EU as joke (modified)

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 ,
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.

On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 09:18:36 GMT, 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.

Our Constitution affords American citizens certain protections *not*
guaranteed by the ICC. We'd have to change our Constitution (hah!) before
signing on to the ICC.

-Jeff B.
yeff at erols dot com

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"

(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...

The "big guy" on the
block doesn't have to be a bully if he doesn't want to.

If someone runs up and kicks him in the groin he does.

It would be a small price to pay if it will bring more justice
to the world

Spoken like someone with zero chances of being charged by the ICC.

and I don't think the US will have much trouble
defending itself in juridical matters.

Its not beating the trumped up BS cases that concerns us, its dealing with them
over and over again that is of concern.

I really don't see what the US is so afraid of

An endless string of baseless ICC suits filed by both our enemies and a few
non-enemies (Belgium).

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?

Because if it was brought in the ICC instead of Belgian courts, US lawyers
would have had to represent Gen. Franks in the hearings that eventually
dismissed the charges.

Former State Department legal advisor Monroe Lei:

snip

That's two opinions, if I had the time or inclination I'm sure I could find two
disenting opinions.

"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

No one is arguing that the ICC would be locking up US military personnel, just
that the ICC would give a venue for US enemies to engage in "legal warfare",
requiring US lawyers to be in a constant state of defending our citizens. The
US was dragged into the Yugoslavia conflict, but who became the target for the
anti-war crowd? That's right the "big guy on the block".

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

Who would decide if there was sufficient evidence?

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

I don't know who AMICC is, but polls don't mean much to me. The overwhelming
response of US citizens in the form of letters to their congressman oppsing the
ICC were enough to convice both parties that the US should not support the ICC.


BUFDRVR

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