16 May 11
Originally posted by Palynka
More denial. It's not irrelevant that many non-European countries agreed on it or that the top places I've mentioned feature no european.
How should they fund it then if not by ability to pay (measure by GDP and other economic statistics)? Should Gambia pay as much as Germany so tin-foil hat conspiracy theorists like you are placated?
Yes, I think it's ...[text shortened]... every case (leading to very few cases actually being tried) which was the status quo before.
top places I've mentioned feature no european
Hans-Peter Kaul is a Vice President and he's most decidedly European.
Should Gambia pay as much as Germany so tin-foil hat conspiracy theorists like you are placated?
LOL. Take it easy on that strawman there, will ya? When did I say anything at all about any "conspiracy"?
Go ahead. this should be good.
Bottom line. It is completely impractical and is overreaching for an international court to indict a sitting head of state for a military struggle that occurred within its border.
16 May 11
Originally posted by twhiteheadRead the article again.
No, the allegation came from you, and you tried to back it up using the article which is obviously biased as it is from someone who stands to loose out because of the ICC.
But neither you, nor the article writer have any leg to stand on because Libya accepted the jurisdiction of the ICC and so it is not being 'asserted' on them as you claim.
http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/05/16/libya.gadhafi/index.html
Libya, which did not sign the treaty that created the International Criminal Court, indicated it would ignore the prosecution move.
emphasis added
16 May 11
2 edits
Originally posted by sh76He's the Second Vice-President so he's not as top as the one's I've mentioned. He's the real octopus, he just has to wait that both the President AND the first Vice-President are incapacitated.top places I've mentioned feature no european
Hans-Peter Kaul is a Vice President and he's most decidedly European.
Should Gambia pay as much as Germany so tin-foil hat conspiracy theorists like you are placated?
LOL. Take it easy on that strawman there, will ya? When did I say anything at all about any "conspiracy"?
G ...[text shortened]... t to indict a sitting head of state for a military struggle that occurred within its border.
He brought a chair with him.
You are the one that doesn't like the current funding scheme. Please tell me how YOU would like it then. Because these insinuations of funding matter are insinuations of corruption. Did you not mention someone accusing "Europe" of using the ICC to target Africans? But, yeah, you didn't use the word conspiracy. Well done.
16 May 11
Originally posted by PalynkaI never said I don't like the funding scheme. They can fund it how they like. What do I care?
He's the Second Vice-President so he's not as top as the one's I've mentioned. He's the real octopus, he just has to wait that both the President AND the first Vice-President are incapacitated.
He's brought a chair with him.
You are the one that doesn't like the current funding scheme. Please tell me how YOU would like it then. Because these insinua ...[text shortened]... the ICC to target Africans? But, yeah, you didn't use the word conspiracy. Well done.
I implied I don't blame the Africans for being suspicious of a European funded organization that does nothing but indict Africans.
16 May 11
Originally posted by sh76*sigh*
I never said I don't like the funding scheme. They can fund it how they like. What do I care?
I implied I don't blame the Africans for being suspicious of a European funded organization that does nothing but indict Africans.
You don't blame conspiracy theorists but Lord forbid you agree with them, you hint that funding matters but then you say they can fund it how they like...
Is there no end to your hypocrisy in threads like this? Just take that fig leaf off and be proud of who you are.
16 May 11
Originally posted by PalynkaProud of what?
*sigh*
You don't blame conspiracy theorists but Lord forbid you agree with them, you hint that funding matters but then you say they can fund it how they like...
Is there no end to your hypocrisy in threads like this? Just take that fig leaf off and be proud of who you are.
I'm not anti-European. I have nothing against Europe or Europeans. So, what exactly is it that I should be proud of?
17 May 11
Originally posted by PalynkaI couldn't get the map yesterday as my internet was playing up. I see today that Libya is not on the map as a signatory. However in the press conference by the ICC on Al Jazeera that I watched yesterday they seemed to be saying that Libya was a signatory and that they believed the Libyan government was duty bound to arrest Gaddafi should an arrest warrant be issued. Maybe I misunderstood them.
It did?
17 May 11
Originally posted by twhiteheadIn addition to Libya, neither the US nor Russia nor China nor India have ratified this court.
I couldn't get the map yesterday as my internet was playing up. I see today that Libya is not on the map as a signatory. However in the press conference by the ICC on Al Jazeera that I watched yesterday they seemed to be saying that Libya was a signatory and that they believed the Libyan government was duty bound to arrest Gaddafi should an arrest warrant be issued. Maybe I misunderstood them.
17 May 11
Originally posted by twhiteheadThe relevant parts of this resolution would be the following.
I have just looked at the statement by the ICC on the web. It reads:
"Libyan authorities have the primary responsibility to arrest them. Libya is a member of the United Nations and it has the duty to abide by Security Council Resolution 1970".
ICC referral
4. Decides to refer the situation in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya since
15 February 2011 to the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court;
5. Decides that the Libyan authorities shall cooperate fully with and provide
any necessary assistance to the Court and the Prosecutor pursuant to this resolution
and, while recognizing that States not party to the Rome Statute have no obligation
under the Statute, urges all States and concerned regional and other international
organizations to cooperate fully with the Court and the Prosecutor;
17 May 11
Originally posted by twhiteheadOkay; so now every member of the UN forever cedes its sovereignty to every court henceforth created by the UN?
I have just looked at the statement by the ICC on the web. It reads:
"Libyan authorities have the primary responsibility to arrest them. Libya is a member of the United Nations and it has the duty to abide by Security Council Resolution 1970".
a) that's a pipe dream
b) if it were real, most countries would withdraw from the UN today