It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

"We hanged Nazis for this...." Nuremberg Prosecutor Commentary

page: 2
14
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 11 2011 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by Xcathdra
 



And this really bothers me. It goes to the point in the OP that sovereignty belongs to The People, not the State.

If the ICC cannot act within its own charter, there is no reason to trust that tyranny will not be an end result. A mockery of truth and liberty.

It is why i am so on the fence with this particular issue.


That is my concern as well. I have stated in toher threads that the ICC is a good idea in concept, but in practice it fails in some key areas. Until those areas are addressed, and gurantees are in place with the ability of redress, I dont think we should have anything to do with it.

Its a double edged swored that can be used against us in a manner it was never intended for.




posted on Mar, 11 2011 @ 08:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


For what its worth, I am not "going after" the US. I am criticizing the poor behavior or our government. What we are discussing here, Habeas Corpus, is not so much US law as it is a part of the Magna Carta (from the 1200's). It is a basic human right that has been observed for 800 years, and is in part responsible for the run up to the foundation of the US and France as "free nations".

Many of these men will die in detention before this stupid damned war is over. Bush tried to set the expectation by saying is could take a hundred years.

And our failure to protect the basic rights of these people is starting to reverberate among the US populace. Look at what is going on with Bradley Manning and his detention. It is a disgrace the way we, as a People, are allowing our government to suspend the basic rights that are the foundation of our nation for people, both domestic and foreign.

The possession of Americans by others is something that kind of goes without saying. Moral equivalence is no argument.



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 06:24 AM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


My bad man.. I wasnt trying to insinuate that you were going after the US. If thats how it came across it was not intended that way.

I agree the US should try to hold the higher ground in all of this. My irritation though is I wish the people who continually go after the US, her actions and policies would spend the equal amount of time going after Al Queida, Taliban, Iran, N. Korea etc.

The US has been on this type of collision course since the days of the Barbary Pirates and our first attempt of Diplomacy with extremists.

To me the argument I see from others is "The US should not be doing this, innocent people are being killed - The US are murdereres etc (making the descrption broad, but not saying everyone is like that). The moment US troops are brought home, the outrage over innocent people being killed becomes and after thought, because it is once again on the other side of the ocean and does not affect us directly anymore.

If we are going to hold people accountable, then it needs to be applied the same everywhere, from the US to the Afghans, to the Russians, Iranians etc.



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 08:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Nah, i didn't take it like that. I just wanted to clarify my position since the topic was brought up.



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 02:34 PM
link   
Contrary to what torture apologists and Bush doctrine supporters would want you to believe, the International Criminal Court’s statute (Rome Statute) “contains the most comprehensive list of due process protections which has so far been promulgated,” and “[t]he 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.”

These are the words of Monroe Leigh, former President of the American Society of International Law, and former legal advisor of the Department of State and the Department of Defense, appointed by Henry Kissinger — hardly an advocate of anti-Americanism.

Mr. Leigh made this chart, a side-by-side comparison between the protections and rights in the ICC statute and the US Constitution. There you can see that, and far from what you are being told, the ICC statute is not in any way offensive to the Constitution.

Additionally, here is a list of dispelled myths regarding the ICC by the international human rights organization Human Rights Watch.


The opposition to the ICC by the United States has nothing to do with lack of rights afforded to the accused, but rather, because the US tried to maintain some control over the ICC, seeking modifications to the Rome Statute that would “enable it to sign the treaty,” proposing “agreed interpretations” of certain provisions, and even seeking clauses in the “relationship agreement” between the ICC and the United Nations that would exempt certain US citizens from the Court’s jurisdiction so long as the US was not a party, or unless the US gave it consent on a case-by-case basis.

This was obviously not acceptable, as preferential treatment would violate international law and would, in essence, delegitimize the Court.

The US along with Iran, Iraq, China, Israel, Sudan and Libya, were the only 7 nations in 1998 to vote against the Rome Statute, in contrast with the 120 that voted in favor, including all European and NATO allies.

President Clinton signed the treaty in 2000 but didn’t submit it for ratification by the Senate.

The US, during the Bush administration, in 2002, when it couldn’t assure the exemption for certain US officials, and not wanting to submit to the same rules it insists others submit to, withdrew the United States signature from the Rome treaty. The US is one of three countries to withdraw its signature from the treaty, along with Israel and Sudan.


ICC critics point to Libya, and the recent referral of the possible international law violations by the Gaddafi regime, as an example that the ICC doesn’t work because this referral is against the statute of the Court, because “Libya is not a signatory to the ICC.”

This is incorrect. Article 13(b) of the Rome Statute specifies that the UN Security Council can refer a case to the Court, and can do so even if the alleged crimes occurred in the territory of a non-signatory. And this is what happened with Libya.

Only two cases, in the history of the Court, have been referred by the Security Council. There was complete agreement of the Council, with 15 votes in favor, including the United States, none against and no abstentions, to start an investigation regarding the actions of the Libyan regime. The other case referred by the Council was Darfur, in 2005.

It’s funny to see the torture apologists and Bush doctrine supporters, in their opposition to the ICC, put in the position of siding with the brutal regime of Gaddafi, instead of with the efforts of the international community to investigate and prosecute those who committed indiscriminate attacks against their own civilian population.

That should tell you something.



edit on 12-3-2011 by aptness because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by aptness
Contrary to what torture apologists and Bush doctrine supporters would want you to believe,


Feel free to delve into personal attacks on your own.. It apparently is the only way you are able to make your argument, which is sad for you.

The ICC is not part of or subject to the United Nations and is a seperate entity, and the ICC homepage states as much.

Found here:
The ICC is an independent international organisation, and is not part of the United Nations system. Its seat is at The Hague in the Netherlands. Although the Court’s expenses are funded primarily by States Parties, it also receives voluntary contributions from governments, international organisations, individuals, corporations and other entities.



Originally posted by aptness
the International Criminal Court’s statute (Rome Statute) “contains the most comprehensive list of due process protections which has so far been promulgated,” and “[t]he 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.”


Notice how its phrased comprehensive, yet fails to point out those comprehensive lists. If the ICC was on such firm legal footing, why would there be a need to add protections under the Rome statutes, I mean aside from the fact they were not present in the first ICC agreement. Since the ICC / Rome Statutes provide more protection, please go through the list under this and point out where I missed these in the ICC documentation.

Any statute by the ICC that restricts, changes, modifies or otherwise does not allow the full bill of rights, is a violation Due process under US law.

There is no guarantee against double jeopardy - Violation of the 5th Amendment
It strips 5th amendment protectins against the Military - Violation of the 5th Amendment / UCMJ
There is no guarantee to face your accuser - Violates confrontation clause of the 6th amendment
There is no system for bail - Violation of the 8th Amendment
There is no right to trial by jury of your peers - Violation of 6th Amendment
There is no guarantee of a public trial - Violates 6th Amendment

There is no gurantee of priveladged communications between defendant / counsel - Violates 6th Amendment
The timeline established by the ICC for criminal prosecution violates the speedy trial defintion set forth by US law - Violates the 6th amendment.

There is no standard of impartiality set for judges - Violates 6th Amendment
There is no process for the recusal / forced removal of juges who exhibit prejudice while presiding - Violates 6th amendment.
There is no Compulsory process for witnesses in place - Violates the 6th Amendment
While it states presumed innocent until prven guilty, the established rules for proceedings of the ICC force the accused to prove his innocents instead of the Prosectuor - Violates Due Process / 5th Amendment

It fails to recognize good faith standard - Case Law established by SCOTUS when actions are taken by one party who is acting on information from a second party beleived to be knowledgable about the info.

It fails to adhere to a strict guidlene regarding rules of evidence - Violates 4th / 6th amendment
It does not allow a challenge to evidence collected - Violates 4th / 6th amendment
It does not allow for a motion of discovery - Violates 4th / 6th amendment
It does not allow for pre trial conference for fact comparison - Violates Due Process

It does not allow for evidence illegally obtained from being prohibited in its use - Violates 4th / 6th amendment as well as Fruit of the Poisonous tree decision by SCOTUS

It does not provide for protections against self incrimination - Violates 5th Amendment
It does not prohibit the forced testimony of a charged defendant - Violates the 5th Amendment
It does not allow a defendant to take the 5th amendment - Violates 5th Amendment
It does not prohibit the use of hearsay evidence - Violates SCOTUS case law and due process
It does not prohibit a seizure of a suspect or personal belongings - Violates 4th amendment
It does not allow for bail, a violation of the 8th amendment
It assumes auhtority over citizens where none is granted to it by non signatory nations. - Violation of Constitution
It does not use the standard of Probable Cause to issue an arrest or search warrant - Violates 4th amendment
It does not take into account American citizens hold dual citizenship (State / Federal) - Violates the 9th amendment
The ICC procedures / guarantees that are not already listed in the US Constitution cannot be granted by treaty - violates 10th amendment.
It does not allow for the redress of grievances by the accused against an accusing government
It does not provide 2nd amendment protections with regards to the illegal possession / use of weapons under ICC definitions.
It does removes the authority of Congress from creating/removing/modifiying UCMJ - Violates Constitution
The lack of acknowledgment of Case law - violates Equal protection clause

The entire ICC and Rome Statutes, written as they are now, violate the 11th amendment
The entire ICC and Rome Statutes, written as they are now, violate the 14th amendment

In addition to the massive list above that point out where the ICC is completely failing, it still does not escape the fact that the ICC violates the constitution. I suggest you brush up on the Constitution, because once your done shredding it and submitting yourself to an entity that you do not elect or have any recourse over, your going to wish you still had it.


Originally posted by aptness
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.”


* - Aside from the fact that the ICC holds soldiers liable even when given a command from a superior officer which US military is required to obey.
* - The main areas of jurisdiction by the ICC are broad, and do not adequately spell out what actions can violate a segment.
* - It puts soldiers into the position of violating the UCMJ by abiding by the ICC statute.
* - It violates the UCMJ, as well as the Constitution since any laws governing the Military, including the manner in which those crimes are investigated, is ursurped by the ICC.
* - It creates a violation of undue command influence, which is prohibited by the UCMJ.
* - It limits the type and manner of exculpatory evidence that is allowed under US / UCMJ law.
* - It does not allow a person to face their accuser

What other little gems are provided by the ICC for criminal prosecutions?

* - If a conflict arises between a Ntions law, and the ICC statute, the ICC statute takes precidence.
* - If somthing arises that is not covered by the ICC statutes, the judge, and NOT legal precedent, makes a determination.
* - A determination made by an ICC judge cannot be appealed.
* - There is no recourse for appeal once the ICC gives its ruling
* - Judges for the ICC are not public, and are elected by secret ballot
* - If a state takes action on a complaint submitted under ICC rules, there is no gurantees present that the accused wont be arrested and tried by the ICC if the national court fnids the person not guilty.


Originally posted by aptness
These are the words of Monroe Leigh, former President of the American Society of International Law, and former legal advisor of the Department of State and the Department of Defense, appointed by Henry Kissinger — hardly an advocate of anti-Americanism.

Mr. Leigh made this chart, a side-by-side comparison between the protections and rights in the ICC statute and the US Constitution. There you can see that, and far from what you are being told, the ICC statute is not in any way offensive to the Constitution.


The link you gave here is invalid and goes to a 404 page. If you can fix and repost so I can counter it - Thanks.

The ICC violates the Constitution, Federal and State law. If people take the time to read the ICC in its entirety, you would know this. For easy refence, I refer you to the info I poiinted out above.


Originally posted by aptness
Additionally, here is a list of dispelled myths regarding the ICC by the international human rights organization Human Rights Watch.


It does not dispell any myths and is noting but propoganda put out by people who think the world can be at peace if we just hug one another. See the lists above that are not covered by the ICC, and then show me where in the ICC, which you say provides MORE protection, where those protections are found.


Originally posted by aptness
The opposition to the ICC by the United States has nothing to do with lack of rights afforded to the accused,


Actually it does... In addition it violates the US constitution and cedes sovereignty to a non democratic entity with definitions so broad, even US law enforcement could be brought up on charges for simply handcuffing a person behind their back, which it prohibits.

Lets look at their defintion of genocide shall we:
Your Source


Genocide:
Article 6
Genocide
For the purpose of this Statute, "genocide" means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.


What does intent to destroy mean? Since its not clearly established, simply fighting against the Taliban and Al Queida, the argument can be made the US is committing genocide because the people we are fighting, claim a jihad against the US. The Jihad is reliigious, and the people we are fighting are almost 99% Muslim, which means we are fighting against a religion, which meets the deifnition given above for genocide.

The argument that "any smart person knows the difference and should use common sense" in this area is the problem. There are no guarantees common sense would be used, allowing for political motivated prosecutions by usin broad, non descrpit terms.


Originally posted by aptness
but rather, because the US tried to maintain some control over the ICC, seeking modifications to the Rome Statute that would “enable it to sign the treaty,” proposing “agreed interpretations” of certain provisions, and even seeking clauses in the “relationship agreement” between the ICC and the United Nations that would exempt certain US citizens from the Court’s jurisdiction so long as the US was not a party, or unless the US gave it consent on a case-by-case basis.


The exemptions were requested because without them, it violates the US Constitution, you know, the document you rip apart in an effort to push a globalist hug for all agenda. The ICC invalidates the doctrine of Sovereign Immunity against all elected officals. It ursurps the chain of command by placing a foreign entity in charge of military operations with its broad defintions in its area of jurisdiction. It makes absolutely no allowance for an act of self defense, which violates UN Charter as well as removes the authority from a sovereign nation to defend itself by making acts of agression illegal.

And it does NOTHING to prohibit a politically motivated prosecution. - See example above with Genocide

Another example for you:
Your Source

ICC - Article 7 - Crimes against humanity
Part D - Deportation or forcible transfer of population
Part E - Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law
Part H - Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender as defined in paragraph 3, or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law, in connection with any act referred to in this paragraph or any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court;


The United States just violated Article 7 of the ICC because of our Immigration Laws and Legal system.


Originally posted by aptness
This was obviously not acceptable, as preferential treatment would violate international law and would, in essence, delegitimize the Court.


There is no legitimacy to the ICC when it violates its own statues and operating guidelines, namely the statute cannot be used against a nation that is not a signatory to the treaty. The ONLY acception it allows is if a conflict is between 2 or more nations, and one of those nations is a signatory. The ICC then gives itself authority over all nations involved, and even then its forcing its own sets of views onto a nation that rejects them.

Coincidentally enough the exact same thing you accuse the US of doing. So its acceptable if the UN or ICC member country, or even a Democrat in the White House does it, but by God if Bush's name is attached to it, light the torches and get the pitchforks..

In addition to sarcasm, the other term to look up would be hypocrisy.

In the case of Libya, its actions are against itself, and not subject to the ICC. The referral by the Security Council to the ICC also violates the ICC guielines by failing to give the offending country 12 months to conduct its own investigation into the allegations. The ICC is designed to be a court of last resort, and NOT a court of origional jurisdiction. Or are you arguing that since Libya is not a member of the ICC, the ICC can make up / ignore its own rules in order to push iteself onto a sovereign nation?

Care to explain / clarify. I provided you with your own source which establishes how a referal works, and the ICC violated it.

Your Source


Article 4
Legal status and powers of the Court
1. The Court shall have international legal personality. It shall also have such legal capacity as may be necessary for the exercise of its functions and the fulfilment of its purposes.

2. The Court may exercise its functions and powers, as provided in this Statute, on the territory of any State Party and, by special agreement, on the territory of any other State.


This section is not hard to understand. They only have jurisdiction with signatory nations, or non signatory nations by special agreement. Which by the way, the "special agreement" setup, violates the argument you made about deligitimizing the ICC by making exceptions.


Originally posted by aptness
The US along with Iran, Iraq, China, Israel, Sudan and Libya, were the only 7 nations in 1998 to vote against the Rome Statute, in contrast with the 120 that voted in favor, including all European and NATO allies.


There is no vote on the Rome statutes. Its a document that countries decided to implement if they so chose. While the treaty was created in 1998, it did not enter full effect until 2002, when it reached the majority number of countries to make it valid.

Also, there are 114 nations that signed onto the treaty, which means your list above is inaccurate in terms of the number of countries who refused to "vote" for it.


Originally posted by aptness
President Clinton signed the treaty in 2000 but didn’t submit it for ratification by the Senate.


Why not? How come you are not taking Clinto to task for failing to do anything with the treaty? Is it because he is a Democrat, or is it because he is not Bush? Why the double standard?


Originally posted by aptness
The US, during the Bush administration, in 2002, when it couldn’t assure the exemption for certain US officials, and not wanting to submit to the same rules it insists others submit to, withdrew the United States signature from the Rome treaty. The US is one of three countries to withdraw its signature from the treaty, along with Israel and Sudan.


We withdrew because the ICC is a violation of the US Constitution and placed itself superior to the same. It does NOT afford all the protections the US constitution guarantees, it removes the established case law of the United States, and it assumes authority over the nations highest court, which again is a violation of the US Constitution. It violates the Supremacy clause, and places US Citizens inside the US under the legal authority of a foreign entity with absolutely no mechanism of redress of grievances.

I love how your hatred of Bush blinds you to the facts. Bush approached countries asking for a seperate bilateral agreement that protected US citizens from what can be considered politicall motivated prosecution by the ICC. The reason for those requests is due to the amount of peacekeeping operations the US engages in.

You are extremely naive if you think the ICC would not be used as a political and malicious prosecution tool against anything the US does. Its already happened with Spain and Switzerland and their non standing legal attempts toward US actions, in addition to illegally usin the ICC against Israel, Sudan and Libya, who are not signatories to that treaty.


Originally posted by aptness
ICC critics point to Libya, and the recent referral of the possible international law violations by the Gaddafi regime, as an example that the ICC doesn’t work because this referral is against the statute of the Court, because “Libya is not a signatory to the ICC.”

This is incorrect. Article 13(b) of the Rome Statute specifies that the UN Security Council can refer a case to the Court, and can do so even if the alleged crimes occurred in the territory of a non-signatory. And this is what happened with Libya.


Which is in violaion of the ICC.. Let me explain this to you, since you seem to ignore it or just plain dont understand it.

Your Source - ICC

Article 4 -Legal status and powers of the Court - only applies to signatory nations
Article 5 -Crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court - only applies to signatory nations
Article 11 - Jurisdiction ratione temporis - If a State becomes a Party to this Statute after its entry into force
Article 12 - Preconditions to the exercise of jurisdiction - A State which becomes a Party to this Statute thereby accepts the jurisdiction of the Court with respect to the crimes referred to in article 5.
Article 13 - Exercise of jurisdiction - A situation in which one or more of such crimes appears to have been committed is referred to the Prosecutor by a State Party in accordance with article 14
Article 15 - Prosecutor - Term - proprio motu If you dont know what it means, look it up and tell me hos its not politically motivated.

Only states who are party to the treaty are subject to the Courts Jurisdiction. Your own sources say this time and again, yet for some reason you only see what you want to see.


Originally posted by aptness
Only two cases, in the history of the Court, have been referred by the Security Council. There was complete agreement of the Council, with 15 votes in favor, including the United States, none against and no abstentions, to start an investigation regarding the actions of the Libyan regime. The other case referred by the Council was Darfur, in 2005.


Well, you would be wrong - ICC Cases and pending matters before the court

Both are violations of the ICC - They are not member nations to the party. Again I refer you to your own source, which runs opposite to your argument and claims.

You are ignoreing this -
Your Source

Article 16
Deferral of investigation or prosecution

No investigation or prosecution may be commenced or proceeded with under this Statute for a period of 12 months after the Security Council, in a resolution adopted under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, has requested the Court to that effect; that request may be renewed by the Council under the same conditions.


So again, the ICC violates its own rules. This is not a hard concept to understand. They failed to follow their protocol when they referred Libya to the ICC.


Originally posted by aptness
It’s funny to see the torture apologists and Bush doctrine supporters, in their opposition to the ICC, put in the position of siding with the brutal regime of Gaddafi, instead of with the efforts of the international community to investigate and prosecute those who committed indiscriminate attacks against their own civilian population.


Your contuinued use of the term apologists and Bush doctrine supporters is sad. It seems that is the only way you can make your argument in this area. The last thread we had, where I countered every single one of your distortions with reference to the ICC, you pulled the same routine. Instead of countering the information with facts, you resort to name calling in hopes of distracting others from the fact your wrong.

Which by the way, you are wrong. Your own sources say you are wrong, and as a matter of fact they say your wrong in about 140 different languages.


Originally posted by aptness
That should tell you something.


That 2 wrongs make a right, or that unilateral action when taken by the US is wrong, yet when taken by the ICC in violation of its own setup its acceptable.

I like to throw down with the best of them, but in this case you really need to read the Constitution and actually understand it. Read the Charter to the UN and actually understand it. Read the ICC documents you provided and understand it.

Your "opinion" on how you "think" this should work is in complete contradiciton to the Facts and established Laws of the United States. Until those laws change, or you assist the UN in overthrowing the US to institute an Animal Farm style society, the only correct answer is you are wrong.

The Constitution says so
The body of Federal Law says so
The Supreme Court of the US says so
The US Congress says so
The Office of the President says so
The AG of the US says so
The laws of 50 states and the Dsitrict of Columbia says so
The UN Says so
and the ICC says so

Until then, I will wager all I am going to get back from you is some long drawn out name calling fest, like last time, that completely moves the conversation into obfuscation in an effort to hide the fact that you not only were called out, but you were wrong with the info in the manner you portrayed it.

The UN is not a democratic body. The departments in the UN are not a democratic body. The ICC is not a democratic body.

None of the above has any business exercising jurisdiction over sovereign nations who are not signatories to those bodies. Any attempt to do so, under your international law that you hold so dear, is an act of war.

Accepting the ICC as is puts the US into the position of invading Holland to protect American Citizens, American Soldiers, and the elected Government of the United States.

So why you are more than willing to submit yourself to be a subject to a non democratic entity, I would prefer to remain a citizen with mine.

Even with all the problems the US has, its still beats the heck out nightmare scenario you want.

I look forward to your counter debate using facts instead of obfuscation and name calling as you did in the last thread.

edit on 13-3-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 02:46 PM
link   
ICC at a Glance


The International Criminal Court (ICC) is an independent, permanent court that tries persons accused of the most serious crimes of international concern, namely genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. The ICC is based on a treaty, joined by 114 countries.

The ICC is a court of last resort. It will not act if a case is investigated or prosecuted by a national judicial system unless the national proceedings are not genuine, for example if formal proceedings were undertaken solely to shield a person from criminal responsibility. In addition, the ICC only tries those accused of the gravest crimes.

In all of its activities, the ICC observes the highest standards of fairness and due process. The jurisdiction and functioning of the ICC are governed by the Rome Statute.



For those intrested in learning more information about the International Criminal Court -
FAQ's for the ICC

Pay special attention to this part:
Key features of the ICC

.............The Court shall exercise jurisdiction over the crime of aggression once a provision is adopted defining the crime and setting out the conditions under which the Court shall exercise jurisdiction with respect to it.

The jurisdiction of the ICC will be complementary to national courts, which means that the Court will only act when countries themselves are unable or unwilling to investigate or prosecute............


Libya got around to doing an investigation? I must have missed that part....

You guys get the idea.. Read the rest of the FAQ's and answers provided by the ICC group itself and ytou will see what I am talking about.

While Aptness likes to accuse me of being an appologist and sanction crimes against humanity, he fails to point out that I have stated numerous times I am in favor of an ICC, but only if it is done correctly and in such a manner that it can be held accountible.

Until those safeguards are in place, the ICC is a dangerous entity with to many broad defintions that open the door into areas that are nowhere near the authority of the ICC.



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 07:09 PM
link   
The ICC critics and Bush doctrine supporters make the bogus claims that the ICC violates the Constitution because of “limitations of due process” protections, yet as you can see from the chart I mentioned above — but didn’t link correctly and my apologies to the interested parties — every single one of those bogus claims is debunked.

While it is true there is no trial by jury in the ICC — the only divergence with the Constitution — the critics don’t mention the fact that US citizens, including military personnel, are already tried for crimes in countries where jury trials are not used — one of those countries being Israel, but they don’t mention this because it doesn’t support their narrative.

This fact was explained on the Human Rights Watch ICC fact page, I previously linked—

Only the right to trial by jury is missing from the Rome Treaty because of the impracticality of impaneling a jury to hear a case against someone like Pol Pot or Slobodan Milosevic. But the United States has long accepted that its citizens (including U.S. service members) will not get jury trials when accused of crimes in countries like France or Japan, where juries are not used. The United States has signed extradition treaties with many countries that explicitly permit Americans to be tried without a jury.


Further demonstrating their ignorance of the Rome Statute and the ICC, the critics insist the ICC “cannot be used against a nation that is not a signatory to the treaty,” and this, they claim, is based on the ICC statute itself.

Leaving aside the monumental lack of understanding and obvious incorrection that the ICC doesn’t investigate or prosecute nations but individual people, the Rome Statute, in Article 12 and Article 13 — namely 12(2) and 13(b), respectively — specify that the ICC has jurisdiction over crimes committed in the territory of non-signatories in case of a United Nations Security Council referral.

Article 12(2)—

In the case of article 13, paragraph (a) or (c), the Court may exercise its jurisdiction if one or more of the following States are Parties to this Statute or have accepted the jurisdiction of the Court in accordance with paragraph 3
Note that 12(2) specifically omits 13(b) from that provision when the “states are parties” (signatories) or “have accepted the jurisdiction” of the ICC. This is because Article 13(b) is the Security Council referral provision.

Article 13(b)—

The Court may exercise its jurisdiction with respect to a crime referred to in article 5 in accordance with the provisions of this Statute if: ... (b) A situation in which one or more of such crimes appears to have been committed is referred to the Prosecutor by the Security Council acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations

So contrary to what the critics say, the Rome Statute actually specifies that the UN Security Council may refer cases to the ICC even if crimes have occurred in the territory of non-signatories.

Comically, and demonstrative of their disingenuousness, in trying to perpetuate lies about the ICC and attempting to discredit the information I presented, this critic actually has the audacity to link to this page — supposedly supporting his claims and disproving mine — but where we can actually read, among other things, the following unequivocal statement—

When a matter is referred by the Security Council, the Court has jurisdiction regardless of whether the State concerned is a party to the ICC treaty.

This is how disingenuous the ICC critics and Bush doctrine supporters are. They make bogus claims and provide numerous links they don’t even bother to read and purposely ignore the information that debunk their claims.

The critics, continuing their spectacular demonstration of ignorance, claim things like “there is no vote on the Rome Statute,” and that I couldn’t even get the numbers right, in order to confuse people and dismiss the information I presented. Even a simple wikipedia consultation would confirm the information I posted—

Following years of negotiations aimed at establishing a permanent international tribunal to prosecute individuals who commit genocide and other serious international crimes, the United Nations General Assembly convened a five-week diplomatic conference in Rome in June 1998 "to finalize and adopt a convention on the establishment of an international criminal court". On 17 July 1998, the Rome Statute was adopted by a vote of 120 to 7, with 21 countries abstaining.

Another bogus claim made was that I was wrong about my statement that “only two cases, in the history of the Court, have been referred by the Security Council” I made in my previous post. Again, a simple wikipedia consultation would confirm these facts—

To date, the Court has opened investigations into six situations, all of them in Africa: Northern Uganda, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the Central African Republic, Darfur (Sudan), the Republic of Kenya and Libya. Of these six, three were referred to the Court by the states parties (Uganda, Democratic Republic of the Congo and Central African Republic), two were referred by the United Nations Security Council (Darfur and Libya) and only one was begun proprio motu by the Prosecutor (Kenya).


The ICC critics and Bush doctrine supporters have no shame, and will gleefully spread lies and try to confuse people, contrary to the spirit of AboveTopSecret. I hope this post has been elucidative of their tactics.

I will gladly respond to the serious and intelligent members who wish to further debate the facts.



edit on 13-3-2011 by aptness because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 02:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by aptness
The ICC critics and Bush doctrine supporters make the bogus claims that the ICC violates the Constitution because of “limitations of due process” protections, yet as you can see from the chart I mentioned above — but didn’t link correctly and my apologies to the interested parties — every single one of those bogus claims is debunked.


Thank you for fixing the link - It still does not answer all of the concerns above, and debunks nothing. I listed all of the anomolies in my post to you, and challeneged you to prove that those same guarantees are codified in the ICC. You not only failed to do that, but refered people back to the list, which is not an answer.

Those anomolies I pointed out are not present in the ICC, and as such violate the US Constitution.


Originally posted by aptness
While it is true there is no trial by jury in the ICC — the only divergence with the Constitution —


Which is a problem and strips a guranteed right from the poeple who are subject to the ICC. Which means their is potential for abuse based on political motivations. There is no recourse once the ICC makes a ruling. There is no body where it can be challenged, unlike the US where there are remedies for this.

The fact this item is not present in the ICC means it does NOT provide more protections than the US Constitution as is claimed, but actually reduces it. Your argument in this area is fail, and a distortion of the truth. We went from all the same protections and then some, to one minor exception.

As I pointed out above, I listed the portions that protect US citizens that are not found in the ICC. Please prove me wrong by countering that list with your cited material from the ICC documentation.

Here are a few more for you to add that the ICC ignores-
* - Executive Pardons / acts of clemency to convicted persons based on new information.
* - Executive Pardons / acts of clemency to convicted person based on changes in the law (constitutionally / case law rulings).
* - No guarantee of a retrial if new evidence arises that proves a person innosence.
* - No redress of grievances for those who are wrongly convicted
* - No mechanism in place for mistakes made by the court
* - No ability to request a re-hearing in front of the court with new evidence

I can keep going, but Ill stop here so you can provide us with ICC references to show these are present in that system.


Originally posted by aptness
the critics don’t mention the fact that US citizens, including military personnel, are already tried for crimes in countries where jury trials are not used — one of those countries being Israel, but they don’t mention this because it doesn’t support their narrative.


And supporters of the ICC like to confuse people with this line in hopes they dont see the flaw in the argument. If I travel to Israel, Russia, Germany etc and break their laws, I am subject to their criminal justice systems.

The old adage If you are going to play stickball in Brooklynn you better know the rules holds true here.

What the ICC does is makes it possible for any member country to make accusation and level charges against another country, or even private individual of that country for certain crimes. The list of crimes for the ICC is small, but the defeinitions of those crimes are so broad and lacking defintion, it can be used improperly, as we are seeing with Libya.

If an American is stupid enough to try to smuggle drugs into China and gets caught, where the penalty for that is death, then they should not have tempted fate. Which by the way murder is a violation of the ICC, so technically Chinaese Judicial persons who authorized the death sentence can also be charged under the ICC)

Military personnel are covered under whats call a status of forces agreement with other countries. These agreements allow the Military to have first try at any crimes committed by the US military using the UCMJ regardless of what country they are stationed in and regardless if they are on military bases or in local jursidictions. The Status of forces agreement also allows the military to cede jurisdiciton to the host country, to allow them first chance at charges.

All of that is codified in FEderal Law, the UCMJ, and various Status of forces agreements we have, and the ICC strips that right from the military by invoking an unlawful jurisdictional body.

Comparing local legal systems and local laws in an effort to prop up an argument for the ICC is without any type of stable foundation, because they are completely seperate topics in this regard, and Aptness, you are intelligent and you know this, so I am not sure why you are trying to use it in this debate.

But to once again make my point and drive it home about how dangerous the ICC is at this point is the crime of Murder, which is one of the crimes covered by the ICC. In the United States we have murder charges, and we also have whats called a justificable homicide, or in otherwords a justified murder (self defense or defense of others). There is nothing in the ICC that prohibits you from being charged for that crime if your countries own legal system, found guilty of those charges, making you innocent, and thenturn around and be arrested and sent to a different counry and tried for the crime you were just cleared of.

The term is double jeopardy, which the ICC strips.


Originally posted by aptness
This fact was explained on the Human Rights Watch ICC fact page, I previously linked—

Only the right to trial by jury is missing from the Rome Treaty because of the impracticality of impaneling a jury to hear a case against someone like Pol Pot or Slobodan Milosevic. But the United States has long accepted that its citizens (including U.S. service members) will not get jury trials when accused of crimes in countries like France or Japan, where juries are not used. The United States has signed extradition treaties with many countries that explicitly permit Americans to be tried without a jury.


Which is a fallacy. I pointed out all of the issues between the rights guaranteed by the US Constitution and the American Judicial system and listed them for all to see. I challenged you to counter those discrepancies and show us where in the ICC those protections exist, which you failed to do. The UCMJ does allow military personnel the right to trial bury jury, which is codified in the UCMJ and the US Constitution. Only the person charged can waive his right to trial by jury.

The reason for that is those protections DO NOT exist in the ICC at all. As I said earlier, coming close does not cut it in this area. Your argument is the ICC provides all of the same protections and then some, which is incorrect.

Please prove that everything I have listed in this post and my previous post is allowed under the ICC with your ICC references. Ive been through the ICC documents, and they dont exist.


Originally posted by aptness
Further demonstrating their ignorance of the Rome Statute and the ICC, the critics insist the ICC “cannot be used against a nation that is not a signatory to the treaty,” and this, they claim, is based on the ICC statute itself.


Nations who are signatories to the ICC - 144
Nations signatory to the Rome Statutes - 60

Hardly a unanimous consensus with regards to the ICC. I wonder why that is....

About 15 articles of the ICC state this. The ICC then contradicts itself by saying if one party is a member of the ICC, they have jurisdiction over any other country involved in that process, whether those countries are members or not. If the ICC is voluntary to join, then why would they need to force their legal structure onto countries who do not wish to be part of it? Especially an entity that is not part of the United Nations?

Forcing a treaty onto a country is also a violation of the UN charter, which tells coutnries they can run their internal affairs as they see fit and are not subject to treaties initated by other countries.

Or are we hoping people dont notice that little piece of information either?


Originally posted by aptness
Leaving aside the monumental lack of understanding and obvious incorrection that the ICC doesn’t investigate or prosecute nations but individual people, the Rome Statute, in Article 12 and Article 13 — namely 12(2) and 13(b), respectively — specify that the ICC has jurisdiction over crimes committed in the territory of non-signatories in case of a United Nations Security Council referral.


The ICC is limited in its jurisdiction to 4 key areas -
* - Genocide
* - Crimes against Humanity, Acts of Agression
* - War crimes
* - Crimes of Agression - Which even after 14 years of being in existance the ICC still does not define what a crime of agression is. Rest assured, the ICC has stated the moment they figure it out, they will let the world know. Until that time though, a war of agression will be decided by one of their judges, who is appointed by secret ballot.

No worries - there wont be any ability for misuse of the non existant defintion of war of agression. Those 4 areas are then broken down into offending classes (murder, trageting of civilians etc etc etc). The fact Aptness has pointed out the problem supports my argument -


Originally posted by aptness
namely 12(2) and 13(b), respectively — specify that the ICC has jurisdiction over crimes committed in the territory of non-signatories in case of a United Nations Security Council referral.


So now the ICC says, even though its not apart of the United Nations, but a seperate, independant body according to the ICCs website, that it does not matter if a nation is a signatory, they will just impose their jurisdiction anyways. Aside from the fact that this method is a violation of UN Charter, in addition to violating its own ICC rules by bypassing a nations own legal system, speaks volumes.

I always find it amusing when people complain about the US acting unilaterally, and butting our noses in where it does not belong, but have no problem being hypocritical in the name of universal jurisdiction or self imposed superior morals view point.


Originally posted by aptness
Artiucle 12 / article13


The term is called Universal Jurisdiction, and is a new concept in the realm of Intrnational law. The ICC Rome Statutes invokes this term, that to date only 60 countries are signatories to the Rome portion. The argument made in the Rome statutes says if a country is notified and fails to take action against, that any nation can invoke Universal Jurisdiction and intervene in that targeted country.

Universal jurisdiction is not a universally accepted legal term, and is not sanctioned by the United Nations, because it vilolates several key charters in that it interferes with the internal process of another, sovereign nation.


Originally posted by aptness
Comically, and demonstrative of their disingenuousness, in trying to perpetuate lies about the ICC and attempting to discredit the information I presented, this critic actually has the audacity to link to this page — supposedly supporting his claims and disproving mine — but where we can actually read, among other things, the following unequivocal statement—

When a matter is referred by the Security Council, the Court has jurisdiction regardless of whether the State concerned is a party to the ICC treaty.

This is how disingenuous the ICC critics and Bush doctrine supporters are. They make bogus claims and provide numerous links they don’t even bother to read and purposely ignore the information that debunk their claims.


The only bogus claim to date was made by you, in your first post, when you said the ICC not only contains ALL of the protections US citizens already have under the Constitution / US Legal System and then some more the ICC gives. This was false information provided on your part. I listed the discrepanices of what a US citizen has, and the fact those items listed are not a part of the ICC.

I provided that list so you could take them point by point to counter the claims, and to cite your ICC source that shows, without a doubt, that they are present.

You not only failed to do that, you failed to answer any of those items, and once again fall back to subterfuge and obfuscation in hopes people wont notice that you did not, and can not, answer the question.

Let me help -
There is no guarantee against double jeopardy - Violation of the 5th Amendment
It strips 5th amendment protectins against the Military - Violation of the 5th Amendment / UCMJ
There is no guarantee to face your accuser - Violates confrontation clause of the 6th amendment
There is no system for bail - Violation of the 8th Amendment
There is no right to trial by jury of your peers - Violation of 6th Amendment
There is no guarantee of a public trial - Violates 6th Amendment

There is no gurantee of priveladged communications between defendant / counsel - Violates 6th Amendment
The timeline established by the ICC for criminal prosecution violates the speedy trial defintion set forth by US law - Violates the 6th amendment.

There is no standard of impartiality set for judges - Violates 6th Amendment
There is no process for the recusal / forced removal of juges who exhibit prejudice while presiding - Violates 6th amendment.
There is no Compulsory process for witnesses in place - Violates the 6th Amendment
While it states presumed innocent until prven guilty, the established rules for proceedings of the ICC force the accused to prove his innocents instead of the Prosectuor - Violates Due Process / 5th Amendment

It fails to recognize good faith standard - Case Law established by SCOTUS when actions are taken by one party who is acting on information from a second party beleived to be knowledgable about the info.

It fails to adhere to a strict guidlene regarding rules of evidence - Violates 4th / 6th amendment
It does not allow a challenge to evidence collected - Violates 4th / 6th amendment
It does not allow for a motion of discovery - Violates 4th / 6th amendment
It does not allow for pre trial conference for fact comparison - Violates Due Process

It does not allow for evidence illegally obtained from being prohibited in its use - Violates 4th / 6th amendment as well as Fruit of the Poisonous tree decision by SCOTUS

It does not provide for protections against self incrimination - Violates 5th Amendment
It does not prohibit the forced testimony of a charged defendant - Violates the 5th Amendment
It does not allow a defendant to take the 5th amendment - Violates 5th Amendment
It does not prohibit the use of hearsay evidence - Violates SCOTUS case law and due process
It does not prohibit a seizure of a suspect or personal belongings - Violates 4th amendment
It does not allow for bail, a violation of the 8th amendment
It assumes auhtority over citizens where none is granted to it by non signatory nations. - Violation of Constitution
It does not use the standard of Probable Cause to issue an arrest or search warrant - Violates 4th amendment
It does not take into account American citizens hold dual citizenship (State / Federal) - Violates the 9th amendment
The ICC procedures / guarantees that are not already listed in the US Constitution cannot be granted by treaty - violates 10th amendment.
It does not allow for the redress of grievances by the accused against an accusing government
It does not provide 2nd amendment protections with regards to the illegal possession / use of weapons under ICC definitions.
It does removes the authority of Congress from creating/removing/modifiying UCMJ - Violates Constitution
The lack of acknowledgment of Case law - violates Equal protection clause

The entire ICC and Rome Statutes, written as they are now, violate the 11th amendment
The entire ICC and Rome Statutes, written as they are now, violate the 14th amendment

* - Executive Pardons / acts of clemency to convicted persons based on new information.
* - Executive Pardons / acts of clemency to convicted person based on changes in the law (constitutionally / case law rulings).
* - No guarantee of a retrial if new evidence arises that proves a person innosence.
* - No redress of grievances for those who are wrongly convicted
* - No mechanism in place for mistakes made by the court
* - No ability to request a re-hearing in front of the court with new evidence

and by the way, it also strips diplomatic immunity for Diplomats since it makes no distinction or expemtions to political status.

Gee, thats not a huge problem is it?


Originally posted by aptness
The critics, continuing their spectacular demonstration of ignorance, claim things like “there is no vote on the Rome Statute,” and that I couldn’t even get the numbers right, in order to confuse people and dismiss the information I presented. Even a simple wikipedia consultation would confirm the information I posted—

Following years of negotiations aimed at establishing a permanent international tribunal to prosecute individuals who commit genocide and other serious international crimes, the United Nations General Assembly convened a five-week diplomatic conference in Rome in June 1998 "to finalize and adopt a convention on the establishment of an international criminal court". On 17 July 1998, the Rome Statute was adopted by a vote of 120 to 7, with 21 countries abstaining.


The ICC is a treaty nations must sign onto, and then have ratified by their government. A vote does not make it legally binding. While you continue to use the date of 1998, the offical date of its inception is 2002, because this is the date when they reached the minimum number of nations who ratified the treaty to make it offical - 120.


Originally posted by aptness
Another bogus claim made was that I was wrong about my statement that “only two cases, in the history of the Court, have been referred by the Security Council” I made in my previous post. Again, a simple wikipedia consultation would confirm these facts—

To date, the Court has opened investigations into six situations, all of them in Africa: Northern Uganda, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the Central African Republic, Darfur (Sudan), the Republic of Kenya and Libya. Of these six, three were referred to the Court by the states parties (Uganda, Democratic Republic of the Congo and Central African Republic), two were referred by the United Nations Security Council (Darfur and Libya) and only one was begun proprio motu by the Prosecutor (Kenya).


Do some more research - From the ICC owns page -
ICC Cases and pending matters

* - Uganda
* - Congo
* - Sudan
* - Central African Republic
* - Kenya
* - Libya

None of which are signatories to the ICC. With the exception of 3 of these countries, who referred internal matters to the ICC (which again reinforces the fact that the ICC has no legal jurisdiction incountries who are not signatories to the treaty, as they can only investigate if requested).

The issues in Kenya drives home the point of the otther non discussed issue of the ICC.

The term is called - proprio motu - Which allows a prosecutor of the ICC to initiate and investigation into any of their jurisdictional arean on their own authority. There is no ability to challenge any issues that might arise, namely conflict of intrest, by the prosecutor. There is no system in place to protect against prosecutorial misconduct.

There is a reason the Law Enforcement in the United States is used to investigate crimes. Firstly, its established under the executive branch of the various Federal, State and Local Government constitutions. Secondly, Law Enforcement can be called as a witness and can be cross examined by both sides, and we can be challenged in our expertise, training, history etc.

I would like to see you attempt to call an ICC prosecuting attrorny, who is responsible for the investigation, to the stand to question their manner in which they did their investigation, their qualifications to interpret evidence when they are not court estbalished experts.

What if the Prosecutor decides to exercise their authority, and open up an investigation into say Cuba. The Prosecutor does their investigation, and brings charges against say Castro. During the trial its discovered that the Prosecutors parents were killed by Castro when he took over.

There is absolutely no remedy to challenge the impartialty of the Prosecutor. The simple fact the Prosecutor failed to even disclose that connection can lend evidence to the fact the prosecution itself is not only personal, but politically motivated.


Originally posted by aptness
The ICC critics and Bush doctrine supporters have no shame, and will gleefully spread lies and try to confuse people, contrary to the spirit of AboveTopSecret. I hope this post has been elucidative of their tactics.


Your continued use of the term Bush supporters is again an obfuscation technique, the same technique Assange and his lawyer tried to use by invoking Gitmo, treason and the Death Penalty, in hopes to play off the emotions of the people and hope they watch the right hand while you manipulate the left hand.

As a side note, the concession you made about the Right to trial by jury not being allowed under the ICC, ensures that any ICC agreement and ratification by the US Government, would not only be challenged in US Supreme Court, the Supreme Court would rule the ICC as being unconstitutional because it removes a guarantee from the constitution itself.

Please take the list I provided above and counter each point with the corresponding ICC article reference. You are the one who made the claim the ICC is better and affords more protection than our own Constitution, please prove it.


Originally posted by aptness
I will gladly respond to the serious and intelligent members who wish to further debate the facts.


This is the same tactic you used in the other threads. People raise valid arguments and concerns, and when the facts go against your argument, you resort to personal attacks, you ignore the facts and fall back on your circular argument in hopes of confusing people so they dont ask questions that you cant answer. It would of been easier for you to just quote your last post, and use it as your answer here, since its bascially what you did anyways.

I responded to your post, and raised valid concerns, and even provided you with a list of protections the ICC does not contain, and asked you to counter the list with ICC sources. This is now the second request for you to do that. Unless you are going to just ignore anyone who asks a question where the answer does not support your argument. I look forward to your reponse to the list and your supporting ICC references showing it is indeed in place. Failure to answer just reinforces my point that your argument for the ICC is flawed, that the ICC does not do what you claim it does, and you are unwilling to acknowledge that.

Thank you
edit on 14-3-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 03:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by GovtFlu
 


You read to far into my post. I am pointing out that the ICC specifically says it cannot be applied to countries who are not signatories of it. As we are seeing now, the ICC is ignoring its own rules by entertaining charges against Libya.


This is what I read:
"Theoretically speaking (another reason the US did not sign the treaties) US soldiers could be detained and charged under the ICC for doing their jobs in Iraq and Afghanistan."

I tried pointing out "doing a job", the "Nuremberg Defense", isn't accepted.. soldiers can't claim they're not responsible for crimes they were ordered to do. Of course the oligarchs / shadowy overlords / party leaders etc are aware.. having someone else subject their hired guns to laws'n stuff would stunt profits from banker gangster fun time of playing Monopoly with the world: occupations / illegal wars / coup d'états are better than Board Walk and Park Avenue combined.



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 04:55 AM
link   
reply to post by GovtFlu
 


Correct, but the problem arises when ICC definitions are so broad, that US soldiers can easily fall under an ICC violation, while being in compliance with US / UCMJ law. My concern is this:

ICC Source - Rome Statutes


Article 6
Genocide
For the purpose of this Statute, "genocide" means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.


For genocide, the encompassing areas are so borad, and lack any defintion, that they can be applied to almost any group on this planet. We are currently fighting the Taliban and Al Queida in Afghanistan. Since they are both a religious group, we are in essence targetting a "group" protected under the above statute.

The next section is pretty lenghty, so I am only goiing to post part 1. If people want more info to this part, click here.


Article 7
Crimes against Humanity

For the purpose of this Statute, "crime against humanity" means any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack:

(a) Murder;
(b) Extermination;

(c) Enslavement;

(d) Deportation or forcible transfer of population;

(e) Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law;

(f) Torture;

(g) Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity;

(h) Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender as defined in paragraph 3, or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law, in connection with any act referred to in this paragraph or any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court;

(i) Enforced disappearance of persons;

(j) The crime of apartheid;

(k) Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.


Pointing out part D - the targeting of people and the forcible transfer of those people. The immigration laws of the United States would violate that section, since we target a group (illegal immigrants) who are part of the civilian population. The judicial system of the United States violates section E, because we allow solitary confinement as well as the death penalty at the FEderal level, as well as the state level. We violate section H because some of our laws do target a specific group / population. An argument could even be made with respect to the US placing certain groups / organizations on a terrorist watch list, or even by suspending monetary support to the group.

You get the idea.. As I have stated time and again, I think an International Criminal Court is a great idea.... in theory. The version in place now is to vague, too secretive (judges elected by secret ballot), has serious flaws when it comes to doing an impartial investigation by allowing a ICC Prosecutor to run their own investigation with nothing in place to be able to challenge these problems.

There is no guarantee in place that if you are charged for a crime that falls within the jurisdiciton of the ICC, tried and found not guilty by a US / US military court, that the ICC could not move forward with their own charges against you for the crime you were just found not guilty of.

The use of the term illegal war by the way, is the apex of the issue. The term illegal war is open to interpretation, with no clear defintion either. People argue Afghanistan is an illegal war, even though the US congress authorized the use of military force, and directed the President to take actions.

The elected representatives of the people of the US made a decision, which under US law, as well as Un Charter (self defense) is legal. Its not stopping countries from trying to bring Bush up on charges for crimes relating directly to actions in afghanistan.

If the ICC is truely what Aptness makes it out to be, then can someone explain to me why Osama Bin Laden or any member of La Queida or the Taliban has not been investigated by the ICC? The ICC prosecutors have the authority to initiate an investigation on their own, without any type of outside request.

How come there are no investigations open into Iran, Saudi Arabia, N. Korea, China, Mexico and their drug cartels?

Lets look in depth at Spain - Madrid terror attacks

Spain was a member of the coalition and actively assisted the US and NATO operations, up to the point of the terrorist attack on their train system, just a few weeks prior to their elections. At that point, when the elections came and the current government was removed because of those attacks, Spanish cooperation with the US ended.

What occured after that incident? The Spanish court started their proceedings to go after Bush and other members of the US Government to hold them accountible for war crimes, crimes against humanity etc. Can you or anyone else tell me that decision was not politically motivated. The people who made that decision in Spain blamed the attack on their country on the US and its actions in the war.

The other thing that Aptness is leaving out is the fact the ICC was offical and in use in 2002, and the Rome Statutes went into affect at the same time. Both bodies of law state that anything that has occured prior to their offical sanction date, are not under the jurisdiction of the ICC.

The US was attacked in September, 2001, which was the start of the events - Which is outside the authority of the ICC. Since its been an ongoing process since 9/11, the ICC cannot assume jurisdicition.

The wikileaks have debunked the argument of illegal invasion of Iraq when it illegally released stolen documents from the US. Those documents prove the existance of a clandestine WMD program still active in Iraq up to the 2003 invasion, making Iraq in violation of UN resolutions as well as violating the cesae fire theat officially ended the war by maintainging that program. Since its been one continuous block of time - 1991 to present, actions in Iraq also fall outside the authority of the ICC, since the start date is prior to its offical ratification and effective date.

The claim is the ICC embodies all of the US protections under the Constitution and then some. I have provided a list, twice now, in posts above. I challenge people to read the ICC doumentaion provided by other posters to find the truth for yourself.

Under the ICC, we have already lost the guaranteed right of Trial by Jury (which invalidates the ICC as a whole under US law). What else have you lost? What else could you lose? Are you willing to accept a document that was drafted by people you did not elect, who have no authority over you, that is so flawed that its not even funny, all in an effort to make the world a supposedly safe place?

- "Those who are willing to give up a little freedom for a little security, wind up with neither freedom, nor security".

Benjamin Franklin

This quote was used over and over during the Bush Administration. Its as true then, as it is now in this case. The only problem is people fail to understand the context of that quote, and dont get the other part of the story. When Franklin left the meeting to put together a new government, people asked Franklin what kind of government was created - a direct democracy, a monarchy, a republic?

Franklin responded with - " A Republic, if you can keep it".

Not all, but most liberals do not understand freedom, and confuse it for something dangerous because of their lack of understanding.

To date, its been a few african countries the ICC deals with, and the war drums beating for just the US.

Explain how that is not politically motivated?



edit on 14-3-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-3-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by acrux

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by sirjunlegun
 


Theoretically speaking (another reason the US did not sign the treaties) US soldiers could be detained and charged under the ICC for doing their jobs in Iraq and Afghanistan.


So murdering innocent civilians & stealing a countries resources qualifies as doing their job in your eyes.
Typical US arrogance.


Typical Aussie Arrogance that makes me shudder being a real Australian! Unlike you!Wake up & see the leaves for the trees hahahahahahaha! yes it is their job and they are war heroes do for doing it! Don't care what you or anybody else says! hahahahahahaahahaahaha!!



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 10:00 AM
link   
reply to post by adifferentbreed
 


Love your telecaster and love the opinion! I also am sick of the "bleeding hearts" and are here to bury them! Bring it on!
edit on 24-3-2011 by phatpackage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 03:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


"Correct, but the problem arises when ICC definitions are so broad, that US soldiers can easily fall under an ICC violation, while being in compliance with US / UCMJ law. "

GOOD.

Somebody somewhere should be able to put a stop to armed forces violating international laws regardless of which colored cloth patch they wear... it just might motivate troops to decline orders that might land them on trial and lead to a more peaceful world with fewer occupations & aggressive wars based on lies..



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 03:25 PM
link   
reply to post by GovtFlu
 


The problem is it wont stop the war. Since the UN is not a soveriegn entity, and does not exercise control over member nations, they can pass all the resolutions or laws they want, it cannot force a country to abide by them. The countries will fall back to their domestic laws, which is the problem.

Its a circular argument to state the UN laws should trump domestic country laws, when the premise itself violates a nations sovereignty in the first place, which is the reason for the armed conflict.



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 06:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by GovtFlu
 


The problem is it wont stop the war. Since the UN is not a soveriegn entity, and does not exercise control over member nations, they can pass all the resolutions or laws they want, it cannot force a country to abide by them. The countries will fall back to their domestic laws, which is the problem.

Its a circular argument to state the UN laws should trump domestic country laws, when the premise itself violates a nations sovereignty in the first place, which is the reason for the armed conflict.


One reason it won't stop the war, or wars.. there aren't any in political speak... wars are declared by congress, technical uniquely American constitutional stuff is supposed to happen.

Iraq / Afghanistan are occupations leveraging fake UN "authority".. oh my how UN authority wouldn't mean spit if foreigners authorized foreign military jets to patrol American airspace under which your children & loved ones reside.

Personally, I don't give a rats sphincter which flocks laws trump another flocks laws.. it would just be nice to have a neutral party somewhere on this planet with authority to stop any and every out of control political party... and their maniacal leader de jure.. from ruining millions of lives.

..of course, that's pie in the sky fantasy.. the GOP & DNC would never agree to a fair open arena where official propaganda had to be proven subject to challenge.. they could be exposed as lying douche nozzles and embarrassed.. which could hurt poll numbers and effect elections. Imagine the indignity of having the POTUS being fairly judged and exposed to be a liar.. oh my..



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 1   >>

log in

join