powel provides some interesting reading.

http://www.wfa.org/issues/wicc/archi...1/doddltr.html


It will have no jurisdiction over crimes
committed on U.S. soil unless the United States ratifies
its treaty.

We're not concerned with crimes committed on US soil, we're more than
capable of dealing with those. Its the BS lawsuit filed by a Saudi
family against the US in the death of their Taliban son, killed in a
fire fight with US forces that concern us.

Such a case would hardly qualify for an ICC prosecution
unless there was evidence of serious human rights violations.


Then the Bush Administration announced its intention to withdraw
the US signature. If you want to talk about kangoroo politics,
nothing like that has ever been done to my knowledge.

Well, we've never had a President as low as Billy Clinton before
(including Taft and Nixon). Bush was simply doing his job as President
and obiding by the will of those in the other branches of government,
who represent the people of the US.

AMICC list a series of polls that show US public opinion
in favor of ICC to hover around 61-66%.

http://www.amicc.org/usinfo/opinion_polls.html


Regards...

Chad Irby wrote in message m...
In article ,
"Emmanuel Gustin" wrote:

"Chad Irby" wrote in message

Ask the Belgians. The moment someone filed charges against one of their
own, they immediately started backpedaling on the whole ICC issue.

I am Belgian. The replacement of the law on crimes against
humanity with a much weakened-down version had very little
to do with the complaint against Louis Michel, which was in
essence a political joke.

Bull****.

The only reason that happened was that a Belgian politician was a target
of something they thought was going to be "safe."

It was caused by blunt threats from Washington.

Bull**** again. A Belgian politician was threatened, so they were
suddenly interested in softening the law. Threats from the US had
nothing to do with it.

Puh-lease.. Dig a little deeper and you should be able to find out it
was seen as a political "joke" all over, except the US of course. You
only see what you want to see.