quote:

---

Now, the truth is this; this Act has floated about for a long time with revision upon revision upon revision. Of course the EU knew about it. Why the hysteria now? Well, as you say, The soup is never eaten as hot as it is served.
Since there is anger over the US' rejection of the ICC Treaty, and since there were still countries needed to ratify, do you think this was a bit of a drama to show how 'aggressive & threatening' the US would be to ICC nations? Consider the name we've all been using ... The Hague Invasion Act. That was coined by Europeans angry over US resistance to the ICC. The bill is called The American Servicemen's Act. In many ways, the bill's primary intent is to protect individuals, who will now be at greater risk for indictment.

---

I don't know, according to my news sources enough countries ratified before this thing "exploded", and the ICC is planned to go ahead as scheduled. I am wondering if this is the culmination of frustration with the US pulling out of Kyoto, and a very diverse range of international treaties and attempts at treaties, lately. The same dynamics that ousted the US from the UN Human Rights Commission, I think it was? Personally, I am not much in favour of mixing up several issues like that to produce such an outcome, to put it mildly. I balk at the idea that now Syria sits there instead of the US. Many criticisms can be made at US foreign policies, but the muddling of all these seperate issues to somehow serve someone's resentment is serving no goal at all. But I'm straying.

Michael Scharf, yes! Please do. I simply transferred his remarks to this place, because they countered yours, grin :) Good for discussion. I have some facts to check on that too. Looking forward to your argument.

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But I am VERY sorry for tripping over myself & trying to declare rouns seven whilst you slept!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Said Lainey with a lisp. I'm not even going to edit that! I rather like the impression of drunkeness it has.

---

Drunkeness??? That's not in my dictionary????

quote:

---

I don't know, according to my news sources enough countries ratified before this thing "exploded", and the ICC is planned to go ahead as scheduled. I am wondering if this is the culmination of frustration with the US pulling out of Kyoto, and a very diverse range of international treaties and attempts at treaties, lately. The same dynamics that ousted the US from the UN Human Rights Commission, I think it was? Personally, I am not much in favour of mixing up several issues like that to produce such an outcome, to put it mildly. I balk at the idea that now Syria sits there instead of the US. Many criticisms can be made at US foreign policies, but the muddling of all these seperate issues to somehow serve someone's resentment is serving no goal at all. But I'm straying.

---

Greetings, TGAT Ilse!

Yes, but the bill was first drafted quite awhile back, before the necessary quota of countries had ratified. The sudden "explosion" has questionable timing since it isn't late breaking news. So, yes, I think it is based on anger, resentment, & a bit of a political smear tactic. The Kyoto Treaty is another topic we should take up at some point, but the dynamics you refer to are destructive. Not only do they not achieve any positive goals, but they further exacerbate the fragile relations between the US & Europe. The UN Human Rights Commission is a perfect example of why many really distrust that body & believe it is motivated more often by political agendas than by rational adherence to international law. Syria? Syria? Really, that was such an outrage.
And I too criticize much of our foreign policy, but when the UN votes AGAINST the US 90% of the time, it does reveal there is a strong anti-US bias within the UN. Thank you for bringing this pont up, Ilse, because it explains so much of the clash that is ongoing between the US, the EU, & the UN.

quote:

---

Michael Scharf, yes! Please do. I simply transferred his remarks to this place, because they countered yours, grin :) Good for discussion. I have some facts to check on that too. Looking forward to your argument.

---

Can I request a stay of execution, or at least a bit of time? I know Michael Scharf is incorrect, however, I haven't had a moment to look up some facts that are pertinent to this argument yet. Anything I say now would be completely off the cuff!
I would point out, though, that there are numerous organizations in the US who have been fervently working to pressure the administration to sign the ICC Treaty. I've read some of their arguments & seen the websites. I have to say there is quite a bit of misrepresentation & denial of fact. So ...... I'll be back on this!

quote:

---

Drunkeness??? That's not in my dictionary????

---

Well, put it in! Drunkeness ... yes, the state of being drunk. Or, more succinctly, SMASHED.

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Scharf, yes! Please do. I simply transferred his remarks to this place, because they countered yours, grin :) Good for discussion. I have some facts to check on that too. Looking forward to your argument.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Can I request a stay of execution, or at least a bit of time? I know Michael Scharf is incorrect, however, I haven't had a moment to look up some facts that are pertinent to this argument yet. Anything I say now would be completely off the cuff!
I would point out, though, that there are numerous organizations in the US who have been fervently working to pressure the administration to sign the ICC Treaty. I've read some of their arguments & seen the websites. I have to say there is quite a bit of misrepresentation & denial of fact. So ...... I'll be back on this!

---

No problem Elaine. While searching the 'net today, I realized I too have some/a lot of reading to do on the ICC Statute, it's history, etc. We can proceed when we have checked our facts yes?

Oh smashed! Hey, let's drink to my elevation

quote:

---

I will assume you support the US' decision to not participate in the ICC?

---

quote:

---

I have to thank Ilse for bring this up. Although I knew this was out there floating around, I had no idea it had passed the Senate last week, and wouldn't have if she hadn't mentioned it. It's totally off our radar screens here.

I asked to of my co-workers if they knew of this act today. They're intelligent, well-educated (doctorates) and politically aware. I drew a total blank.

Thanks to you as well, Lainey, for laying out the issues so well. When Ilse first posted, I thought: "How nice of her to extend an invitation to take a stroll through a minefield."

Now I now where to look for a minefield guide.

---

quote:

---

No problem Elaine. While searching the 'net today, I realized I too have some/a lot of reading to do on the ICC Statute, it's history, etc. We can proceed when we have checked our facts yes?

Oh smashed! Hey, let's drink to my elevation

---

Notice my tardiness? Perhaps I drank too long in your honor???

Yes, we'll do a fact finding mission first.

quote:

---

Thanks to you as well, Lainey, for laying out the issues so well. When Ilse first posted, I thought: "How nice of her to extend an invitation to take a stroll through a minefield."

Now I now where to look for a minefield guide

---

, Scott.

While I'm checking my facts, I thought you and Elaine might be interested in a related ongoing controversy. I'll give you two links on that:

Human Rights group supports Belgium's Universal Jurisdiction Law (November 2000):
http://www.hrw.org/press/2000/11/world-court.htm

Belgian War Crimes Law Backfires (August 2000):
http://www.rnw.nl/hotspots/html/belgium000825.html

quote:

---

{Grab your favorite sedative or stimulant, as preferred! I'm going to turn up the heat on these discussions ...}

---

Holy sh*t. Lainey gets into 6th gear, and Ilse is limping behind

quote:

---

Thanks for these links. The Belgian War Crimes Law is certainly pertinent to the discussion on the ICC.
One starts to wonder how many international courts are required to *prevent, deter, or punish* alleged war crimes and "aggressions."

---

Maybe one does, but I don't. I posted these links to underscore the need for one institute to do just that. I find the Belgians sense of universal responsibility quite charming, and propose they will from now on be called "Atlas". However, it doesn't work apparently. Why not? We'll have a multitude of international fake courts if this will be the trend.
This one institute, however hard it is to define it's mandate, is the ICC. Over the years all participants in this have made enormous compromises to satisfy the US. In the end the US does not participate, which is a choice to be respected. However, the US does not stop at that right now. Right now, it is involved in negotiations with over a 100 countries to agree to a bilateral agreement in which these countries promise not to extradite Americans to the ICC. Strangely enough the US justifies this action based on article 98.2 of the Roman Treaty.... that they don't participate in.

quote:

---

The backfiring effect of the Belgian court is quite interesting as it reveals the pandora's box that such international courts might be creating. An interesting point regarding the Belgian Court is that it has indicted Ariel Sharon for war crimes, stemming from his actions in southern Lebanon. Not one US media outlet has examined that issue, which is negligent in light of Israel's continuing aggression & subjugation of the Palestinian people.

---

Again, this is not about "such international courts", but the establishment of one. The Sharon case is interesting, because according to my sources, he would not be a candidate to stand trial there at all. Israel has the legal system to try him, and as a matter of fact they did. An Israeli court found him responsible and culpable in the massacres at the Palestinian refugee camps Sabra and Shatilla in 1982 in Lebanon. They didn't attach any consequences to that in terms of a prison sentence but the ruling stands.

On the sideline, I read that the US government doesn't want the ex-diplomat Richard Holbrooke, architect of the Dayton accord, to testify Against Milosevic in the Yugoslavia tribunal, unless he can do so behind closed doors.

Middle East: yes! seperate topic!

quote:

---

Middle East: yes! seperate topic!

---

quote:

---

"This one institute, however hard it is to define it's mandate, is the ICC."

Where would the ICC leave the others, such as the Belgian Court? Would they still exist, even nominally, or will the ICC cause them to be obsolete?

---

Ideally, yes, they would be obsolete. Because the Belgian example has inspired many such courts, and in those nations where we absolutely don't want them. We don't want dictators buying each other off through fake courts???? Just imagine Idi Amin charging Mullah Omar and vice versa in oh.... Lybia and Chad???? And getting off on probation, and not possible to try them again, because they've been tried in an "acceptable" court?
They must be obsolete; there can be only one...... The trick is to get everybody to agree on the only one...

quote:

---

"Over the years all participants in this have made enormous compromises to satisfy the US. In the end the US does not participate, which is a choice to be respected. However, the US does not stop at that right now. Right now, it is involved in negotiations with over a 100 countries to agree to a bilateral agreement in which these countries promise not to extradite Americans to the ICC. Strangely enough the US justifies this action based on article 98.2 of the Roman Treaty.... that they don't participate in."

:) Strange? Or predictable? That's the official justification then, Ilse. The real clout the US presents isn't article 98.2, but $$$$. Witholding foreign aid & such. Correct? (Good point there ...)

---

HMMMMMMMM....I really wanted you to say it I thought about putting it in... Not just that, the continuation of certain peacekeeping projects seem to be in the bargain now.

quote:

---

Yes, you are making a good case for one international court to supercede all others, as far as there should be any international court at all. I do find the *workings* of the Belgian Court an interesting study, though. One thing I am wondering ... who gave Belgian this mandate?

---

Oh well I printed out all kinds of stuff on this at work, because I have no printer at home.....And left it there..... I'm sure it had something to do with Nuremburg, but what???"?? Let me get back to you on that! Tomorrow!

quote:

---

"Actually, this looks more enthousiastically than I am. I find the Middle East crisis next to impossible to define stands on, honestly."

Kind of my point ... it is more complex than it is presented to be. I don't know what the climate is in Europe, but in the US, it's presented as very black & white ... very good guy/bad guy.

---

quote:

---

Over the years all participants in this have made enormous compromises to satisfy the US.

---

Missed responding to this. A point of contention. I don't think enormous compromises HAVE been made. Quite the opposite. No matter ... the US rejects the ICC & is engaged in pressuring other countries because the Rome Statute does not limit itself to participating countries. While Europeans seem to view this 'campaign' as vengeful meddling, Americans tend to view it as self-defense.

Black & white & grey ... to a degree this is a traditional American character, as far as fiction, film, & sometimes, law. Is it hard for Americans to see shades of grey? For some, yes ... for others, no. And for some there is neither black & white, nor grey. It's rose color for them!

quote:

---

I wonder if the ICC will be looking at the Sudan, the Great Lakes region of Africa, Iraq (on behalf of the southern minorities & the northern Kurds}, China, Indonesia, Pakistan, etc. Once the mantle of "universal jurisdiction" over "egregious atrocities" is assumed, the task will be enormously daunting.
Will this court have the courage to act consistently, honestly, & justly?

---

Yes, the tasks seem to be immense. Hopefully, after the establishment of this court, which will happen on July 1, we will get a clearer view of how they will go about their tasks. It is still a lot of speculation right now. I must say I'm determined to follow the development of the court closely.

On a lighter note, our comedians are really having a field day with the invasion act.