The International Criminal Court and the United States
- Thread starter S.A.M.
- Start date
Challenger78
Valued Senior Member
You obviously haven't seen Team America: World Police 
The UN is the starting basis for a world government.
The UN is the starting basis for a world government.
You obviously haven't seen Team America: World Police
The UN is the starting basis for a world government.
Which must be combated by such measures as demanding immunity from war crimes, vetoing the right to food and blocking restrictions on arms trade; also by occasionally going against the Security Council to launch pre-emptive wars on false pretences.
Exactly! I don't want any steps in that direction.
PS Challenger: I sent you a friend request on Xbox Live. Looking forward to kicking your ass @ halo3 if you ever accept it.
madan:
Why centralize tyranny, eh?
Why centralize tyranny, eh?
Challenger78
Valued Senior Member
If only my xbox wasn't giving me the red ring of death.. I'll be on as soon as I can.
The current forum for international debate is heavily dominated by the US. If a World government must progress, the US must be brought down off the podium.
If you want to stop the world government from becoming one, then run for president on a Isolationist and Protectionist Platform.
Did you send it in? I had mine repaired in about 3 weeks, it didn't cost me a dime, but it was aggravating.
james did we ever sign up to the ICC? i cant rember if it was one of those things that Howard bent over to bush for.
to everyone else, there must always be checks and balances. The US is walking around claiming to be the worlds police force therfore they must submit to the world court. Otherwise they are showing that they are not interest in justice only in getting there own way. The US is starting to act like a dictatorship rather than a democrasy.
There are US citizans who get to vote for the US goverment and then there are non US citizans who have to put up with whatever the US goverment wants to do
US wants your resorces fine, they invade
fight back, your an enermy combatant and can have whatever the US wants to do done to you
capture a US citizan, well you better treat them under the geneva convention
What has happened to the Iraq solders captured by the US?
does anyone actually KNOW
and what about at the start of the invasion "we will concider captured iraq solders to be POW's" that implies they had a choice. They didnt, the geniva convention stipulates what MUST be done with enermy solders when they are captured but the US thinks its above those laws and can get away with it.
Why would anyone be worried about unjust prosicutions when there are so many JUST prosicutions that need to be delt with first.
to everyone else, there must always be checks and balances. The US is walking around claiming to be the worlds police force therfore they must submit to the world court. Otherwise they are showing that they are not interest in justice only in getting there own way. The US is starting to act like a dictatorship rather than a democrasy.
There are US citizans who get to vote for the US goverment and then there are non US citizans who have to put up with whatever the US goverment wants to do
US wants your resorces fine, they invade
fight back, your an enermy combatant and can have whatever the US wants to do done to you
capture a US citizan, well you better treat them under the geneva convention
What has happened to the Iraq solders captured by the US?
does anyone actually KNOW
and what about at the start of the invasion "we will concider captured iraq solders to be POW's" that implies they had a choice. They didnt, the geniva convention stipulates what MUST be done with enermy solders when they are captured but the US thinks its above those laws and can get away with it.
Why would anyone be worried about unjust prosicutions when there are so many JUST prosicutions that need to be delt with first.
That is such a distortion. The Iraq war is costing us billions. If it were about seizing resources, we'd be at least breaking even.
LOL. That's utterly absurd. Since when has the enemy ever treated US soldiers well? I'd much rather be at abu graib being put into naked piles of men or having panties put on my head than in the hands of the islamofascists.
Of course they had a choice, just as everyone has a choice. They choose to follow the rule, so what are you bitching about?
"LOL. That's utterly absurd. Since when has the enemy ever treated US soldiers well? I'd much rather be at abu graib being put into naked piles of men or having panties put on my head than in the hands of the islamofascists. "
really you would have rather been in Abu Graib prision than a fully equipt civilan hospital?
that is where the US solder was when the special forces "rescured" her from the iraq army
when she was captured Bush's statement was "she is a POW and should be treated with respect due under the geniva convention"
really you would have rather been in Abu Graib prision than a fully equipt civilan hospital?
that is where the US solder was when the special forces "rescured" her from the iraq army
when she was captured Bush's statement was "she is a POW and should be treated with respect due under the geniva convention"
a slogan.
not a stone tablet
i sense primitive superstitions
i conclude with fascist impulses
feel free to ask how
/snigger
outline this "seizure". end up with charlie filling up his tank
---------------------------------------------------
first dibs
built in prefs
us companies in iraq
ja or nein?
Last edited:
Who's this "we" ?madanth said:
The folks who started this war are doing a lot better than break even, just on the war,its effects, and some of the oil. And if they can get things settled down, as their current strategy gives hope for, they'll have the rest of the oil too.
The IRS doesn't have any jurisdiction in Dubai, or much leverage on the wealthy anywhere. So the billions will be paid by someone else.
SAM, Pandaemoni is right. Such bodies will be used to condemn the US to advance political and religious ideologies, not for the intended purpose.
Since 9/11/2001 there have been Islamic killings of innocent civilians, women and children in 64 countries. 60,000 people have died, almost 100,000 injured.
And that does NOT include the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan, nor the Islamic genocide in Sudan which has killed some 200,000+
Islamic torture occurs daily.
Islamic slave trade still exists.
Islamic beheadings still happening.
And all you can point to is Abu Grahab. Such evil Americans!
Why are there not war crimes trials for all of these acts? Precisely because of what Pandaemoni talks about.
Since 9/11/2001 there have been Islamic killings of innocent civilians, women and children in 64 countries. 60,000 people have died, almost 100,000 injured.
And that does NOT include the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan, nor the Islamic genocide in Sudan which has killed some 200,000+
Islamic torture occurs daily.
Islamic slave trade still exists.
Islamic beheadings still happening.
And all you can point to is Abu Grahab. Such evil Americans!
Why are there not war crimes trials for all of these acts? Precisely because of what Pandaemoni talks about.
The people of the United States love their Constitution and jealously guard surrendering any of their sovereignty to foreign countries. This is a cultural difference between the U.S. and many foreign countries. The U.S. considers itself a democracy with power given to representatives by the vote of the People. The people do not want unelected foreigners telling them what to do. This is a form of "Taxation without Representation" - the war cry of the American Revolutionary War which still has a very very strong grip on the People of the United States.
Say what? You mean some soldiers who had photographic evidence blew the whistle? The US military "had" to investigate, because some of the evidence appeared out of left field. I think I remember reading that the photos were reported by a developer's shop, so it was "unintentional" (sure it was)...Pandaemoni said:
The US military otherwise had zero reason to look into its affairs at Abu Ghraib. And please don't try to say that the US military is really the good guys, they're trained killers, like every other soldier is, and the US of A specifically does not train any grunts to be effective people persons (unlike, say Britain).
Last edited:
um actauly clinton signed the rome statute bush removed the signature(ie. he unsigned it)
The constitution expressly forbids foreign commanders controlling US troops. This is why, for example, Eisenhower was commander of allied forces during WWII.
Pandaemoni
Valued Senior Member
Yes, and if everyone applied the law in a fair and even handed way (us included) that argument would hold up. In reality though (to take the side of the U.S.), there are people who hate us to an extent that colors their views of everything, let alone the subtleties of how laws should be read. The World Court once chastised the U.S. for allowing the attempted rescue of U.S. hoistages in Iran because it involved the use of armed force (and was, admittedly unproductive). Well, the U.S. has a history of liking armed foce, and many, even many of our "allies" have a history of liking to chastise us for it.
What better chastisement than to run some posterboy through the ringer (fairly or not), for those people who want not justice, but our comeuppance?
Which has no bearing on the question of politicized prosecutions. They would presumably fall under the "unwilling" category.
Actually, very few nations besides US allies are signing up...
Speaking of countries that won't ratify those treaties, where is the focus on Russia, China, India, etc. here?
Why is it only American participation that arouses any interest when these sorts of international organizations come up?