NationStates Jolt Archive

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Calley

It has little to do with politically-charged attempts at trial (like putting Bush on trial) and everything to do with keeping dirty little people like this guy from being discovered, lest the USA's reputation go even further down the crapper.

This thread reminds me a lot of the Aremenian genocide thread. Governments that refuse to acknowledge their crimes, can't bring themsevels to admit that crimes were commited.

Bush is an idiot. So it's not his fault the decions that he supposedly makes. His administration the government agencies "advise" him to do something stupid, so he does. We need reform.

You boneheads, the reason the US can't join the ICC is because it's authority exceeds that of our own courts. A US citizen would no longer legally be able to have a fair trial under our law if we joined it.

April Fools joke or is this an anniversary-of-his-release thing?

April Fools joke or is this an anniversary-of-his-release thing?

No, I've just been reading about the Vietnam war lately.
I just wish the US would work out a case-by-case extradition thing with the ICC.
Because this guy, if anyone deserves capital punishment, it's him.

You boneheads, the reason the US can't join the ICC is because it's authority exceeds that of our own courts. A US citizen would no longer legally be able to have a fair trial under our law if we joined it.

It would be the same for all countries and everyone on trial would be subject to due process.

Or perhaps because of sovereignity? That might be something to do with it, yah? So that not every jumped-up Ein Deutscher with a grievance can come along and make outlandish claims?

Everyone already knows the story of the My Lai massacre. If our reputation was ever going to go down the crapper over it then it already did a long time ago. I don't see why this is a big deal.

Axis Nova and Unistate are absolutely correct. The rest of the thread is pointless rhetoric.

Or perhaps because of sovereignity? That might be something to do with it, yah? So that not every jumped-up Ein Deutscher with a grievance can come along and make outlandish claims?

Well, if you think the ICC is that easy to manipulate, you need to visit this website:
http://www.icc-cpi.int/home.html&l=en
Take a look around, and then tell me it's that easy.

Everyone already knows the story of the My Lai massacre. If our reputation was ever going to go down the crapper over it then it already did a long time ago. I don't see why this is a big deal.

Axis Nova and Unistate are absolutely correct. The rest of the thread is pointless rhetoric.

It isn't about reputation- it is about justice. Why was Calley pardoned? Why can he live a quiet life after those sort of atrocities? The US should work out a case-by-case extradition deal with the ICC. Then, when you have criminals like Calley who you can't charge, you can send them to the ICC. Similarly, if you want the rest of the world to know for a fact that your soldiers are innocent, send them to the ICC.

You boneheads, the reason the US can't join the ICC is because it's authority exceeds that of our own courts. A US citizen would no longer legally be able to have a fair trial under our law if we joined it.
So you're saying that the ICC can't provide due process of law?

(note: If you commit a crime in another country where the crime isn't illegal back home, you can still be prosecuted in that country for that crime)

It would be the same for all countries and everyone on trial would be subject to due process.

No, they wouldn't, because the ICC isn't held accountable to anyone for it's actions.

:fluffle: :upyours:
you all are stupid

Bush sucks and that is it.
Bush makes America pretty much suck.
(yeah, whatever,,, we are free,, etc... YA RIGHT>>>
that is a load of bull.)
why dont we argue about the war in iraq instead.....
hmm????
stupid dumb asses...
we need to leave there and mind our own businesses...
and try to focus on making our country better.
once we are a perfect country, we can go and try to "fix" other countries.

No, they wouldn't, because the ICC isn't held accountable to anyone for it's actions.

The ICC, by it's very nature, is always held accountable because it depends on the support of the countries involved. If a nation withdraws support, it is not bound by the ruling of the ICC.

You boneheads, the reason the US can't join the ICC is because it's authority exceeds that of our own courts. A US citizen would no longer legally be able to have a fair trial under our law if we joined it.

Actually, domestic courts have primacy over the ICC.

No, I've just been reading about the Vietnam war lately.
I just wish the US would work out a case-by-case extradition thing with the ICC.
Because this guy, if anyone deserves capital punishment, it's him.

The ICC does not have capital punishment.


It's all about sovereignty, the US doesn't want to cede any amount of its sovereignty to an international body. Just another manifestation of its isolationist, non-cooperative foreign policy.

:fluffle: :upyours:
you all are stupid

Bush sucks and that is it.
Bush makes America pretty much suck.
(yeah, whatever,,, we are free,, etc... YA RIGHT>>>
that is a load of bull.)
why dont we argue about the war in iraq instead.....
hmm????
stupid dumb asses...
we need to leave there and mind our own businesses...
and try to focus on making our country better.
once we are a perfect country, we can go and try to "fix" other countries.

If you want to argue about Iraq, make a thread. Otherwise, shut your mouth, find an appropriate forum, or try and say something relevant and constructive. I don't like Bush, but you're being a callow, moronic and irrelevantreactionist by phrasing your post in that particular manner.

:fluffle: :upyours:
you all are stupid

Bush sucks and that is it.
Bush makes America pretty much suck.
(yeah, whatever,,, we are free,, etc... YA RIGHT>>>
that is a load of bull.)
why dont we argue about the war in iraq instead.....
hmm????
stupid dumb asses...
we need to leave there and mind our own businesses...
and try to focus on making our country better.
once we are a perfect country, we can go and try to "fix" other countries.

You're right, we're pretty oppressed. You realize that you just made a huge mistake? The feds are watching and they're going to hunt you down. You'll mysteriously disappear and we'll never hear your name mentioned again. I risk my own life at the hands of the evil tyrant of a president just by conversing with you. I must now fly! Before they catch up with me!

No, they wouldn't, because the ICC isn't held accountable to anyone for it's actions.
Sorry? And our courts are?

"During its first resumed session held in New York from 3 to 7 February 2003, the Assembly of States Parties elected the eighteen judges of the Court for a term of office of three, six, and nine years. The judges constitute a forum of international experts that represents the world's principal legal systems."

"2. (a) A judge shall not participate in any case in which his or her impartiality might reasonably be doubted on any ground. A judge shall be disqualified from a case in accordance with this paragraph if, inter alia, that judge has previously been involved in any capacity in that case before the Court or in a related criminal case at the national level involving the person being investigated or prosecuted. A judge shall also be disqualified on such other grounds as may be provided for in the Rules of Procedure and Evidence."

"1. A judge, the Prosecutor, a Deputy Prosecutor, the Registrar or the Deputy Registrar shall be removed from office if a decision to this effect is made in accordance with paragraph 2, in cases where that person:

(a) Is found to have committed serious misconduct or a serious breach of his or her duties under this Statute, as provided for in the Rules of Procedure and Evidence; or

(b) Is unable to exercise the functions required by this Statute.

2. A decision as to the removal from office of a judge, the Prosecutor or a Deputy Prosecutor under paragraph 1 shall be made by the Assembly of States Parties, by secret ballot:

( a) In the case of a judge, by a two-thirds majority of the States Parties upon a recommendation adopted by a two-thirds majority of the other judges;

(b) In the case of the Prosecutor, by an absolute majority of the States Parties;

(c) In the case of a Deputy Prosecutor, by an absolute majority of the States Parties upon the recommendation of the Prosecutor.

3. A decision as to the removal from office of the Registrar or Deputy Registrar shall be made by an absolute majority of the judges.

4. A judge, Prosecutor, Deputy Prosecutor, Registrar or Deputy Registrar whose conduct or ability to exercise the functions of the office as required by this Statute is challenged under this article shall have full opportunity to present and receive evidence and to make submissions in accordance with the Rules of Procedure and Evidence. The person in question shall not otherwise participate in the consideration of the matter. "

Clearly the judges are held accountable to the states who sign the treaty.

Or perhaps because of sovereignity? That might be something to do with it, yah? So that not every jumped-up Ein Deutscher with a grievance can come along and make outlandish claims?

Pretty much EVERY action the UN takes 'violates' a nation's soverignenty. The Declaration of Human Rights for example. Every sanction it ever passed with ultimatums for nations to shape up pretty much violates that country to go about things according to their own laws.

Once you sign on its not really a violation of anything. Its a contract and you abide by contracts. Contracts/treaties/etc by definition cripple your freedoms a bit but that's because you gain something some sort of benefit or for a greater good which offsets anything you sacrifice.

It's all about sovereignty, the US doesn't want to cede any amount of its sovereignty to an international body. Just another manifestation of its isolationist, non-cooperative foreign policy.

We've taken part in our fair share of cooperative foreign policy. In judicial matters we're number one. That's been a tenet of American politics since the government was formed. As far as we're concerned the only place an American can get a fair trial is in America and we're sticking with it.

It isn't about reputation- it is about justice. Why was Calley pardoned? Why can he live a quiet life after those sort of atrocities? The US should work out a case-by-case extradition deal with the ICC. Then, when you have criminals like Calley who you can't charge, you can send them to the ICC. Similarly, if you want the rest of the world to know for a fact that your soldiers are innocent, send them to the ICC.

I don't love the idea of soldiers getting away with their crimes. I also don't love the idea of people higher up the chain of command getting away with authorizing crimes. At the same time I'd rather see an American court alone handle such cases. The rest of the world can have fun with the ICC. We'll stick with our own courts. I really don't care whether the rest of the world thinks our soldiers are innocent or guilty of a crime. If the crime is brought to an American court and the soldier is tried fairly then I'm content.

I'm a bit leery of how fair military courts are. The same goes for the ICC.

Pretty much EVERY action the UN takes 'violates' a nation's soverignenty. The Declaration of Human Rights for example. Every sanction it ever passed with ultimatums for nations to shape up pretty much violates that country to go about things according to their own laws.

Once you sign on its not really a violation of anything. Its a contract and you abide by contracts. Contracts/treaties/etc by definition cripple your freedoms a bit but that's because you gain something some sort of benefit or for a greater good which offsets anything you sacrifice.

Then it's a matter of assessing the risk vs. reward for giving up sovereignty. That means we can pick and choose when we do it. Just because we do it once doesn't mean that we're on a slippery slope and that we must do it in all cases. Joining the UN does not, or at least should not, set a precedent.

Is the risk vs. reward for joining the ICC at the same level as being a member of the UN?

I don't love the idea of soldiers getting away with their crimes. I also don't love the idea of people higher up the chain of command getting away with authorizing crimes. At the same time I'd rather see an American court alone handle such cases. The rest of the world can have fun with the ICC. We'll stick with our own courts. I really don't care whether the rest of the world thinks our soldiers are innocent or guilty of a crime. If the crime is brought to an American court and the soldier is tried fairly then I'm content.

I'm a bit leery of how fair military courts are. The same goes for the ICC.

I'd also like to see the American courts convict this guy . . . and not have him released by a Nixon pardon. The whole unilateral Presidential pardon idea always did bother me.

I think the issue is not that deffendants would not neccesaraly not be subject to due process of law, but rather they would not be subject to American law. Are we being selfish? No more than any other country. We cooperate when it serves our purpose, and so do other nations. Why didn't france and germany cooperate to go into Iraq? Was it because they didn't want to free the Iraqis from a murdering dictator or was it because they were illegaly buying oil from Saddam?

The US is simply preserveing it's athority over its laws rather than allowing some pannel arbitrarily appointed by the many dictatorships that populate the UN to make legal decissions on our behalf.

I'd also like to see the American courts convict this guy . . . and not have him released by a Nixon pardon. The whole unilateral Presidential pardon idea always did bother me.

Does the statute of limitations allow his conviction now?

Edit: I suppose it wouldn't if he was pardoned.

No, they wouldn't, because the ICC isn't held accountable to anyone for it's actions.

Courts rarely are held accountable. Good thing charters and constitutions and members of a council or senate exist to question outcomes of cases (if they can).

:fluffle: :upyours:
you all are stupid

Bush sucks and that is it.
Bush makes America pretty much suck.
(yeah, whatever,,, we are free,, etc... YA RIGHT>>>
that is a load of bull.)
why dont we argue about the war in iraq instead.....
hmm????
stupid dumb asses...
we need to leave there and mind our own businesses...
and try to focus on making our country better.
once we are a perfect country, we can go and try to "fix" other countries.

You're a member of a debate society, aren't you? Harvard or somewhere really snooty like that.

Courts rarely are held accountable. Good thing charters and constitutions and members of a council or senate exist to question outcomes of cases (if they can).
There is an appeal process. Read here: http://www.un.org/law/icc/statute/romefra.htm, and it stands to reason a sentance can be mooted by the dissolution of the body by the states.

Hell, I don't trust the courts in the US, why in the world should I trust even bigger and more sweeping courts?
I don't like the idea of any national soviergnty (spl?) being given up by anyone. Am an old style nationalist at heart. I know my side is gradually losing but I will not conform to new ideals. I will not conform.

You boneheads, the reason the US can't join the ICC is because it's authority exceeds that of our own courts. A US citizen would no longer legally be able to have a fair trial under our law if we joined it.
Why do other countries not have this problem?

Obviously American courts are not up to the job if criminals like William Calley essentially get off scott free.

To think that this one Case is the sole reason the US will not join the ICC is quite laughable.

To my knowledge, as stated time and time again, the American Government feels the signing on of this would violate our Constitituion and give crack pots the chance to bring our own people up on Charges. Besides that, if any politician/President signed the US up for this it would mean political suicide for their party. The American Public does not support it and probably never will. We have enough problems with our own courts failing us, why would we count on a Court made up of people whose constantly tell us how evil we are?

I don't like the idea of any national soviergnty (spl?) being given up by anyone. Am an old style nationalist at heart. I know my side is gradually losing but I will not conform to new ideals. I will not conform.How would you deal with Milosevic?

What on earth has Bush got against the International Cricket Council?

To think that this one Case is the sole reason the US will not join the ICC is quite laughable.

To my knowledge, as stated time and time again, the American Government feels the signing on of this would violate our Constitituion and give crack pots the chance to bring our own people up on Charges. Besides that, if any politician/President signed the US up for this it would mean political suicide for their party. The American Public does not support it and probably never will. We have enough problems with our own courts failing us, why would we count on a Court made up of people whose constantly tell us how evil we are?
How exactly would it violate the Constitution?

I thought this was going to be a thread about cricket...

But yeah, IMO the reason teh US won't join is that they would have to account for the actions overseas. :eek:

I'm glad I' not the only one that thought this was going to be about the International Cricket Council?