Socreges said:Clinton signed up for it. Then the Bush administration retracted that. Has Kerry commented at all on what he might do?
[edit] sorry, please move
Dumb enough... kangaroo court.... elaborate.Ripclawe said:well, he blasted the ICC for the Israel wall ruling, rightly so. But he once said he would like the CIA under UN jurisdiction. He is an internationalist but I don't think he is dumb enough to sign the US under that kangaroo court.
Socreges said:Dumb enough... kangaroo court.... elaborate.
See, that is what I'm asking you to elaborate on. You're not that slow, I'm sure. Please explain why you use words like "kangaroo court" or why advocating the court would make Kerry "dumb". You're only stating the same hawk rhetoric.Ripclawe said:whats to elaborate? if Kerry gets to be president and he signs up America for the world court, all hell with break loose on him for putting America under the jurisdiction of a kangaroo court. The ICC is worthless.
America like it or not is above this.
Fight for Freeform said:Above the Law?
Ripclawe said:only law to answer to is in America, everyone else can go kiss.
How to Avoid Legal Difficulties
When you are in a foreign country, you are subject to its laws and are under its jurisdiction NOT the protection of the U.S. Constitution.
You can be arrested overseas for actions that may be either legal or considered minor infractions in the United States. Be aware of what is considered criminal in the country where you are. Consular Information Sheets include information on unusual patterns of arrests in various countries when appropriate.
Some of the offenses for which U.S. citizens have been arrested abroad are:
Well, usually if a crime is committed in another country, then that country has jurisidiction over it. It's pretty common knowledge. The State Department makes it known that while in other countries, Americans would be held to their laws.
The new court can try individuals for the world's most serious atrocities: genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and other gross human rights abuses
Ripclawe said:oh no, that I am fine with, if you are dumb to do a crime elsewhere, you are asking for it.
The ICC OTOH
The reality is that in the position America is in the real problem is frivolous cases brought against soldiers/officials like it happened when Belgium had that ridiculous law where you can file lawsuits against any world officials.
The reality is that in the position America is in the real problem is frivolous cases brought against soldiers/officials like it happened when Belgium had that ridiculous law where you can file lawsuits against any world officials.
Don't you have faith in their judicial system?
Ripclawe said:only law to answer to is in America, everyone else can go kiss.
What's wrong with this?
Don't you have faith in their judicial system?
Obviously not, It seems he'd rather America was held to a different standard than the rest of the world, or better yet he'd rather the rest of the world would fall in behind America and accept their new overlords.
But if the ICC is good enough for other countries, then it's good enough for us.
The US cut military funding to countries who supported the ICC. A bunch of South American countries got fucked beause of this, which boils down to blackmail.
Do elaborate on this statement.Ripclawe said:America is different from the rest of the world , We are not like everyone else, nor should we be brought down to the level of everyone else.
Ripclawe said:America is different from the rest of the world , We are not like everyone else, nor should we be brought down to the level of everyone else.
...Ripclawe said:America is different from the rest of the world , We are not like everyone else, nor should we be brought down to the level of everyone else.
Socreges said:Good luck. He'd rather just say baseless things such as that and hope that there's someone out there who buys it.
Here's some education, Rip. Though I'm sure you don't want to hear it.
John Sigler
John Sigler is one of the co-founders and co-administrators of the ECCMEI as well as a contributor.
Among other sites that he operates is the International Islamic Response site regarding the official reactions of the fifty one countries around the world in which Islam is the largest religious faith to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, D.C.
International Islamic Response:
http://www.angelfire.com/co4/intl-islamic-res/index.html
Please take a moment to sign his new petition, "United States culpability for Israeli Actions"
He is also a co-founder of the "Jewish Friends of Palestine" Project:
whats wrong with that? sign the treaty or you get cut in funding, maybe they should go to the EU and getting buddy buddy with them.
Lighting quick with the ad hominem there, as always.his opinions is less than dirt.
Well:Ripclawe said:They can put in all the "safeguards" they want, America should not be a part of the ICC under any circumstances. A lot of other countries have not signed up for the ICC such as Russia who has not voted yes for it, China or India and I think a lot of Arab nations as well. So we are not the only ones wary of it or like the idea of some outside entity being an anchor around our necks.
Like the US, the countries you listed would have their policies handicapped the most.the article said:As noted above, of course the ICC cant hear cases regarding incidents that occurred prior to July 1, 2002 nevertheless, the War on Terrorism is still underway and will become significantly more difficult to pursue if the United States is asked to re-evaluate its tactics, especially those that constitute war crimes under international law.
What impression do you think you're giving people with statements like these? Not strength. Not intelligence. You just come across as a very sad person.I know this attitude doesn't sit well with people from other countries, but almost no one cares about your feelings.
muncheese said:Because the original agreements have jack shit to do with the ICC.
Under the American Servicemembers Protection Act (ASPA), countries that have supported the ICC will no longer qualify to the US military aid unless they sign a bilateral agreement on Article 98, giving immunity to US soldiers from being prosecuted under the ICC. It has provided a deadline to sign these immunity agreements until July 1 this year.
Ripclawe said:it has everything to do with it
don't sign, get cut in funding.
What impression do you think you're giving people with statements like these? Not strength. Not intelligence. You just come across as a very sad person.
And you can continue to stress that America can do whatever the hell it wants. But perpetual isolationism will likely hurt them more in the long run, than help.[/quote[
What is this? reverse psych 101? If we allow some outside entity to get to our officials and service men for example, the rest of the world will be happy and love us again. give me a break. This isolationism is nothing more than fringe dream, we are the world economy, it doesn't go unless we do. We are not some podunk country with very little economic power. Isolationism would only hurt the rest of the world.
its not like we don't have the resources to help ourselves.
"Men are less hesitant about harming someone who makes himself loved than one who makes himself feared because love is held together by a chain of obligation which, since men are wretched creatures, is broken on every occasion in which their own interests are concerned; but fear is sustained by dread of punishment which will never abandon you." -- Niccolo Machiavelli
If the rest of the world hates how America forces its ideals upon them, why should they expect us to accept this in return? I don't like the idea of anyone outside our country being able to convict our people of crimes based on different standards than we've set up here. I don't see why any country would approve of this, unless they were trying to equal the playing field with the big guy, which is exactly what I think is going on.
No, no. Rather than you dismissing him because of association, I would like you to show where the article is incorrect. Or at least present an argument against it (citing other countries does not qualify). I would like to understand the situation as best I can, whereas you, as always, narrow your perspective to what fits your agenda.his opinions is less than dirt.
muncheese said:Like I said the original agreements for military funding have jack shit to do with the ICC. The amendment to the aspa regarding the military funding was introduced long after the ICC was conceived.
Don't think the US is giving away free military funding to random countries.
If in January I sold three cookies for a dollar, then in October I hear the cops are running around trying to nab pot holder, then ask you to oppose the cops trying to find pot growers otherwise my three cookies no long cost dollar to you. That's blackmail.
No, no. Rather than you dismissing him because of association, I would like you to show where the article is incorrect. Or at least present an argument against it (citing other countries does not qualify). I would like to understand the situation as best I can, whereas you, as always, narrow your perspective to what fits your agenda.
You're simplifying a very complicated concept.What is this? reverse psych 101? If we allow some outside entity to get to our officials and service men for example, the rest of the world will be happy and love us again. give me a break. This isolationism is nothing more than fringe dream, we are the world economy, it doesn't go unless we do. We are not some podunk country with very little economic power. Isolationism would only hurt the rest of the world.
its not like we don't have the resources to help ourselves.
But does it fit into today's international community? Machiavelli was speaking of leaders over (relatively) primitive populations. Applying that to relations between states and state leaders (without explaining the relevance - as if it speaks for itself) just doesn't work. Yet, that you would think such an idea will continue to hold the US in power is ultimately so characteristic of you.its an old quote but it fits in today's world
"Men are less hesitant about harming someone who makes himself loved than one who makes himself feared because love is held together by a chain of obligation which, since men are wretched creatures, is broken on every occasion in which their own interests are concerned; but fear is sustained by dread of punishment which will never abandon you." -- Niccolo Machiavelli
You should have just said that from the beginning. Depending on how which cases the ICC actually takes on, that could very well end up being the case. The UN, for instance, is essentially a tool of the US. The ICC would not be so convenient. And the US would actually have to adjust its policies around the set rules or they might actually be held responsible for once. The US, up to now, has not answered to any law - rather, they've answered to allies and what they can get away with without alienating these allies to the point of conflict or fallout.signing up to the ICC makes us weaker. sorry, I refuse to be happy with that.
Look let me break it down to this, its our money, on our terms. They want to keep getting our money, then they better damn well agree to our terms. This is not blackmail.
Um, you're thinking of the ICJ.4) The ICC will be used to throw roadblocks in our way, as your author pointed out some absurd flimsy examples that anyone can bring to the ICC to put against us. The same ICC that ruled the Israel Wall that has almost stopped terrorist bombings must be torn down which is interfering with a country's right to defend itself.
This article sums it up nicely about the ICC and Israel http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/Colum.../pf-536321.html
Ripclawe said:A lot of other countries have not signed up for the ICC such as Russia who has not voted yes for it, China or India and I think a lot of Arab nations as well.
Socreges said:but I'm positive he would just say how that's not practical
You're simplifying a very complicated concept.
But does it fit into today's international community? Machiavelli was speaking of leaders over (relatively) primitive populations. Applying that to relations between states and state leaders (without explaining the relevance - as if it speaks for itself) just doesn't work. Yet, that you would think such an idea will continue to hold the US in power is ultimately so characteristic of you.
You should have just said that from the beginning.
Depending on how which cases the ICC actually takes on, that could very well end up being the case. The UN, for instance, is essentially a tool of the US. The ICC would not be so convenient. And the US would actually have to adjust its policies around the set rules or they might actually be held responsible for once. The US, up to now, has not answered to any law - rather, they've answered to allies and what they can get away with without alienating these allies to the point of conflict or fallout.
Um, you're thinking of the ICJ.
And STFU up about America's "unique" position, and not being "dragged down" to the level of other countries. When it comes to war crimes etc. etc. no country should be treated differently than any other. Not to mention that a) the US's only real strength now over many other nations is military strength (taken under many other measures, the US falls behind other countries, in fact) and b) the US will not be the world's sole superpower anymore in the near to mid-term. Actions taken now won't be forgotten in the world of the tomorrow.
Socreges said:gofreak, I was tempted to touch on morality and general decency of nations, but I'm positive he would just say how that's not practical. Especially since he has on more than one occasion placed Machiavelli in modern circumstance.
Ripclawe said:according to the latest UN best places to live, we are in solidly in the top 10, our economic power is unrivaled, the EU is not competition, China still has a ways to go and it has a host of problems just waiting, India...no..Japan..no... who else?
What does that matter to what I said? Address this, instead:no you are complicating a very simply concept, he who has the most power wins and sets the rules, many of the problems of the world is because there is absurd notion of everyone is equal, on the same level and should be treated as such.
Of course it is. Often. But you used that quote as if to support your argument that America can do what it likes and isolate itself without consequence. Fear will only work for so long and for certain countries.It absolutely fits into today's "international Community" across the board, You think Sudan would be dragging its feet to stop the killings in darfur if they knew not doing so would mean certain economic and physically destruction? fear is a powerful motivator.
Ok, where?I did.
One nation will decide what is best for themselves. The ICJ will sooner decide what is best for two.my bad, but it still fits into the fact of an outside entity trying to dictate what is best for someone, in this case Israel who is rightly ignoring this ruling.
You stress that America should be able to do whatever it wants, with no law binding them. You don't seem to care for the expense. The US becoming weaker is more important than people being held to account; or future war crimes and carelessness being prevented.oh touch on it and let see where this theory goes.
No, I dismissed the relevance. Machiavelli was brilliant.As for your dismissal of the teachings of Machiavelli, many things he wrote about is absolutely usable in today's world, along with Sun Tzu of course.
no you are complicating a very simply concept, he who has the most power wins and sets the rules, many of the problems of the world is because there is absurd notion of everyone is equal, on the same level and should be treated as such.