02 Oct 20
@philokalia saidThen why should anyone. Given that the US military is by far the largest and most active on the planet what earthly use is a judicial organisation that they and others can exclude themselves from?
He agreed to limited cooperation.
It would be interesting to see in what he cooperated.
I do not know if the Democrats would be particularly interested in facilitating the extradition of American soldiers to The Hague to get sentenced for war crimes, considering that this function is already being performed by our own DOD.
I’m struggling to understand what it’s purpose is. That’s like potential criminals deciding to exclude themselves from their domestic judicial system.
02 Oct 20
1 edit
@kevcvs57 saidGranted, it’s purpose is somewhat utopian and presupposes voluntary cooperation. This is somewhat of a contradiction, since the sort of case it was intended to try assumes that the state in question is unable or unwilling to render justice within its own legal system. For example, it was clear that Serbia would never try its own field commanders for civilian massacres committed during the breakup of Yugoslavia. Serbia handed over some suspects only when the EU demanded it as the price for processing Serbia’s request to join the EU.
Then why should anyone. Given that the US military is by far the largest and most active on the planet what earthly use is a judicial organisation that they and others can exclude themselves from?
I’m struggling to understand what it’s purpose is. That’s like potential criminals deciding to exclude themselves from their domestic judicial system.
02 Oct 20
@no1marauder
To my knowledge, the USA never hands over US citizens to foreign governments, even for police investigations (much less for trials). Anne Sacoolas (to the UK) and Blackwater mercenaries (to Iraq), cases in point. Correct me if I'm wrong.
02 Oct 20
@moonbus saidSo it’s the less powerful players that end up in the dock? Probably not a million miles away from domestic jurisdiction in reality then. If it helps prevent another Shrebrinica or Rwanda that’s something I suppose but the big boys will carry on calling civilian deaths ‘collateral damage’ and handing out the medals.
Granted, it’s purpose is somewhat utopian and presupposes voluntary cooperation. This is somewhat of a contradiction, since the sort of case it was intended to try assumes that the state in question is unable or unwilling to render justice within its own legal system. For example, it was clear that Serbia would never try its own field commanders for civilian massacres committ ...[text shortened]... e suspects only when the EU demanded it as the price for processing Serbia’s request to join the EU.
02 Oct 20
@philokalia saidSure we certainly wouldn't want our citizens who commit genocide, crimes against humanity and/or war crimes to be "harassed" would we?
The US still cares if their citizens are subject to harassment by the ICC.
It's the job of the President to represent the interests of all US citizens in the international arena.
02 Oct 20
@kevcvs57 said123 States have ratified it including such "big boys" as the UK, Germany, France, etc. etc. https://asp.icc-cpi.int/en_menus/asp/states%20parties/pages/the%20states%20parties%20to%20the%20rome%20statute.aspx
So it’s the less powerful players that end up in the dock? Probably not a million miles away from domestic jurisdiction in reality then. If it helps prevent another Shrebrinica or Rwanda that’s something I suppose but the big boys will carry on calling civilian deaths ‘collateral damage’ and handing out the medals.
02 Oct 20
@no1marauder saidYeah I’m not sure I would call the UK one of the ‘big boys’, we barely have a independent foreign policy and now we’ve left the EU not much economic clout either.
123 States have ratified it including such "big boys" as the UK, Germany, France, etc. etc. https://asp.icc-cpi.int/en_menus/asp/states%20parties/pages/the%20states%20parties%20to%20the%20rome%20statute.aspx
But could probably resist compulsion by the icc unlike the two quite recent examples I mentioned.
Still it seems if your powerful enough to do it from the air with bombs and missiles you get a pass but if you have do it at street level with machetes and bayonets your a much better match for the ICC.
02 Oct 20
@mott-the-hoople saidYou don’t really comprehend law, do you?
you agree with Trump then?
Or English for that matter.
- Joined
- 05 Nov 06
- Moves
- 147484
02 Oct 20
@no1marauder saidThe US is not under the icc jurisdiction. The court can claim jurisdiction all they want, doesnt make it so. The US is a sovereign nation.
Actually it is, but that is non-responsive to my point.
You were wrong; man up.
The US would have to VOLUNTARILY cooperate for any action to be taken. Read our presidents actions again.
02 Oct 20
@mott-the-hoople saidUh.. no.
The US is not under the icc jurisdiction. The court can claim jurisdiction all they want, doesnt make it so. The US is a sovereign nation.
The US would have to VOLUNTARILY cooperate for any action to be taken. Read our presidents actions again.
If said American is on European soil (or any country who participates with the ICC) he will be arrested and brought to trial.
And there’s nothing America can do to stop it legally.
They did, 20 years ago or so, pass a law that gives them the right to invade the Netherlands should an American stand trial at the ICC.
Well... gives them the right in America. Obviously not anywhere else, so it is moot.
Naturally, the US could then declare war on the Netherlands. But that means declaring war on the whole EU.
And that sonny boy, is not gonna happen.
- Joined
- 05 Nov 06
- Moves
- 147484
02 Oct 20
@shavixmir saidyou are delving into another category. what you describe is relating to the Vienna convention on consular affairs.
Uh.. no.
If said American is on European soil (or any country who participates with the ICC) he will be arrested and brought to trial.
And there’s nothing America can do to stop it legally.
They did, 20 years ago or so, pass a law that gives them the right to invade the Netherlands should an American stand trial at the ICC.
Well... gives them the right in America. O ...[text shortened]... therlands. But that means declaring war on the whole EU.
And that sonny boy, is not gonna happen.
https://www.americansabroad.org/us-citizens-and-international-law/
02 Oct 20
@mott-the-hoople saidYou are being disingenuous; your claim was US citizens can't be under the jurisdiction of the ICC and that is clearly wrong.
The US is not under the icc jurisdiction. The court can claim jurisdiction all they want, doesnt make it so. The US is a sovereign nation.
The US would have to VOLUNTARILY cooperate for any action to be taken. Read our presidents actions again.
If a US citizen is in Spain and he robs a gas station, he can be prosecuted by Spanish courts even though the US is a "sovereign" nation - so is Spain. And if Spain wants to sign a treaty saying those who commit certain crimes in their country can be tried in an international court rather than a Spanish one, that is part of their status as a sovereign nation.
02 Oct 20
@no1marauder saidCorrect.
You are being disingenuous; your claim was US citizens can't be under the jurisdiction of the ICC and that is clearly wrong.
If a US citizen is in Spain and he robs a gas station, he can be prosecuted by Spanish courts even though the US is a "sovereign" nation - so is Spain. And if Spain wants to sign a treaty saying those who commit certain crimes in their country ca ...[text shortened]... n international court rather than a Spanish one, that is part of their status as a sovereign nation.
- Joined
- 05 Nov 06
- Moves
- 147484
@no1marauder saidthe icc doesnt try robbery cases...you have no idea what you are talking about
You are being disingenuous; your claim was US citizens can't be under the jurisdiction of the ICC and that is clearly wrong.
If a US citizen is in Spain and he robs a gas station, he can be prosecuted by Spanish courts even though the US is a "sovereign" nation - so is Spain. And if Spain wants to sign a treaty saying those who commit certain crimes in their country ca ...[text shortened]... n international court rather than a Spanish one, that is part of their status as a sovereign nation.
refer to what I stated about the Vienna convention
02 Oct 20
@kevcvs57 saidYou're still a nuclear power with the capability to defend islands halfway across the planet, a modern fleet carrier with 5th Gen stealthy STOVL fighters, the 6th economy in the world and close coordination with most of the former Empire and a permanent UNSC seat with a veto.
Yeah I’m not sure I would call the UK one of the ‘big boys’, we barely have a independent foreign policy and now we’ve left the EU not much economic clout either.
But could probably resist compulsion by the icc unlike the two quite recent examples I mentioned.
Still it seems if your powerful enough to do it from the air with bombs and missiles you get a pass but if you have do it at street level with machetes and bayonets your a much better match for the ICC.
You're still a big boy. Unlike Spain 😞