International Criminal Court again

Do you support the International Criminal Court?

  • No

    Votes: 10 100.0%
  • Yes

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Don´t know/Don´t care

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    10

Jeslek

Banned
http://abcnews.go.com/wire/World/reuters20020630_26.html

The United States says the court would infringe on national sovereignty and could lead to politically motivated prosecutions of its officials or soldiers working outside U.S. borders.

I completely agree. I refuse to be subject to some dipshits in Europe deciding how to govern me.

A handful of staff will start work at the ICC to pave the way for 18 judges and a chief prosecutor in early 2003.

Major flaw. There is no trial by jury. I have the RIGHT to a trial by jury, and no fucking dolt will tell me otherwise.

I do NOT support the ICC.
 

Jeslek

Banned
The House of Representatives of the United States passed the "American Servicemembers' Protection Act of 2001" (ASPA), which restricts U.S cooperation with the International Criminal Court, on May 10 as an amendment to the Foreign Relations Authorization Act of 2001. A vote in the Senate may occur this month (see Regional Update section). The following is a summary of the key provisions of the bill:

* The bill restricts U.S. participation in any peacekeeping mission and prohibits military assistance for those nations that ratify the ICC Treaty, with the exception of NATO member countries and other major allies (Australia, Egypt, Israel, Japan, the Republic of Korea, and New Zealand were cited as members of this category). In addition, the bill authorizes the President to use "all means necessary and appropriate" to bring about the release from captivity of U.S. or Allied personnel detained or imprisoned against their will by or on behalf of the Court.

* The President may waive this restriction for countries that ratify the treaty if he reports to Congress that such cooperation is in the national security interest of the U.S. and the country has entered into an agreement with the United States protecting U.S. personnel from extradition to the Court.

* The U.S. may not participate in any peacekeeping mission unless the President certifies to Congress that the Security Council has exempted U.S. Armed Forces members from prosecution and each country in which U.S. personnel will be present is either not a Party to the ICC or has an agreement with the U.S. exempting U.S. Armed Forces members from prosecution; or that the U.S. has taken other appropriate steps to guarantee that U.S. Armed Forces members will not be prosecuted.

* No governmental entity in the United States, including State and local governments or any court, may cooperate with the International Criminal Court in matters such as arrest and extradition of suspects, execution of searches and seizures, taking of evidence, seizure of assets, and similar matters.

* No agent of the ICC may conduct in the US any investigative activity. The President should use the U.S. voice and vote at the Security Council to ensure that each resolution authorizing any U.N. peacekeeping operation permanently exempts members of the U.S. armed forces from prosecution by the ICC.

* No classified national security information can be transferred directly or indirectly to the ICC or to countries that are Party to the Rome Statute.

* The President is required to transmit two reports on allied command arrangements. The first must describe the degree to which members of Armed Forces may be placed under the command or operational control of foreign military officers subject to ICC jurisdiction and evaluate the degree of risk in such arrangements. The second must describe modifications to command and operational control arrangements with allies to reduce such risk.

These provisions are in addition to existing U.S. law (the 2000-2001 Foreign Relations Authorization Act) which prohibits any U.S. funds to the ICC, once it has been established, unless the Senate has given its advice and consent to the Rome Treaty.

SOURCE: http://www.globalpolicy.org/intljustice/icc/2001/0621usbl.htm
 

Gonz

molṑn labé
Staff member
This is soooooo unAmerican I can't stand it.

The truly scary part is, people get worked up over under god & ignore the truly life altering decisions.
 

Jeslek

Banned
A few months ago I saw a thread theorizing about different military tactics that would be used if Europe and the US went to war. I commented in the thread but also said that I "couldn't imagine a likely scenario that would cause the US and Europe to go to war." With the birth of ICC today, I can now imagine such a scenario. I can see the Europeans being dumb enough to declare an American a 'war criminal' in the trumped up ICC sham court and somehow getting their hands on them. At that point, if diplomacy and sanctions didn't work you might see a group of American aircraft carriers sailing into the North sea.

Since most Europeans don't seem to even understand our opposition to the court I thought I would post something from Rand Simberg that explains it...


"(H)ere's what Americans find annoying. They find it annoying to be judged by a court composed of countries who believe: that Zionism is racism; that there's nothing wrong with a terrorist state being head of the UN Security Council; that Arafat isn't a terrorist, but that Sharon is; that Peres should hand back his peace prize, but that Arafat needn't; that we should cripple the world economy, and particularly the US economy, to delay global warming for a year and a half a hundred years from now; that Saddam Hussein is not a threat to us or his neighbors; that defending ourselves against missiles is "crackpot"; and foremost, that we should be bound by treaties that we haven't signed or ratified.

It's the sovereignty, stupid."


It is indeed the "sovereignty, stupid." As far as most Americans are concerned, myself included, the highest law of the land in the United States was, is, and will always be the US Supreme Court. If another entity tries to usurp that role, then they had better be ready to die to accomplish it. Don't kid yourself, we're not authorizing the "president to use force to rescue any American held by the new International Criminal Court" just for show.

SOURCE: http://www.rightwingnews.com
 

Ardsgaine

New Member
Originally posted by LastLegionary
As far as most Americans are concerned, myself included, the highest law of the land in the United States was, is, and will always be the US Supreme Court.

Here's an 'amen to that' from the resident atheist. :p
 

AlladinSane

Well-Known Member
Oh I'm pretty sure this court if it ever comes to exist will never judge americans, israelis nor western europeans. It will serve only to judge arabs or eastern europeans. So my position is NO.
 

ris

New Member
as far as i heard the icc only comes into play when the nation under scrutiny does not or cannot deal the matter internally, so for most countries it's not an issue. also, i gather the safeguards and hoops that have to be jumped through are quite stringent and virtually negate the possibility of politcally motivated cases.

it's certainly a better system than the war crimes tribunals in the hague, which most countries have supported up until now
 

Ponch

New Member
Yeah, you're right as always, LastLegioNazi...
It's a chance Klaus Barbi was protected by the americanos after WWII cause otherwise he would have had to face a trial by an international court for little crimes against humanity (I don't need to explain...). But your people (???) kept him from jail. Go on, you have every rights to whatever. Amen.
 

AlladinSane

Well-Known Member
Originally posted by ris
as far as i heard the icc only comes into play when the nation under scrutiny does not or cannot deal the matter internally, so for most countries it's not an issue.
And who's gonna judge whether the country can or not deal it internally?
 

unclehobart

New Member
Klaus Barbie wasn't an American citizen. I don't think non citizens can can hide behind the Constitution unless they declare for amnesty. Even then, they stay locked up until their claims can be proven or they get extradited.
 

Jeslek

Banned
The ICC is a ploy by the European Union to undermine the Sovereignty of Nations around the world, specificially the United States. We shall not stand it.
 

ris

New Member
this is not a court directed and created by the eu, it is borne aznd run by the united nations. over 60 countries have ratified and more are involved, internationally , including australia, argentina, jordan, nigeria and switzerland [who is not a member of the eu].

from recent news reports are that the us is suggesting a late compromise with a un security council veto with regard cases brought to the icc. link

why would the eu want to undermine the sovereignty of other nations?
 

Jeslek

Banned
Because they are power hungry socialisitic communists.

If they don't want to undermine the Sovereignty of nations, why do they so dearly want us to sign it? What is wrong with our own judicial system?
 

ris

New Member
the whole of the eu is power hungry socialisitic communists, where do you get that from?

mwahahahahahahahahaaaaaaa!!!! :rofl2:

oh jeez that's going to keep me going for ages, i can't stop laughing. :laugh5: :laugh5: :laugh5: :nuts2:

they want the international community to sign it so that it is a common policy, a level across which everyone can be judged, regardless of who they are. it shows that the international community is serious about these issues and that no-one, from within or without of governments is safe from prosecution for crimes against humanity.
 

Jeslek

Banned
risie, what would you call the EU?

They are socialists. Socialism is a limited form of communism. Both are on the left side of the political spectrum. I don't like lefties. I don't like them at all.

My question: How can the court POSSIBLY be impartial AND fair if there is no jury?? Let us deal with our own people. You guys can do whatever. I know how much the Europeans like to rule each other. I mean, there are no more Frenchies, Germans, etc. You are now alll one bieeeeg happy family under err, what? Oh yes, government...

The ICC violates one of the core principles of the UN. Every nation is Sovereign and can deal with their own criminals in a way they see fit. The United States always extradite criminals to the EU regardless of what we think might happen. But nooooo, the EU has to protect the poor imbecile's rights to live and nanananananananananananana and so politically correct and nanananan bullshit nananana fucking SHOOT the terrorists responsible for 9/11!!

Sigh......... Why don't Britain join the EU and do away with the pound anyways? A bigger happy family then.
 

Luis G

<i><b>Problemator</b></i>
Staff member
UK is part of the EU, isn't it?

They don't use Euros, but i knew they are part of the EU. (correct me if i'm wrong).
 

ris

New Member
socialism and communism might have similar basis but that's like comparing conservatism with fascism, one is a long way from the other. still, how is the eu socialist or communist?

what's different between the icc and the hague tribunals that are currently trying milosovic and other for crimes against humanity. the us supported that, it has no jury, what makes the icc different?

i agree, a jury would be a better thing for these sorts of cases, continues a recognisable style of law from most countries that way.

i've not got a problem with joining the euro, it's only the coins in my pocket to me, not a loss of sovereignty.
 

ris

New Member
luis, the single european currency [euro] is currently held by 12 countries. the uk has not yet joined and will not without a referendum from the people agreeing to it.

i've used it a few times and really like it, makes travelling in europe a piece of piss, take the same change from ireland to france, to germany.

it also allows a more even comparison of pricing across the european countries to be visible. britain gets a raw deal on imports and exports and its often blamed on exchange rates etc.
 
Top