The U.S governments & Britain’s actions in Afghanistan go against international law.
They are committing crimes against humanity there, so the war crimes tribunals should start with bush & blair.

Despite repeated reference to the right of self-defense under Article
51, the Charter simply does not apply here. Article 51 gives a state
the right to repel an attack that is ongoing or imminent as a
temporary measure until the UN Security Council can take steps
necessary for international peace and security. The Security Council
has already passed two resolutions condemning the Sept. 11 attacks and
announcing a host of measures aimed at combating terrorism. These
include measures for the legal suppression of terrorism and its
financing, and for co-operation between states in security,
intelligence, criminal investigations and proceedings relating to
terrorism. The Security Council has set up a committee to monitor
progress on the measures in the resolution and has given all states 90
days to report back to it. Neither resolution can remotely be said to
authorize the use of military force. True, both, in their preambles,
abstractly "affirm" the inherent right of self-defense, but they do so
"in accordance with the Charter." They do not say military action
against Afghanistan would be within the right of self-defense Nor
could they. That's because the right of unilateral self-defense does
not include the right to retaliate once an attack has stopped. The
right of self-defense in international law is like the right of
self-defense in our own law: It allows you to defend yourself when the
law is not around, but it does not allow you to take the law into your
own hands.

Since the United States and Britain have undertaken this attack
without the explicit authorization of the Security Council, those who
die from it will be victims of a crime against humanity, just like the
victims of the Sept. 11 attacks. Even the Security Council is only
permitted to authorize the use of force where "necessary to maintain
and restore international peace and security."

<font color="#3399cc"> Yeah I thought of that after I tried calling twice ;) so If I can't get through I will send a letter. I do know letters get read and get action. I have had help from a congressman in the past with a problem with the IRS. Basicly I was getting jerked around for 2 years, one letter to my congressman and in two weeks it was all cleared up...so perhaps if a lot of americans on the board write to their representatives we can have an impact in stopping such a ridiculously worded and ill conceived bill.</font>

[ 06-09-2002, 10:49 AM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

Hehehehehehehe I can imagine an "invasion" by American troops "confiscating" all your "stuff". Marijauna is so legal in the Netherlands that many Americans are DYING to go there. American servicemen represent a larger part of the US Citizens who arent supposed to "partake" and do anyway regardless of the laws.

In reality though you would be correct in assuming that America would "invade" an ally in order to rescue and individual or even a group of individuals who had been accused of war crimes.

Maybe Im the first person this has occured to but here try this on for size: "the law is designed to protect the PRESIDENT AND HIS CABINET or other American leaders who thought they were doing their best in the "war against terror".

Now that akes a certain bit of sense to me seeing how the Pres is the one who tells the troops where to go and what to do, who to fight ect.

Seems to me like hes trying to keep his own ass out of the sling so to speak.

ROTFL!! I think you have it all figured out Earthdog - the whole bill is just a big conspiratory ploy to steal our pot! [img]tongue.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/hehe.gif[/img]

I dont think the US will do something like that if it is not against their nationale safety matter! So i don`t think you people from the Holland have anything to be afraid of from US!

Quote:

allowes an invasion in Holland under certain conditions

Read that above i can maby tolerate if Holland held i warcrime guy in prison that US will have a word with if he or them have done any wery damage thing to US and the court dont want to release them to US for some talks!!</font>[/QUOTE]Yeah under certain conditions LOL we're not going to do anything STUPID now... but we do have boys in Hague and whether they get tried or not shoudl be up to us... actually that's pretty bad when you tink about it... I mean we plan on trying British Taliban members too so, really, why should we have the upper hand? aww go figure, it's just like the missile crisis the us HAD to have its nukes in turkey and Russia HAD to get rid of its nukes in Cuba... It was like there was no other way or something...

Very well put ;) [img]smile.gif[/img]

And just the fact that someone with that much power in USA has put forward such a proposal and that it's being taken under serious consideration is just wrong.
Why shouldn't USA have to accept the sentences of this court when every other hcountry has to?
But more importantly, what is the other european nations going to do about it?
I don't think you should let something like this pass, something has to be done. Someone has to say that they don't accept this sort of thing without fear of drawing USA's negative attention to them.

I stand by my opinion that having one country which is so much bigger and have so much more influence than other countries is terribly wrong.

SEC. 2008. AUTHORITY TO FREE MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES AND CERTAIN OTHER PERSONS DETAINED OR IMPRISONED BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT.

(a) AUTHORITY- The President is authorized to use all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release of any person described in subsection (b) who is being detained or imprisoned by, on behalf of, or at the request of the International Criminal Court.

Is not diplomacy a "means", sactions a "means", or how about sending a team of Gov't lawyers ( after all we are the King of the Hill when it comes to LAWYERS)? Why does the only response have to be war? Talk about PARANOIA!!!!!! Oh the USA is Going to Invade, thats the only thing they know, the Sky is falling , the Sky is falling. Still ROTHFLMAO!

The USA has a long standing policy the US military serves under only US generals, with only a few exceptions due to our former president Bill Clinton. If there are any US servicemen guilty of WAR CRIMES we'll take care of them far more harshly, in accordance with our laws, and what our society demands they pay. They'll pay the price they know will befall them.

Oh by the way "Gov't of the people, by the people, and for the people" ARE NOT MERELY WORDS They are the essence of the USA. The moment they become mere words MY advice to the rest of the world is to go to the nearest drug store and buy as many sleeping pills as it takes to end your lives, because the feeces is going to hit the fan far worse then you can imagine.

Very well put ;) [img]smile.gif[/img]

And just the fact that someone with that much power in USA has put forward such a proposal and that it's being taken under serious consideration is just wrong.
Why shouldn't USA have to accept the sentences of this court when every other hcountry has to?
But more importantly, what is the other european nations going to do about it?
I don't think you should let something like this pass, something has to be done. Someone has to say that they don't accept this sort of thing without fear of drawing USA's negative attention to them.

I stand by my opinion that having one country which is so much bigger and have so much more influence than other countries is terribly wrong.</font>[/QUOTE]That's JUST IT Sir ReGiN, Every other country DOES NOT HAVE TO accept the sentences of this court!!!!!! If they DID there would be no need for a treaty!!!!! It would just happen, but the FACT there must be a treaty PROVES the every other DOESN't have to accept it, They Choose TOO!!! But then I guess every other country gets that right Except for the USA! Oh, by the way while every other country gets to make that CHOICE to sign the treaty or not, lets just not give the USA that choice then complain about the USA when it says "Hale No!"

Never in the history of the entire world has any country, empire, city state (you name what ever socital grouping you wish) held such a lopside amount of power compared to the rest of the world, as the USA and NOT conquered any and everybody they could!!!!! Did the Romans? the Huns? the Vikings? the Souix? the Aztecs? The Normands? What about the French in the early 1800's? The Greeks under Alexander? Iraq in 1990? The USSR in the late 40's? Nazi Germany in the 30's-40's? The Mongols? The Japanese in the 30's-40's? the Cromagon(sp?)?
The Hitties? The Egyptian? The Nubians? And don't give me the line about what the USA did in the past I'm Clearly talking about the time when each of these peoples were the most powerful, JUST LIKE the USA currently IS!!!!!

[ 06-09-2002, 01:58 PM: Message edited by: John D Harris ]

And what if the the USA gov't thinks what the rest of the world proposes is stupid? Do they get the right not to suck it up and let it go? Or is that right only resereved for everybody else? I sure when you were young your parents said something to the effect of if the rest of the world jumped off a cliff would you do it? Just asking Skywalker, you have to apply it to both sides.

The difference was that the people conquered by, for example, the romans didn't have a nuclear arsenal that could cause them a lot of pain. If the US began attacking the rest of the world I've no doubt that any country with a nuclear arsenal would unleash it as a last resort just before it was defeated.