International Criminal Court

[sqweels]

quote:

Originally posted by SentientMeat
Are you admitting to outright hypocrisy?

Lucwarm:

Not by the usual definition of “hypocrisy,” which means failing to follow the beliefs one professes. How do you define hypocrisy?

It’s hypocrisy to violate the principles one espouses. A principle cannot arbitrarily or self-servingly include or exclude specific individuals or entities. It should apply to everyone who agrees to live up to its conditions. For example, you can say “democratic nations are excluded”, so any nation wanting to benefit from that principle can simply democratize.

Didn’t anyone catch my remark aboutn being a “tem player”?

Also, what would that fella that Gearge W. Bush said he admired the most do?

[X_Slayer_ALE]

Being a team player shouldnt include your team having the right to treat you like part of the opposing team.

[lucwarm]

*Originally posted by sqweels *
**

It’s hypocrisy to violate the principles one espouses. A principle cannot arbitrarily or self-servingly include or exclude specific individuals or entities. **

I don’t really see the point in getting into a debate over semantics. But for what it’s worth, the principle I am following here draws a distinction between the U.S., which has a decent justice system, and third-world nations, which generally do not. This is hardly an arbitrary distinction. I suppose it’s somewhat self-serving. But I don’t really see a problem if self-interest informs our position, particularly if one is open about it.

[lucwarm]

Just to expand on my most recent post, let me offer an example:

I live in New Jersey and work in New York City. There is talk of bringing back the “commuter tax.” I am opposed to this for the simple reason that I would rather pay less taxes than more. My position on New York City taxation would exclude a specific group of people (New Jersey residents) in a very self-serving way. This hardly seems hypocritical to me. (Perhaps it is a little selfish, though.)

[Ravenman]

*Originally posted by sailor *
** Furthermore, by being a part of the ICC the USA could make it better. **

Oh, come now. The Rome Statute was completed and opened for signature in 1998, if memory serves, and you argue that if the US would only sign and ratify it, we could then go about changing it?

That’s the same pitch I heard from used car salesmen: “Oh, yes, there is a problem with this contract. Well, just sign it, and we’ll fix it later.”

Hope you’re not going car shopping anytime soon, sailor.

[Roger_Mexico]

*Originally posted by Dogface *
**Go kiss your Bin Laden picture some more. So tell me, how many weeks did you celebrate after the World Trade Center was attacked? Do you hold a party for three days or the whole week every September 11th? **

Your stupid comments only serve to embarass yourself.
The US was sued by Nicaragua in the International Court of Justice for its terrorist actions against the Nicaraguan people. The US lost and was ordered to pay reparations in the billions.

http://www.headnorth.com/clients/mattj/casestudy.htm

If you want to learn more about the holocaust committed in our names, read a couple books by William Blum: “Killing Hope” and “Rogue State.”

http://free.freespeech.org/americanstateterrorism/books/RogueState.html

[sailor]

*Originally posted by Ravenman *
Oh, come now. The Rome Statute was completed and opened for signature in 1998, if memory serves, and you argue that if the US would only sign and ratify it, we could then go about changing it?

The objection being raised is not that the treaty is bad but that the members are bad so having the US as a member serves to improve the mix. And, by the way, it is a silly objection anyway because the members are mostly developed countries and members of NATO. The notion that they would use the ICC as a political tool against the USA just shows the insecurities of the USA which, by refusing to become a signatory is in the company of a bunch of dictatorships like China, Cuba, North Korea and Saudi Arabia.

[lucwarm]

*Originally posted by sailor *
the members are mostly developed countries and members of NATO

The link you posted gives the following list of ratifying countries. I’m sure there’s room to quibble over my breakdown, but it seems pretty clear to me that the majority are not developed countries.

Third-World Countries:

Andorra
Antigua & Barbuda
Argentina
Belize
Benin
Bolivia
Botswanna
Brazil
Cambodia
Central Africa Republic
Colombia
Democratic Republic of Congo
Costa Rica
Croatia
Cyprus
Dominica
Ecuador
Fiji
Gabon
Gambia
Ghana
Jordan
Lesotho
Malawi
Mawi
Marshall Islands
Mauritius
Mongolia
Namibia
Nauru
Niger
Nigeria
Panama
Paraguay
Peru
Samoa
San Marino
Senegal
Sierra Leone
Tadjikistan
Tanzania
Trinidad & Tobago
Uganda
Uruguay
Zambia

Industrialized Countries

Austria
Australia
Belgium
Canada
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece (?)
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Korea (?)
Liechtenstein
Luxembourg
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Portugal (?)
South Africa
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
United Kingdom

Other:

Hungary
Estonia
Macedonia
Poland
Romania
Slovakia
Slovenia
Venezuela
Yugoslavia

---

And by the way, did you miss my earlier question – are you opposed to the concept of a UN Security Council?

[Tarantula]

Lucwarm - Andorra and San Marino are not Third World Countries, you fool.

[Eolbo]

I wasnt going to say it but since its out there San Marino has one of the highest per capita GDP figures in the world. I wouldnt class Croatia as third world either.

[Aro]

posted by lucwarm
it seems pretty clear to me that the majority are not developed countries…

I think that is going to be the case, but is not really the gist of the point.

Look at it a different way: (from here):

List of countries NOT yet signed up to the treaty:
Algeria
Angola
Armenia
Bahamas
Bahrain
Bangladesh
Burkina Faso
Burundi
Cameroon
Cape Verde
Chad
Chile
Comoros
Congo
Côte d’Ivoire
Czech Republic
Dominican Republic
Egypt
Eritrea
Guinea
Guinea-Bissau
Guyana
Haiti
Iran (Islamic Republic of)
Jamaica
Kenya
Kuwait
Kyrgyzstan
Liberia
Madagascar
Mexico
Morocco
Mozambique
Oman
Philippines
Republic of Moldova
Russian Federation
Saint Lucia
Sao Tome and Principe
Seychelles
Sudan
Syrian Arab Republic
Thailand
Ukraine
United Arab Emirates
United States of America
Uzbekistan
Yemen
Zimbabwe

What percentage of First World countries have signed up, compared to third world countries? Almost all of them, with the exceptions bolded here.

[SentientMeat]

Come now, this entire herring is as red as Chairman Mao’s curtains.

The question is whether the US is in any way a “special case” regarding the ICC. Other developed, interventionist countries have signed up: Why the heck should they jeopardise their national interests like that?

The idea that Britain, Japan and Australia are somehow in it just to put one over the US is palpably paranoid poppycock, as Gareth Gates might say. After a fortnight.

[OliverH]

*Originally posted by Aro *
**I think that is going to be the case, but is not really the gist of the point.

…
What percentage of First World countries have signed up, compared to third world countries? Almost all of them, with the exceptions bolded here. **

And with the accession of the Czech Republic to the EU, its non-signature will likely either be changed, or rendered moot by EU statutes.

[SentientMeat]

Sorry, France not Japan. The last time they had a go at interventionism they got a bit carried away.

[lucwarm]

*Originally posted by Tarantula *
Lucwarm - Andorra and San Marino are not Third World Countries

Ok, so change my list accordingly. Doesn’t really change the underlying point though.
**

you fool. **

Please do not make this personal.

[OliverH]

*Originally posted by lucwarm *
**Ok, so change my list accordingly. Doesn’t really change the underlying point though.

**

Your point being that there are less industrialized countries than third world countries in the world? Because for anything else, the list is meaningless.

[lucwarm]

*Originally posted by Aro *
I think that is going to be the case, but is not really the gist of the point.

I was responding to sailor who said the following:

the members are mostly developed countries and members of NATO

---

**

What percentage of First World countries have signed up, compared to third world countries? Almost all of them, with the exceptions bolded here. **

Isn’t this basically an argument ad populum? Or are you making an additional point of some sort?

[lucwarm]

*Originally posted by OliverH *
**Your point being that there are less industrialized countries than third world countries in the world? Because for anything else, the list is meaningless. **

Well, perhaps you should ask sailor why he made the following point:

the members are mostly developed countries and members of NATO

And by the way, my understanding is that the ICC judges are selected by a vote among participating countries. So the fact that third-world countries predominate is hardly meaningless.

[OliverH]

*Originally posted by occ *
**

They’re misreading the fucking argument.

What smiling bandit meant was that the US Constitution forbids the US to enter into any such treaty. That is, the Constitution governs the behavior of the US government. Nobody is claiming that the Constitution has any international validity, and obviously it does not. They are simply pointing out that for the US to enter into such a treaty would be violating said Constitution. Sheesh. **

Sorry, but for that, he would have to demonstrate how it does so. And be careful with your arguments, lest you claim that signing and ratifying the UN charter was unconstitutional.

[OliverH]

Originally posted by Ravenman *
**
This is a black-or-white statement that simply disregards major exceptions that are well-established by law and precident. I quote from Article 7 of the NATO Status of Forces Agreement, signed in 1951:*

I believe I was a bit misunderstandable here. I was talking about the default status of civilians.

**
“The military authorities of the sending State shall have the right to exercise exclusive jurisdiction over persons subject to the military law of that State with respect to offenses, including offenses relating to its security, punishable by the law of the sending State, but not by the law of the receiving State.”
**

Sorry, but that is not contrary to what I said. It says that the sending authority has jurisdiction over such cases, i.e. it can try violators. It also says that it can try violations that are punishable by sending State statutes, but not by receiving State statutes. That translates to it being able to be more, but not less severe than the receiving state.

**
That’s a good-faith effort to define kangaroo court, but I do not think this is a sufficient barrier to frivilous charges made by those who have an axe to grind against the US. Let’s say that some radical Serb wants to accuse Wes Clark or Bill Clinton of genocide because of the war in Kosovo, and US courts find that charge without basis, I do not believe that this – and other relevant sections of the ICC treaty – are strong enough to discourage those who are inclined to file rediculous charges. **

And so what if they file charges? That means neither that there will actually be an indictment, nor that anyone will be found guilty. Keep in mind that NATO WAS filed charges against, which were dismissed.

**
In my mind, there ought to be a more substantial barrier - such as that the burden should be on the accuser to first demonstrate substantial evidence that justice was not pursued, before the ICC could even consider whether to disregard the actions of national courts. As it is written, it appears that the ICC Prosecutor - and justices, presumably - would be charged with evaluating the fairness of the previous trial. There is no disincentive in this section for politically motiviated charges of war crimes. **

I am sorry, but I do not see this as a valid argument. You state yourself that the ICC prosecutor -and not just he, but also a pretrial chamber of judges- have to find there is merit to the case. Unless you consider the ICC a kangaroo court by default, that IS quite a barrier to frivolous trials. I personally do not see any need for a barrier to frivolous charges. An accuser not content with the national trial WILL have to convince the ICC that justice has not been served, after all.