If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#211
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#212
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#213
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#214
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#215
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#216
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#217
|
|||
|
|||
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" |
#218
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#220
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
The joke called TSA | Spockstuto | Instrument Flight Rules | 58 | December 27th 04 12:54 PM |
Sick Boeing Joke. | plasticguy | Home Built | 0 | April 1st 04 03:16 PM |
On Topic Joke | Eric Miller | Home Built | 8 | March 6th 04 03:01 AM |
Europe as joke | Cub Driver | Military Aviation | 165 | November 8th 03 10:45 PM |
American joke on the Brits | ArtKramr | Military Aviation | 50 | September 30th 03 10:52 PM |