But what IS the problem with the international criminal court?

[johnny]

Originally posted by Absynthe: One thing that has a strong influence in America is our deeply ingrained attitude towards freedom. This may take more explaining than I am capable of, but here goes...(please note that I am trying to explain a cultural attitude, capture a feeling; I'm not defending or attacking the attitude) The quickest way to get an American to do something, is to tell one not to do it. Freedom and independence are practically coded into our genetic structure. The definition of freedom is "I'll do what I want, when I want" and independence means "And you're not going to tell me what either of those will be". We are a very contrary and conniptious people, especially when it comes to "foreigners" telling us what to do with "our" people. Case in point, the kid who got caned for spray-painting grafitti... there was a lot of commentary concerning "Who do they think they are..." ANYTHING that smacks of "forein interference" is immediately suspect... one of the reasons that there is still significant levels of mistrust concerning the United Nations within the general populace. I'm not saying that this is right or wrong or green or blue, but that's how many (not all) Americans seem to feel. Don't know if that answers the question, but maybe it will provide some insight...

And do you think that makes you guys unique ? Overhere it's exactly the same, we love our freedom just as much.

[Larry_OHF]

Originally posted by johnny: I don't think this court is gonna work anyway. What bothers me the most though is that once again the whole circus takes place on our soil, we've had the Scottish court for the Lockerbie case, the Yugoslavia tribunal and now this. Why is all this happening here, it only attracts terrorist attention !

The only answer that I can think up for you on this question is from what I learned in International Business in school. Your area of the world is known for their lack of criminal activity in the business world. Although there is a percentage, it is small compared to the rest of the world. Therefore, maybe your land is seen as safer and more reliable...less likely to contain underhanded deeds...

This is only my evaluation of the subject, going by something I picked up in a text book.

I would very much like to visit your land someday.
I only have beautiful pictures.

Originally posted by johnny: And do you think that makes you guys unique ? Overhere it's exactly the same, we love our freedom just as much.[/QB]

I don't think that makes the U.S. unique, no. But it seems that most European nations have at least some notion that working together is mutually beneficial, hence the formation of the E.U.
My point, such as it is, is that Americans generally feel that we can, and should, stand alone. That anything that may give another nation direct say over an American citizen or American interests is to be avoided.
Please note that I am neither endorsing nor vilifying this viewpoint! I am just trying to explain an attitude, prevalent in the U.S., that seems to cause confusion among non-Americans.

[johnny]

Larry, the people who work for the court, they're not all Dutch, are they ?

[Silver Cheetah]

Originally posted by Sir Taliesin: So basically, what your saying SC is that if the US military finds no problem with the conduct of it's soldiers, and chooses not to try them in a Military Courts Marshall, then an offended country could bring charges up against them in an international tribunal. Seems like a form of double jeopardy to me. Something that I am opposed too, especially since having participated in a Courts Marshall case and finding that it's the most exhaustive form of investigation I've ever seen. Then too, how is the case to be considered. Is the defendent, to be looked on as "innocent until proven guilty" (as we have here in the US) or as "guilty until proven innocent" (like they do in Mexico). Let me tell you right now that "guilty until proven innocent" will not fly what so ever with the US public. I can also tell you that the US public would be in favor of NEVER deploying peacelkeeping forces if we were forced into this agreement.

Innocent until proven guilty of course. That's the way it is in European law, and the setting up of this court was driven by Europe (with a lot of legal help from the US, I might add... )

Its no secret about the peacekeeping forces. Do you think we don't get any news here in Europe? [img]smile.gif[/img] We've been hearing about the US stamping its foot and going off in a corner to sulk and the threat about pulling peacekeeping forces out of Bosnia till we're sick of it. From what I've heard about the current administration, they think peace keeping is for wimps anyway, and would be quite glad to be shot of it.

I'm just getting a bit tired of the US government retaining its rights for it and its citizens to do what it likes, when it likes, how it likes, and screw any idea of accountability, whilst expecting the rest of the world to march to its drum. But hey........

Britain and the rest of Europe doesn't have this paranoia about our nationals maybe being tried by a foreign court because this and because that. But maybe that's because we don't plan on committing any war crimes any time soon? The inference is obvious.

One can understand Russia and China, with their continuing appalling human rights records being a bit leery of an international court that pursues justice by means of the rule of law. But that America feels the same way. Well, that is sad indeed.

Absynthe, thanks for your explanation by the way.

[ 07-03-2002, 06:01 PM: Message edited by: Silver Cheetah ]

[Silver Cheetah]

Originally posted by Absynthe: quote: Originally posted by johnny: And do you think that makes you guys unique ? Overhere it's exactly the same, we love our freedom just as much.

I don't think that makes the U.S. unique, no. But it seems that most European nations have at least some notion that working together is mutually beneficial, hence the formation of the E.U.
My point, such as it is, is that Americans generally feel that we can, and should, stand alone. That anything that may give another nation direct say over an American citizen or American interests is to be avoided.
Please note that I am neither endorsing nor vilifying this viewpoint! I am just trying to explain an attitude, prevalent in the U.S., that seems to cause confusion among non-Americans.[/QB][/QUOTE]Thanks Ab. But what I keep trying to say is that the ICC DOESNT give any other nation direct say over an American national, unless America itself chooses.

If an American national, peacefully going about his or her peacekeeping duties in a proper and appropriate way, is accused by some nutter of having acted improperly, then first, the burden of proof is on the accuser, and without evidence of decent proof, no case would even be considered, never mind brought...

Second, if it does get that far and the accused is tried in American court (as I've said, this would always be the first option), it would suggest that there might be some basis to the accusation, and it would be down to the American court to try its own national to get at the truth. And what is wrong with that?

I'm sure an American court is not going to convict its own nationals accused of wrongdoing on foreign soil except on the basis of very solid evidence indeed. The notion that Americans, just because they are Americans, are somehow above reproach and never, but never do anything wrong, is ridiculous. I'm assuming that peacekeepers do their very best to keep the peace in a proper and appropriate manner wherever they come from, but you can find rotten apples in even the best barrels, you know. Some sort of redress is needed.

The main purpose of the ICC, as the US knows very well, is to try those convicted of major war crimes whose own countries cannot or will not try them. It is meant to be a step nearer to world peace and justice.

[ 07-03-2002, 06:24 PM: Message edited by: Silver Cheetah ]

[DeSoya]

As far as I understand it we (The US) were given the assurance that our troops would not be held accountable under the jurisdiction of the court. We'd still have our military tribunals and everything so all justice would be in-house so to speak. Basically the issue is with Bush and his bought and sold administration and not the way the court is to be run. I think the deal surrounds businesses like Shell (Big Oil Alert) worrying that their CEO's will get pulled into the court on human rights abuse charges. Shell still hasn't answered for the killings of Ken Saro-Wiwa and that is but one minor blot on their long record.

DeSoya

[Silver Cheetah]

Originally posted by DeSoya: As far as I understand it we (The US) were given the assurance that our troops would not be held accountable under the jurisdiction of the court. We'd still have our military tribunals and everything so all justice would be in-house so to speak. Basically the issue is with Bush and his bought and sold administration and not the way the court is to be run. I think the deal surrounds businesses like Shell (Big Oil Alert) worrying that their CEO's will get pulled into the court on human rights abuse charges. Shell still hasn't answered for the killings of Ken Saro-Wiwa and that is but one minor blot on their long record. DeSoya

Thanks DeSoya, that makes a lot of sense, except that it can't be to do with things that have already taken place, as cases cannot be brought before the court retrospectively.

However, abuses that take place from the date of ratification of the court certainly can be tried. Perhaps they're scared, given what they plan to do in the future. Go figure!

(BTW, I forgot to point out, previously, that possible 'rogue prosections' are screened behind a three judge panel, with the UN security council having ultimate powers to stop the case.)

[ 07-03-2002, 06:43 PM: Message edited by: Silver Cheetah ]

[The Hunter of Jahanna]

I think the real problem with the whole international court is defineing a "war crime". One country may condem a soldiers action , while another hails him as a hero. War is War , people are going to die and be killed. It realy isnt suposed to be a fair fight. If country "A" attacks country "B" with thousands of pounds of nerve gass and kills millions of people have they commited a war crime or have they simply won the war?? If county "C" uses nuclear weapons on county "D" and knocks them back into the stone age, is it a war crime or a decisive victory?? If you are attacked on the street and break you attackers arm , is it a war crime or is it self defense? IMHO as far as a war is concerned , ANYTHING GOES!! The millitary should strike fear into the heart of the oppositions millitary and civilian personell alike. By the same token , a besiged countrys entire populous , millitary and civilian , should use any means nesesary to drive an attacker out. Currently there is a ban on land mines. Uninformed "Celebrities" tell us land mines cause unneccesary wounds and that they are barbaric , ect. In reality , landmines are an efficient form of psychological warfare. How can your enemy chase you when they are afraid to walk on fields and roads strewn with mines?? They are also like getting a bill in the mail. Kind of like telling the enemy thay they may have driven you out , but they will still be paying for it long after you have gone. There are other ridiculous things , like banning the WW2 trench knife because "It leaves grevious and ragged wounds." Um , Helloooooooo , isnt that what a combat knife is supposed to do?? Unless all the countries involved can come to a consensus as to what a war crime is , the international court is just a huge waste of time.

[Silver Cheetah]

Originally posted by The Hunter of Jahanna: I think the real problem with the whole international court is defineing a "war crime". One country may condem a soldiers action , while another hails him as a hero. War is War , people are going to die and be killed. It realy isnt suposed to be a fair fight. If country "A" attacks country "B" with thousands of pounds of nerve gass and kills millions of people have they commited a war crime or have they simply won the war?? If county "C" uses nuclear weapons on county "D" and knocks them back into the stone age, is it a war crime or a decisive victory?? If you are attacked on the street and break you attackers arm , is it a war crime or is it self defense? IMHO as far as a war is concerned , ANYTHING GOES!! The millitary should strike fear into the heart of the oppositions millitary and civilian personell alike. By the same token , a besiged countrys entire populous , millitary and civilian , should use any means nesesary to drive an attacker out. Currently there is a ban on land mines. Uninformed "Celebrities" tell us land mines cause unneccesary wounds and that they are barbaric , ect. In reality , landmines are an efficient form of psychological warfare. How can your enemy chase you when they are afraid to walk on fields and roads strewn with mines?? They are also like getting a bill in the mail. Kind of like telling the enemy thay they may have driven you out , but they will still be paying for it long after you have gone. There are other ridiculous things , like banning the WW2 trench knife because "It leaves grevious and ragged wounds." Um , Helloooooooo , isnt that what a combat knife is supposed to do?? Unless all the countries involved can come to a consensus as to what a war crime is , the international court is just a huge waste of time.

I think the whole idea of a court is that actions are tried on an individual basis, in context, under legislation. Because of the new nature of this court, there are going to be problems, inevitably. Definitions of what constitutes a war crime will doubtless be firmed up as the court gets into its stride, and precedents are set. It is going to be a long hard road, in my opinion, but that is no reason to give up before we start. In practice, getting a prosecution by the court will be most difficult, I should imagine, for some of the reasons you state.

Some things are always going to be war crimes, aren't they. I think raping elements of the female population is one. Treating people as slaves is another. Death/concentration camps, yup. I can think of quite a number of crimes against humanity that are not going to be excusable in any war situation.

And I totally disagree with you about some of the actions that you feel that it is lawful and morally right to take in war. The idea of using nuclear or biological weapons on another country is morally indefensible (and yes I do include the US's attacks on Japan in that). The notion of pre-emptive strikes I find particularly obcene. It's odd how the US are now talking about pre-emptive strikes on other countries, whilst totally condemning other countries that they suspect of wishing to do the same to them. Why is an action going to be ok when you do it, and not when another country does it?

Landmines. Hmm. Personally, I think landmines are evil ■■■■■■ weapons, which do damage to the civilian population for many many years after they are first dropped. As for stopping your enemy chasing you - most wars fought by the West are predominantly fought from the air, at least until the peeps on the ground have been bombed into a state of relative submission.

These celebrities you speak of, - perhaps they were moved by seeing children walking around minus the odd limb or two, or close to death in hospital. You can never tell with these bleeding heart liberal types can you...

Another great difference between us and the animals, Hunter. They can kill only one at a time, generally speaking. We are in a position to destroy our planet, if we are mad enough. Given the technology we have at our disposal, cool headedness is all.