US drops resolution seeking war crimes exemption

[ThreeCircles]

Originally posted by jrydberg
Heh... I've read and completely understand the legal language of the ICC. That does not change reality.

Just because they say they can prosecute doesn't make it realistic to do so. The political and military repercussions for doing so would be enormous and the signatories to the ICC realize this as well as anyone. They also realize that the US has a more than adequate system for prosecuting US soldiers who commit crimes that the ICC is capable of prosecuting. So yes, no US soldier will be subjected to the ICC. That's reality.



So the ICC can act if it figures the national court was incorrect in not pressing charges? Seems pretty easy to abuse to me.

Wow. Did you read the whole thing Jeff? Really?

Sounds to me like three parts fortune telling, one part star gazing, and one part belief in AFR!

My point? You can say that a U.S. citizen will never be prosecuted under the ICC until you're blue in the face. That, in no way, shape, or form, makes it even remotely close to reality.

 

[dawgfan]

"The Court will deal with the most serious crimes committed by individuals: genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and aggression. The first three crimes are carefully defined in the Statute to avoid ambiguity or vagueness.

Isn't "crimes against humanity" vague enough for you?

Perhaps Kofi Annan is so against this politically due to the fact that he may get busted in the recent Oil for Food scandal???

"The International Criminal Court (ICC) is an independent judiciary body capable of trying individuals and serving as a deterrent to the Hitlers, Pinochets and Milosevics of the future. The past century witnessed the worst violence in the history of humankind. In the past half-century alone, more than 250
conflicts have erupted around the world; more than 86 million civilians, mostly women and children died in these conflicts; and over 170 million people were stripped of their rights, property and dignity. Most of these victims have been simply forgotten and few perpetrators have been brought to justice.

None of these acts were perpetrated by the US but we did step up when others would not to do something about it. Something some folks seem to have a problem with. As for the UNs involvement, they landed behind the US squarely and consistently. They "allowed" the US to take the lead internationally and "donate" troops and equipment. This country has done more to "vanquish the evil wherever it exists" than any other country or entity out there. Does that make us above the international law? Absolutely not. I do not want a third world country led by someone like Khadafi prosecuting a soldier as a "get back".

 

[jrydberg]

Yes, I read the whole thing... really

And no, me saying it doesn't make it close to reality. Logic, however, does

 

[AirForceRocks]

You mean you can't reply because you can't dispute the post.

Yeah, that's it

No, once again you are incorrect on the matter.

No I'm not, but since you seem to enjoy being shown that you are usually wrong, I'll be happy to play along and prove it again. This was my statement,

That's a blank check to define "aggression" in whatever way they choose.

which your own quote shows to be correct:

"Support was widespread from both States and the NGO community at the Rome Conference for the inclusion of aggression as a crime under the ICC's jurisdiction. However, there was not time to reach a definition of aggression that was acceptable to all. As a result, the Statute includes this crime but provides that the Court may not exercise jurisdiction over the crime of aggression until agreement is reached by States Parties at a Review Conference on the definition, elements, and conditions under which the Court may exercise jurisdiction with respect to this crime.

Now, who is going to be defining the crime of aggression? By your own quote, it will be defined by the States Parties...which means that they can define it any way they like. Or do you have something else that lays out parameters for aggression that must be adhered to during the definition process? I'll be waiting...

Please, don't put words in my mouth. I don't recall ever saying that I didn't believe the U.S. wouldn't prosecute war crimes. As a matter of fact, I believe, hopefully, they would indeed. That's part of the reason why I have no problem with the U.S. being a party to the ICC.

If you believe that the US would prosecute war crimes, then why do you believe that we need a "back up measure"?

I have a very real reason for objecting to the US participation in the ICC - to do so would be to allow an anti-American element in the international community to define crimes that the US would not criminally prosecute, and then try to prosecute US soldies under these bogus statutes.

What is your reason for being so intent on the US being part of the ICC process?

 

[ThreeCircles]

Originally posted by dawgfan
Isn't "crimes against humanity" vague enough for you?

Perhaps Kofi Annan is so against this politically due to the fact that he may get busted in the recent Oil for Food scandal???

The crimes are specifically laid out under the ICC agreement. I didn't quote the entire treaty.

"Genocide covers those specifically listed prohibited acts (e.g. killing, causing serious harm) committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group.

Crimes against humanity cover those specifically listed prohibited acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population. Such acts include murder, extermination, rape, sexual slavery, the enforced disappearance of persons and the crime of apartheid,
among others.

Genocide and crimes against humanity are punishable irrespective of whether they are committed in
time of “peace” or of war.

War crimes cover grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and other serious violations of the laws of war, committed on a large scale in international as well as internal armed conflicts. The inclusion of internal conflicts is consistent with customary international law and reflects the reality that
in the past 50 years, the most serious violations of human rights have occurred, not in international conflicts, but within States."

And this is an overview and not the specific definitions as laid out by the ICC.

I'm curious, were you so pickey as to definitons when w was making his argument for the invasion of Iraq?

 

[AirForceRocks]

The crimes are specifically laid out under the ICC agreement.

Aggression is not laid out, and it will be defined by the parties to the treaty...no, that's not vague at all.

You can say that a U.S. citizen will never be prosecuted under the ICC until you're blue in the face. That, in no way, shape, or form, makes it even remotely close to reality.

So in other words, you don't believe that the US will prosecute real crimes. If you truly believed that we would, then you would understand why we believe that no US citizen will ever be LEGITIMATELY prosecuted by the ICC. Illegitimately on trumped up charges...perhaps they'll try...

 

[ThreeCircles]

Originally posted by AirForceRocks
Yeah, that's it

Well, admitting the problem is always the first step!

No I'm not, but since you seem to enjoy being shown that you are usually wrong, I'll be happy to play along and prove it again. This was my statement,

which your own quote shows to be correct:

Now, who is going to be defining the crime of aggression? By your own quote, it will be defined by the States Parties...which means that they can define it any way they like. Or do you have something else that lays out parameters for aggression that must be adhered to during the definition process? I'll be waiting...

Reread the post. Here, let me bold it for you: The ICC has NO jurisdiction to prosecute "crimes of agression" until all States Parties have agreed to the definition. That mean, once the members of the ICC have defined "crimes of agression", they can then prosecute for that reason. See, it's really very simple.

Of course, the U.S. does not wish to be a member of the ICC so they have no say in how the definition of "crimes of agression" will be worked out. But, given the other specific definitions, I'm sure it too will be specific.

If you believe that the US would prosecute war crimes, then why do you believe that we need a "back up measure"?

Personally, I never thought I would live to see the day that the U.S. was accused of some of the things that we have been accused of in Iraq and elsewhere around the world. Politics aside, it makes me very sad that these types of activities were engaged in by U.S. service members. How "high up" these orders went, I don't know. Although, too high it would seem already. W and his administration were laying out "the legal arguments for torture"? That's sick.

So, do I think the U.S. would prosecute war criminals? I would hope. Does that mean I wouldn't want a back-up plan in place just in case? No way. It's called security.

 

[ThreeCircles]

Originally posted by AirForceRocks
Aggression is not laid out, and it will be defined by the parties to the treaty...no, that's not vague at all.

Brenda, your point is moot. The ICC cannot prosecute "crimes of agression." Move on.

 

[AirForceRocks]

Originally posted by ThreeCircles
Brenda, your point is moot. The ICC cannot prosecute "crimes of agression." Move on.

OK, let's try very small words and very short sentences and perhaps then you'll understand...

1) The ICC cannot CURRENTLY prosecute crimes of aggression.

2) The ICC and the UN will define what constitutes crimes of aggression.

3) The ICC and the UN will be free to define crimes of aggression however they choose, with no guiding parameters in place.

4) A vague definition of crimes of aggression could lead to US troops being charged for "crimes" that would not be crimes and thus would not prosecuted under US law.

5) These troops would be charged and tried on bogus crimes under the guise of "international law".

I'm not sure how to make it more simple for you than that. It might be a moot point right now, but it will no longer be moot once the ICC and the UN define crimes of aggression.

 

[wdwdvcdad]

In the grand scheme of things, this matters not a bit. the UN is a meaningless organization run by half-wits, anti-semites, cowards & terrorists. Their only goals are to ruin America & Israel. The sooner we get out of the UN & boot the SOBs out of NYC, the better. They are a failure of an organization, and are ignored by all except those who cower in fear to real strength, wish to bring terror on the world, and democrats...oops, didn't mean to be redundant.

 

[AirForceRocks]

Originally posted by wdwdvcdad
In the grand scheme of things, this matters not a bit. the UN is a meaningless organization run by half-wits, anti-semites, cowards & terrorists. Their only goals are to ruin America & Israel. The sooner we get out of the UN & boot the SOBs out of NYC, the better. They are a failure of an organization, and are ignored by all except those who cower in fear to real strength, wish to bring terror on the world, and democrats...oops, didn't mean to be redundant.

I agree 100% with everything except the "democrats" part.

 

[wdwdvcdad]

Originally posted by AirForceRocks
I agree 100% with everything except the "democrats" part.

ok, "liberals"

 

[ThreeCircles]

Originally posted by AirForceRocks
OK, let's try very small words and very short sentences and perhaps then you'll understand...

1) The ICC cannot CURRENTLY prosecute crimes of aggression.

2) The ICC and the UN will define what constitutes crimes of aggression.

3) The ICC and the UN will be free to define crimes of aggression however they choose, with no guiding parameters in place.

4) A vague definition of crimes of aggression could lead to US troops being charged for "crimes" that would not be crimes and thus would not prosecuted under US law.

5) These troops would be charged and tried on bogus crimes under the guise of "international law".

I'm not sure how to make it more simple for you than that. It might be a moot point right now, but it will no longer be moot once the ICC and the UN define crimes of aggression.

You're basing your whole anti-ICC argument on this?

Please! I was hoping for something at least a little more imaginative coming from you!

The ICC had gone to extreme lengths to be very specific in defining the other crimes that can be prosecuted. Why would they be any less specific in defining crimes of aggression? The answer? They wouldn't.

And, once again, it seems that nationalistic ideologies are blinding you from another fact. The other member nations have to agree to the definition. They too want to ensure that their citizens are protected to the fullest extent of the law so they would not allow for "ambiguous" definitions. Perhaps that's why the current prosecutable crimes are detailed so specifically!

We could only wish that w could be as specific! Wait, why did we invade Iraq again?


Now, Wdwdvcdad's post isn't worthy of a comment.
Wouldn't you agree Brenda?

 

[dawgfan]

Crimes against humanity cover those specifically listed prohibited acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population. Such acts include murder, extermination, rape, sexual slavery, the enforced disappearance of persons and the crime of apartheid,
among others.

You mean like on the new types of battlefield we face these days inbedded in the civilian population an enemy state would not want to attempt a prosecution of murder for errant rounds spent. It would not matter much who actually shot the round.

Listen the whole arguement rests upon the idea that the UN would do much of anything about anything other than talk and make some government "look bad" on the international stage. You have to admit that the UN, absent the US lead on most any issue, does nothing and gets nowhere. I trust our legal system to handle this and no one else for the mere threat of a kangaroo court involvement due to political climate internationally.

 

[wdwdvcdad]

Originally posted by ThreeCircles
Now, Wdwdvcdad's post isn't worthy of a comment.
Wouldn't you agree Brenda?

when you can't beat 'em, hide!

you work for the UN?

 

[AirForceRocks]

You're basing your whole anti-ICC argument on this?

I'm basing my whole anti-ICC argument on the fact that the United States is a sovereign nation with a mature and well tested judicial system that doesn't need any back-up mechanism put together by *** backwards Third World countries.

I trust our legal system to handle this and no one else for the mere threat of a kangaroo court involvement due to political climate internationally.

Exactly.

 

[ThreeCircles]

Originally posted by wdwdvcdad
when you can't beat 'em, hide!

Everything you posted is nothing more than nationalistic dribble.

But, if you want to withdraw from the U.N., please, write w and urge him to do so before the November election. Please.

 

[wdwdvcdad]

Originally posted by ThreeCircles
Everything you posted is nothing more than nationalistic dribble.

But, if you want to withdraw from the U.N., please, write w and urge him to do so before the November election. Please.

OK, now I know this might throw ya, but try to refute any of my arguement with (hold on now, because you libs aren't used to dealing with these) FACTS. You cannot. Everything I said about the UN is true. They are a joke, & those who believe in them & follow them are dupes.

ps. the word you are looking for is drivel. and, no it is fact.

 

[ThreeCircles]

Originally posted by wdwdvcdad
OK, now I know this might throw ya, but try to refute any of my arguement with (hold on now, because you libs aren't used to dealing with these) FACTS. You cannot. Everything I said about the UN is true. They are a joke, & those who believe in them & follow them are dupes.

ps. the word you are looking for is drivel. and, no it is fact.

Hmmm... I think a better idea would be for you to defend your argument. Come on, let's see if you can provide lots of viable proof that the U.N. is a, how did you put it? Oh, yes, "is a meaningless organization run by half-wits, anti-semites, cowards & terrorists. Their only goals are to ruin America & Israel."

And for being such a failure and ignored organization, why do w supports so often call on U.N. resolutions as justification (one of many, depending on what time of day it is) for the invasion of Iraq?

And, the word I was looking for, get this, was dribble. Look it up. And, here's a hint, it had more than one definition.

 

[AirForceRocks]

And, the word I was looking for, get this, was dribble. Look it up. And, here's a hint, it had more than one definition.

True enough...of course I couldn't find any that matched your usage in the previous post...