NationStates Jolt Archive

Many posters here imply that because the UN Charter, or the Geneva Convention, etc., is a treaty and therefore the "supreme law of the land" pursuant to the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution (Article VI) it would somehow prevent the US, as a matter of US domestic law, from lawfully deploying force in the exercise of its authority.
This is just not so. Even if one were to consider the Kellogg-Briand Treaty to be in force and valid today (a highly speculative proposition), or the UN Charter (a treaty in force and valid today), it is clear that a treaty is equal in dignity and normative rank to federal legislation and inferior to provisions of the Constitution itself. Therefore, a constitutionally permissible use of force, either pursuant to a congressional declaration of war or an authorized use of force by the executive (typically delegated authority by Congress, as in the present legislation pertaining to Iraq) would satisfy the requirements of US domestic law. There are several key federal court decisions and many fine scholarly articles addressing the role of treaties in the US legal system that demonstrate this point.

So get off this notion that somehow a treaty is equal to, or superior to, the provisions of the Constitution.

Who cares about your constitution anyway? The ICC won't.

So get off this notion that somehow a treaty is equal to, or superior to, the provisions of the Constitution.
Actually it's equal, they're both "supreme." When there's conflict it will be up to the US Supreme Court to determine which one to follow. Somehow I don't think they would choose to follow a treaty for the precedent that would set. But they're equal nonetheless.

Who cares about your constitution anyway? The ICC won't.
Who cares about our constitution? How about 150 million well armed Americans?. The ICC "won't" denotes that a future case will go before them that you apparently have some knowledge of. Care to enlighten us?

Many posters here imply that because the UN Charter, or the Geneva Convention, etc., is a treaty and therefore the "supreme law of the land" pursuant to the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution (Article VI) it would somehow prevent the US, as a matter of US domestic law, from lawfully deploying force in the exercise of its authority.
This is just not so. Even if one were to consider the Kellogg-Briand Treaty to be in force and valid today (a highly speculative proposition), or the UN Charter (a treaty in force and valid today), it is clear that a treaty is equal in dignity and normative rank to federal legislation and inferior to provisions of the Constitution itself. Therefore, a constitutionally permissible use of force, either pursuant to a congressional declaration of war or an authorized use of force by the executive (typically delegated authority by Congress, as in the present legislation pertaining to Iraq) would satisfy the requirements of US domestic law. There are several key federal court decisions and many fine scholarly articles addressing the role of treaties in the US legal system that demonstrate this point.

So get off this notion that somehow a treaty is equal to, or superior to, the provisions of the Constitution.

Domestic law? No. But you're subject to the penalties written into the treaty being violated, even if the actions taken are perfectly constitutional.

Who cares about our constitution? How about 150 million well armed Americans?

And who cares about them?

The ICC "won't" denotes that a future case will go before them that you apparently have some knowledge of. Care to enlighten us?

It's inevitable with US expansionism. Some day one of your soldiers will fall under its jurisdiction and be tried. It'll make one hell of a show.

And who cares about them?



It's inevitable with US expansionism. Some day one of your soldiers will fall under its jurisdiction and be tried. It'll make one hell of a show.
We care about each other, which is why we don't give a flying f@$& whether people like you do. And jurisdiction is one thing, extradition is another. Who's gonna come get them?


BTW I think it's laughable when people say "US expansionism"

I believe it was Colin Powell who said something along the lines of "We have gone forth from our shores repeatedly over the last hundred years and we’ve done this as recently as the last year in Afghanistan and put wonderful young men and women at risk, many of whom have lost their lives, and we have asked for nothing except enough ground to bury them in, and otherwise we have returned home to seek our own, you know, to seek our own lives in peace, to live our own lives in peace. But there comes a time when soft power or talking with evil will not work where, unfortunately, hard power is the only thing that works."

It's inevitable with US expansionism. Some day one of your soldiers will fall under its jurisdiction and be tried. It'll make one hell of a show.

And way more worth the airtime than OJ or Jacko.

Well, if North Korean suddently writes in its constituion that it is legal to attack South Korea, and if they do it, in the light of NK law, it will be legal to attack SK. Just not in the entire world eyes :)

Same thing for the US. Sure, it can be all 100% legal for your constitution to attack other countries, but not on the entire world eyes (or treaties that the US signed).

We care about each other, which is why we don't give a flying f@$& whether people like you do. And jurisdiction is one thing, extradition is another. Who's gonna come get them?

Oh, the people in The Hague.

I believe it was Colin Powell who said something along the lines of "We have gone forth from our shores repeatedly over the last hundred years and we’ve done this as recently as the last year in Afghanistan and put wonderful young men and women at risk, many of whom have lost their lives, and we have asked for nothing except enough ground to bury them in, and otherwise we have returned home to seek our own, you know, to seek our own lives in peace, to live our own lives in peace. But there comes a time when soft power or talking with evil will not work where, unfortunately, hard power is the only thing that works."


And they say Europeans are full of themselves.

we have asked for nothing except enough ground to bury them in,


Oh, and occationally the land to build military installations like air fields and other military compounds. But that is ofcourse just a part of US burial tradition. A sort of memorial shrine for the brave US soldiers.

Oh, and occationally the land to build military installations like air fields and other military compounds. But that is ofcourse just a part of US burial tradition. A sort of memorial shrine for the brave US soldiers.
How about you show me one onstance where we built a base without the express PERMISSION from whatever nation it was in? Imperialism suggests force.

~EDIT~ In fact, I'd have to say a lot of the bases we built were at the INSISTANCE of said governments!

Hallelujah, someone out there who's willing to stand up for the United States.

And Lovfro? You're right. America does build bases, military installations, camps, and all those things. But it'd be pretty bloody hard to stomp out an international terrorist organization without them.

How about Japan?

Oh no, they asked for help.

Well, yes they did, AFTER they were prohibited from having anything but a national 'defence' force that everybody knew would never be able to stand up to the Russians.

Believe me, I am not so blue eyed that I believe that no requests made in politics are made under dures.

And the US military thinks of it as their right to have these advanced bases all over the world. Don't you remember the fit that was thrown when, was it Uzbekistan? It was one of them stans that recently told the US to pack their planes and leave please. Didn't make pentagon happy, that did.

You are silly to suggest that post-WWII America did not have a vested interes in getting themselves military facilities close to the Russians as part of the cold war shenanigans.

And you are silly to suggest that politics aren't dirty.

IMO

Hallelujah, someone out there who's willing to stand up for the United States.

And Lovfro? You're right. America does build bases, military installations, camps, and all those things. But it'd be pretty bloody hard to stomp out an international terrorist organization without them.


I like the way that you use the War on Terr0r to justify instalations build in the 1940's :)

Furthermore, if you look at my post, I never expressed an opinion on wether the bases were a good or a bad thing. I only pointed out that Colin Powells statement wasn't true.

I will gladly admit that post WWII and during the cold war the US bases was part of keeping the war from going hot.

I do not believe that they are justified in this day and age and the US budget would look a hell of a lot better without them. But pentagon finds it hard to let go.

With regards to them being an asset in the war on terror, I don't see it. Terrorists are not something you can fight conventionally.

How about Japan?

Oh no, they asked for help.

Well, yes they did, AFTER they were prohibited from having anything but a national 'defence' force that everybody knew would never be able to stand up to the Russians.

Believe me, I am not so blue eyed that I believe that no requests made in politics are made under dures.

And the US military thinks of it as their right to have these advanced bases all over the world. Don't you remember the fit that was thrown when, was it Uzbekistan? It was one of them stans that recently told the US to pack their planes and leave please. Didn't make pentagon happy, that did.

You are silly to suggest that post-WWII America did not have a vested interes in getting themselves military facilities close to the Russians as part of the cold war shenanigans.

And you are silly to suggest that politics aren't dirty.

IMO

Hold on a second. You're using Japan, a nation that committed war atrocities against Chinese civilians and American POWs during WWII, as an example? Of course we were going to prevent them from having a military, they sneak attacked us at Pearl Harbor. The only option to keep the Soviets from running roughshod over them was to have U.S. forces permanently in the theater.

Besides, I seem to recall a treaty following WWI that did the same thing to Germany, and that had backing of most of Europe. Maybe I'm just crazy. Of course, Europe let them rebuild their armies, but maybe with some permanent bases on German soil, it would have slowed the process.

I do not believe that they are justified in this day and age and the US budget would look a hell of a lot better without them. But pentagon finds it hard to let go.

With regards to them being an asset in the war on terror, I don't see it. Terrorists are not something you can fight conventionally.

Yes, but it's a much shorter flight from Diego Garcia to Afghanistan than Norfolk.

Who cares about our constitution? How about 150 million well armed Americans?
300 million people live in America.

Hold on a second. You're using Japan, a nation that committed war atrocities against Chinese civilians and American POWs during WWII, as an example? Of course we were going to prevent them from having a military, they sneak attacked us at Pearl Harbor. The only option to keep the Soviets from running roughshod over them was to have U.S. forces permanently in the theater.

Besides, I seem to recall a treaty following WWI that did the same thing to Germany, and that had backing of most of Europe. Maybe I'm just crazy. Of course, Europe let them rebuild their armies, but maybe with some permanent bases on German soil, it would have slowed the process.


Actually, the Japanese, even with an army, would probably not try anything, knowing that the Americans would be able to throw a nuke or two if they got out of hand. I'm pretty sure that the Japanese were very aware of what an A-bomb could do to a city.

With regards to Germany post WWI, it's the common position that the Treaty of Versailles was the root cause that led to the rise of fascism in Germany. Furthermore, having bases in Germany would have made no difference. When the Germans crossed into the Chezk Republic to retake the Sudetenland, the British had a treaty obligation to help, but didn't. This was due to severe war wariness and a hope that Hitler would stop there. Having troops on German soil would have done nothing to stop that when the political will was lacking. Furthermore, the German tank and plane development was taking place in secret in Poland, unbeknownst to the rest of Europe.

300 million people live in America.
UH, I know that. I live here. I didn't say 150 million americans. I said 150 million ARMED Americans. Babys and octegenerians can't fight very well, ya know!

Hold on a second. You're using Japan, a nation that committed war atrocities against Chinese civilians and American POWs during WWII, as an example? Of course we were going to prevent them from having a military, they sneak attacked us at Pearl Harbor.

As they say in England, this is the pot calling the kettle black... (well, something like that I think).

The US record in this area isn't exactly fantastic; executions, autrocities in Iraq, the breaking of international law etc.

Actually, the Japanese, even with an army, would probably not try anything, knowing that the Americans would be able to throw a nuke or two if they got out of hand. I'm pretty sure that the Japanese were very aware of what an A-bomb could do to a city.

With regards to Germany post WWI, it's the common position that the Treaty of Versailles was the root cause that led to the rise of fascism in Germany. Furthermore, having bases in Germany would have made no difference. When the Germans crossed into the Chezk Republic to retake the Sudetenland, the British had a treaty obligation to help, but didn't. This was due to severe war wariness and a hope that Hitler would stop there. Having troops on German soil would have done nothing to stop that when the political will was lacking. Furthermore, the German tank and plane development was taking place in secret in Poland, unbeknownst to the rest of Europe.

However, the military leadership following the dropping of the second atomic bomb was still willing to fight on, and it took essentially a coup to get the war to end. The treaty was in place so that even if such a group were to come to power, they would have no military with which to cause such damage as before. Besides, the U.S. forces there were REBUILDING that aggressor nation, to the point where their steel industries were more advanced than the ones at home.

Yes, the Treaty of Versailles was indeed the root cause, as it crippled the Germany economy (as well as playing a major part in the Great Depression) and sponsored a general discontent among the German people, which allowed Hitler to come to power. Had Europe taken a tact that the U.S. did in Japan in rebuilding the nation (i.e. blame the government, not the people), perhaps Hitler may not have come to power at all. All of Europe knew Hitler was rearming, they were just so war weary that they were willing to turn a blind eye. We cannot properly even surmise the effect of foreign bases in Germany. Perhaps they would have had no effect. Perhaps the revenue they brought in would have been enough to help the German economy. Perhaps close quarters could have turned the German populace away from Fascism. Perhaps not. But, arguing that bases would not have had an effect is not accurate. At the very least, it could have been used as war propaganda by the hawks when the German military took them over.

As they say in England, this is the pot calling the kettle black... (well, something like that I think).

The US record in this area isn't exactly fantastic; executions, autrocities in Iraq, the breaking of international law etc.

You're equating the massive attack by Japan on Pearl Harbor and the Sinkiang Massacre with 'autrocities' in Iraq? Tens of thousands murdered vs keeping a few arabs naked in a jail? While I'm not defending the Abu Graib scandal, that's a far cry from Pearl Harbor, my friend.

Many posters here imply that because the UN Charter, or the Geneva Convention, etc., is a treaty and therefore the "supreme law of the land" pursuant to the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution (Article VI) it would somehow prevent the US, as a matter of US domestic law, from lawfully deploying force in the exercise of its authority.
This is just not so. Even if one were to consider the Kellogg-Briand Treaty to be in force and valid today (a highly speculative proposition), or the UN Charter (a treaty in force and valid today), it is clear that a treaty is equal in dignity and normative rank to federal legislation and inferior to provisions of the Constitution itself. Therefore, a constitutionally permissible use of force, either pursuant to a congressional declaration of war or an authorized use of force by the executive (typically delegated authority by Congress, as in the present legislation pertaining to Iraq) would satisfy the requirements of US domestic law. There are several key federal court decisions and many fine scholarly articles addressing the role of treaties in the US legal system that demonstrate this point.

So get off this notion that somehow a treaty is equal to, or superior to, the provisions of the Constitution.

Let's take a look at the legal contexts here.

In the US, we are subject to US law, and there's nothing the international community can do to enforce its law on US soil. In matters of international scope, the international law would very much apply, and rightly so, IMO.

You're equating the massive attack by Japan on Pearl Harbor and the Sinkiang Massacre with 'autrocities' in Iraq? Tens of thousands murdered vs keeping a few arabs naked in a jail? While I'm not defending the Abu Graib scandal, that's a far cry from Pearl Harbor, my friend.

Errr. No. I don't agree there. Pearl Harbour was a ruse de guerre. An underhand, foul and sneaky one, no doubt. Especially as there wasn't a war going on beforehand. However, the Japanese claimed no moral justification for launching it. It was war. Abu Graib, on the other hand, was POST war (allegedly, you know, after the whole "mission accomplished" thing) by a power that was claiming the moral high ground.

Now, the rape of Nanking, ok, yes, i agree with you. But Pearl Harbour was just an example of the bastards being sneakier bastards than you bastards would have been. And the annals of war are full of examples of that.

Bellania, I'm not going to discuss this with you any further, as it has no bearing what so ever on my original point.

I'll reiterate. The US has asked for more than land for buring it's soldiers after campaigns outside it's borders, for example land for military instalations.

I do not believe that this land was all granted of the nations free will and concent when looking behind the surface.

I do believe that a lot the land was granted because nations saw it mutually beneficial.

But I believe, no land has been given without the US asking first.

I am not passing judgment as to wether the US was in the right to get these bases using political pressure.

I certainly believe that the international US bases was part of keeping the cold war from going hot.

I also believe that these bases have outlived themselves.

A new reflection upon all this is that I find it amazing that I was jumped when I proposed that any of the land was asked for and instead put forth that the US military in all instances had been offered the land without asking for it. That is misplaced patriotism if I ever saw any.

So, that's my point and now I have tired of going down tangents.

So moving swiftly on.

It's not a matter of constitution vs. treaty. It's simply and plainly personal morals vs. contracts on a larger scale. You have your personal standards (your morals, or, in terms of a country, your constitution), and are facing a contract (i.e. a treaty) that goes against them.

If your moral integrity is intact, you will break the contract. Does this mean you're not liable? Of course not. You will not find yourself guilty (after all, you upheld your morals), but the other side of the contract will.

If you're now living in an Anarchy (which the world technically is, since there is no international policing agency that could execute sensibly against countries and is independent of all countries), whether your breach of contract will be executed is only a matter whether you or your opponent is better armed.

And that's why the US don't really have to care 'bout international treaties. They can simply play the Anarchy card: The one with the biggest guns is right.

I am an american, and as such, my opinion will most likely be slanted, but I will attempt to call it as I see it.

Abu? No doubt, it was messed up. But I notice people tend to act like the government did nothing to bring the instigators to justice. Especially with the newspapers here in the States. Big headlines when it happened, and a small blurb on page 9 when those involved were court martialed.

As for Pearl Harbor, last I checked is still is considered reckless agression to attack a nation without declaring War first. Declaring war gives both nations time to get their civilians out of harms way. You have any idea how many US civilians are on a military base inside the US on any given day? By taking the cowardly route, the Japanese government at the time killed innocents.

Keep in mind, every terrorist caught in this battle does not count as a prisoner of war, seeing as how they are not an army. They are not a recognised military. They are savage killers who have thrown the ROE out the window, something not even the Nazi's did to this extent. They hide among civilians, kill civilians, betray surrender pleas, regularly kidnap and kill noncombatants, and worse. They cannot be negotiated with, have no formal or informal government to communicate with, and are completely impossible to stop with peaceful means. All they want to do is kill everyone who does not follow their beliefs. They will accept nothing less then our deaths.

Once a combantant violates ROE, and the international standards of war, the rules no longer apply to him/her. They are terrorists who have given up the right to surrender, so that they may kill better. By all rights, if we wanted to we could torture the ones we have captured. Looking at the Abu methods of interrogation....comparitively tame by what has been done to US soldiers in the past, and what Saddam did to those who angered him. The only reason the people who were involved in that are being punished is because the US military attempts to hold a standard above the norm regardless of the situation. The US military has a history of high ethics, treating captured soldiers better than a good majority of countries over the past 200 years.

I feel no compassion for the murderers who were in Abu, and I'm personally impressed that what happened was as tame as it was. Knowing what those people had done, I could not honestly say I would have had the same restraint. If it was up to me what their fates would have been, I would have executed them all.

But back to the origional topic, US law applies on US territory, and Int Law applies elsewhere. How we got into Abu is a complete mystery to me.

I feel no compassion for the murderers who were in Abu, and I'm personally impressed that what happened was as tame as it was. Knowing what those people had done, I could not honestly say I would have had the same restraint. If it was up to me what their fates would have been, I would have executed them all.

I just wanted to point out, since you don't seem to know, that the majority of people who have been to Abu Ghraib after the US took over, have been freed again without charge. So most of the people brought in there were not terrorists/insurgents/illigal combattants/lable-of-your-choice.

Just wanted to point that out.

Why should we be exempt from international law?

Who cares about your constitution anyway? The ICC won't.

And yet we don't recognize the ICC so :p

Why should we be exempt from international law?

Why should any nation?

Oh, the people in The Hague.
I believe it was Colin Powell who said something along the lines of "We have gone forth from our shores repeatedly over the last hundred years and we’ve done this as recently as the last year in Afghanistan and put wonderful young men and women at risk, many of whom have lost their lives, and we have asked for nothing except enough ground to bury them in, and otherwise we have returned home to seek our own, you know, to seek our own lives in peace, to live our own lives in peace. But there comes a time when soft power or talking with evil will not work where, unfortunately, hard power is the only thing that works."




And they say Europeans are full of themselves.

Aside from proving that you yourself are full of shit. When you read what was posted and did not post one single example to refute it , what did you accomplish ?

Why should any nation?
Umm... exactly my point. We want other nations to follow international law. Why shouldn't we?

300 million people live in America.

But its a myth we are all armed , I know a couple babies that do not have a pistol yet , and some slackers...so maybe 290,987,376 armed Americans :D

It's just kind of embarrassing when the White House accuses some rouge nation of violating International Law, only to have it come out that the US itself violated the exact same law about a month ago. We need a consistent message or nobody will listen to us. Either the GC is something that no nations should follow or it's something important that all nations must adhere to. None of this "it applies to everyone but the US" bullshit. That's part of the reason why we aren't popular any more.

Why should we be exempt from international law?


'Cos it would be so awkward having to ask "who's the president today?"

'Cos it would be so awkward having to ask "who's the president today?"



Wow! That's a well-thought-out, convincing arguement. :rolleyes:

Let me ask it this way, then. If the US is exempt from international law, why shouldn't other countries have the same priviledge?

And yet we don't recognize the ICC so :p

You don't have to.

"The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court was established on 17 July 1998, when 120 States participating in the "United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court" adopted the Statute. The Statute entered into force on 1 July 2002. Anyone who commits any of the crimes under the Statute after this date will be liable for prosecution by the Court."

American recognition is irrelevant. The court has the power to prosecute American citizens regardless, if the crime committed falls under its jurisdiction and is neglected by other courts.

You don't have to.

"The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court was established on 17 July 1998, when 120 States participating in the "United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court" adopted the Statute. The Statute entered into force on 1 July 2002. Anyone who commits any of the crimes under the Statute after this date will be liable for prosecution by the Court."

American recognition is irrelevant. The court has the power to prosecute American citizens regardless if the crime committed falls under its jurisdiction and is neglected by other courts.

Wrong again! Since we HAVE NOT ratified it, we are not subject to it! We have not given up our soveriegnty to the ICC!

You do know that it had to be ratified by the US Senate in order for us to be a party right? Yea I thought you didn't. Since we didn't, no American can be legally brought before the ICC.

And who cares about them?



It's inevitable with US expansionism. Some day one of your soldiers will fall under its jurisdiction and be tried. It'll make one hell of a show.

And who is going to make the US turn their soldiers over to a International Tribunal to be tried for crimes that they will have already been indicted upon for violations of the UCMJ? When people talk about indicting US soldiers for War Crimes violations they like to ignore that we take care of our own, when our troops do something wrong we go after them. Unlike many countries, countries whom we are currently at war or on not-so friendly terms with, we do not encourage our soldiers to rape and murder at will. I dare say we hold our soldiers to higher standards than most nations, not that I am saying that every other nation on the world let's their soldiers get away with mass murder of civilians, but Saddam sure as hell did. Obviously war lords in Africa are allowing their "soldiers" to commit unspeakable attrocities which the west is only too happy to ignore. North Korea makes their populace suffer so their military can be constantly on a state of alert for a war that will never come, well, flare up again. I kind of figured after reading 13 pages that basically said "no queers allowed" when enlisting that the Army had discipline pretty well under control, they must have things pretty well under control if they can worry about things like that.

Wrong again! Since we HAVE NOT ratified it, we are not subject to it! We have not given up our soveriegnty to the ICC!

You do know that it had to be ratified by the US Senate in order for us to be a party right? Yea I thought you didn't. Since we didn't, no American can be legally brought before the ICC.

The thing is, that's NOT what the statute says (http://www.icc-cpi.int/about/ataglance/jurisdiction.html), which you would know if you had bothered to read it. The statute states that either the territory where the crime is committed or the nationality of the person that committed it have to fall under the jurisdiction of the court - so an American committing a crime that the court can prosecute in a country/territory that is under the jurisdiction of the court can be prosecuted by the court. That America has not ratified it does not protect the American from prosecution one bit. Your failure to ratify only protects you if the crime is committed outside the jurisdiction of the court, while a national of a ratifying state is under its jurisdiction always.

So, nope, Americans simply are not immune from prosecution just because they failed to ratify.

The thing is, that's NOT what the statute says (http://www.icc-cpi.int/about/ataglance/jurisdiction.html), which you would know if you had bothered to read it. The statute states that either the territory where the crime is committed or the nationality of the person that committed it have to fall under the jurisdiction of the court - so an American committing a crime that the court can prosecute in a country/territory that is under the jurisdiction of the court can be prosecuted by the court. That America has not ratified it does not protect the American from prosecution one bit. Your failure to ratify only protects you if the crime is committed outside the jurisdiction of the court, while a national of a ratifying state is under its jurisdiction always.

So, nope, Americans simply are not immune from prosecution just because they failed to ratify.

So if I go and murder someone in the Phillipines I am subject to a trial of my peers from Italy, Germany, Britain, Russia and China, maybe even some Koreans thrown in there?

So if I go and murder someone in the Phillipines I am subject to a trial of my peers from Italy, Germany, Britain, Russia and China, maybe even some Koreans thrown in there?

What "peers"? The court, as is the norm, does not apply a jury system.

Also, the crime has to be one that the court can prosecute ("genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, all of which are fully defined in the Statute and further elaborated by the Elements of Crimes") and that national courts have neglected to prosecute sufficiently ("The Court will only investigate and prosecute if a State is unwilling or unable to genuinely prosecute. This will be determined by the judges. Unjustified delays in proceedings as well as proceedings which are merely intended to shield persons from criminal responsibility will not render a case inadmissible before the ICC.")

Sorry, too many people make the ICC sound like it is a world wide justice system meant to crack down on shoplifting and occasional drive my eggings, guess I don't really know or care to know anything about international war crimes because I do not intend to be involved with them and in all honesty, th eindividual soldiers are not held responsible for following orders. We are not trained to question orders, we are trained to do it as fast and as smooth as possible.

th eindividual soldiers are not held responsible for following orders. We are not trained to question orders, we are trained to do it as fast and as smooth as possible.

Wrong, there. If the Nurenburg trials left us with one cemented precedent, it is that "I was following orders" is not an excuse in the participation of these crimes. It didn't work for the Nazis, and it won't for anyone else.

It's just kind of embarrassing when the White House accuses some rouge nation of violating International Law, only to have it come out that the US itself violated the exact same law about a month ago. We need a consistent message or nobody will listen to us. Either the GC is something that no nations should follow or it's something important that all nations must adhere to. None of this "it applies to everyone but the US" bullshit. That's part of the reason why we aren't popular any more.

Source?

I don't think the US has committed acts of mass murder against our own people, I could be wrong, but I don't recall, no. Sorry, nothing like that happened here within the last month. I got strept throat but I don't think the government is responsible.

A lot of people claim that the US violates internation laws but I have yet to see one person give me a reliable, accurate, or even existent source pointing out exactly what we did.

Wrong, there. If the Nurenburg trials left us with one cemented precedent, it is that "I was following orders" is not an excuse in the participation of these crimes. It didn't work for the Nazis, and it won't for anyone else.

But how many German soldiers, who all chose to take part in the holocaust, were actually convicted of taking part in acts of genocide?

But how many German soldiers, who all chose to take part in the holocaust, were actually convicted of taking part in acts of genocide?

I have no figures, but this is an interesting explanation. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Defense) Not even your UCMJ recognizes "I was just following orders" as an excuse for committing these crimes.

De Jure vs. De Facto.

Words are cheap.

Actions speak louder than words.

I have never cared about what is written on paper, I care about what actually happens. Technically you are right, the UCMJ does not officially recognize "I was following orders" as an excuse for commiting war crimes, but A.) That has never come up in trial and B.) Anyone who uses those specific words will instantly be thought of as guilty because it is admitting wrong doing but trying to shift the blame.

I just want to clear something up, I am not advocating that the rules don't apply to America, I am just saying that we have never really violated any of the laws. In Vietnam and Iraq we may have done some slightly questionable things, but nothing like burying a village of 10,000, many of whom were buried alive. Abu Garib certainly wasn't a shiny mark on our record, but it was one incident headed by a couple of loons that should not have been there. (waits for someone to chip in that we shouldn't be in Iraq period, blah blah blah, I'm a dirty whore.)

In Vietnam and Iraq we may have done some slightly questionable things, but nothing like burying a village of 10,000


You're absolutely right. My Lai wasn't nearly 10,000 people. And all we did was shoot them and burn the village to the ground. :rolleyes:

Source?

I don't think the US has committed acts of mass murder against our own people, I could be wrong, but I don't recall, no. Sorry, nothing like that happened here within the last month. I got strept throat but I don't think the government is responsible.

A lot of people claim that the US violates internation laws but I have yet to see one person give me a reliable, accurate, or even existent source pointing out exactly what we did.

There's a first time for everything. (http://www.antiwar.com/comment/pows.html)


Showing enemy POWs on TV is a violation of Article 13 (http://www.civil-rights.net/webdocs/geneva_pow.html) of the Geneva Convention. The administration got pissed when American POWs were shown on al Jazeera, and Rumsfeld threatened to seek prosecution. Then everyone remembered that the previous day Fox News had shown footage of Iraq POWs.

Two other violations were the publishing photos of Saddam naked (http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=775609&page=1), given by the US military to a British tabloid, and the rape and torture of Iraqi prisoners (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_prisoner_abuse)(4th Convention: female prisoners must be protected from indecent assault)

And of course there's still the deal with "enemy combatants" who on January 11th 2002 the administration claimed were not covered by the Geneva Convention, even though most were captured in the field of battle. That serves as a flagrant and continuous violation of Article 5 of the Geneva Convention, which states that any ambiguity in prisoner status is to be resolved by a competent international tribunal.

Now every time we get angry at another nation for not abiding by the Geneva Convention it sounds ridiculous because we're not following it either.



So, does that meet your bar for reliable, accurate, and existent proof of what we did to violate International Law? Would you like me to type up all the articles of the Geneva Convention for you?

*snip*

Since we aren't a party to the treaty, it is not applicable to us. Just like it isn't applicable in Iraq because they never ratified it either.

In order for a treaty to be bounding for us, it has to be signed by our representative then ratifed by 2/3rds majority in the Senate.

That didn't happen.

Wrong, there. If the Nurenburg trials left us with one cemented precedent, it is that "I was following orders" is not an excuse in the participation of these crimes. It didn't work for the Nazis, and it won't for anyone else.

That was England's defense in regards to Abu Ghraib. She was found guilty and sentenced to 3 years.

Your right. That arguement doesn't fly.

*snip*

Not to mention alot of those soldiers were surrendering during live coverage of the fighting. Not to mention that in other cases, you couldn't see their faces.

That wasn't the case with the enemy. They showed them with full faces as well as with videos.

Two other violations were the publishing photos of Saddam naked (http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=775609&page=1), given by the US military to a British tabloid, and the rape and torture of Iraqi prisoners (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_prisoner_abuse)(4th Convention: female prisoners must be protected from indecent assault)

Bot incidents have been taken care of and those responsible are getting punished :rolleyes:

And of course there's still the deal with "enemy combatants" who on January 11th 2002 the administration claimed were not covered by the Geneva Convention, even though most were captured in the field of battle.

That's because enemy combatants (those not in the military or wearing symbols of militia) aren't protected by the Geneva Conventions. Legally, we could've shot them on site.

That serves as a flagrant and continuous violation of Article 5 of the Geneva Convention, which states that any ambiguity in prisoner status is to be resolved by a competent international tribunal.

Wrong! If they aren't a part of a national army or they aren't wearing any symbols in regards to militia, then they are fair game. Under Intl Law, we could've legally shot them.

Now every time we get angry at another nation for not abiding by the Geneva Convention it sounds ridiculous because we're not following it either.

Actually, we are!

So, does that meet your bar for reliable, accurate, and existent proof of what we did to violate International Law? Would you like me to type up all the articles of the Geneva Convention for you?

Nope because we took care of abu ghraib as well as the prisoner photo thing. Iraqi soldiers were surrendering live on TV which is something that can't be prevented and in other cases, you could never see their faces.

Wrong! If they aren't a part of a national army or they aren't wearing any symbols in regards to militia, then they are fair game. Under Intl Law, we could've legally shot them.Why did everyone make such a hype when the Germans shot Belgians in WWI then?

Why did everyone make such a hype when the Germans shot Belgians in WWI then?

You tell me! Legally, it can be done. However, I bet it had something to do with morals instead of legality.

You tell me! Legally, it can be done. However, I bet it had something to do with morals instead of legality.Because the Germans were shooting Belgian civilians that were resisting the invasion? There were atrocities, but according to your interpretation, they were "fair game"... (Not that that kept Hollywood and the Allied Propaganda departments from churning out images of Germans murdering babies...)

Because the Germans were shooting Belgian civilians that were resisting the invasion? There were atrocities, but according to your interpretation, they were "fair game"... (Not that that kept Hollywood and the Allied Propaganda departments from churning out images of Germans murdering babies...)

So let me get this straight! Your saying that the Germans were shooting those that were not in uniform and who were resisting an invasion? The world was upset? :eek:

Welcome to war.

If your not in uniform and you resist, you are libal for summary execution.

Well, instead of everyone accusing everyone else of not knowing the facts, here is a start:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Principles
Principle II. The fact that internal law does not impose a penalty for an act which constitutes a crime under international law does not relieve the person who committed the act from responsibility under international law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manstein#Trial
While Paget successfully acquitted Manstein of many of the seventeen charges, he was still found guilty of two charges and accountable on seven others, mainly for employing scorched earth tactics and for failing to protect civilian population, and thus was sentenced on December 19, 1949, to 18 years' imprisonment.
This might be interesting to keep in mind for future use...

There's a first time for everything. (http://www.antiwar.com/comment/pows.html)


Showing enemy POWs on TV is a violation of Article 13 (http://www.civil-rights.net/webdocs/geneva_pow.html) of the Geneva Convention. The administration got pissed when American POWs were shown on al Jazeera, and Rumsfeld threatened to seek prosecution. Then everyone remembered that the previous day Fox News had shown footage of Iraq POWs.

Two other violations were the publishing photos of Saddam naked (http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=775609&page=1), given by the US military to a British tabloid, and the rape and torture of Iraqi prisoners (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_prisoner_abuse)(4th Convention: female prisoners must be protected from indecent assault)

And of course there's still the deal with "enemy combatants" who on January 11th 2002 the administration claimed were not covered by the Geneva Convention, even though most were captured in the field of battle. That serves as a flagrant and continuous violation of Article 5 of the Geneva Convention, which states that any ambiguity in prisoner status is to be resolved by a competent international tribunal.

Now every time we get angry at another nation for not abiding by the Geneva Convention it sounds ridiculous because we're not following it either.



So, does that meet your bar for reliable, accurate, and existent proof of what we did to violate International Law? Would you like me to type up all the articles of the Geneva Convention for you?


Dont you just love it when idiots cant tell the difference between isolated idividual actions and government or military policy ? The little game of scoring points against the cruel meannys , them brutes the Americans !
Oooooh your sooooooo BAD. You just want to be spanked dont you big boy ...Grow the fuck up your intentions are as transparent as glass .
Did you ever wonder why Americans ran away from Europe to live here ?
Listen to yourself for a clue . We could stand living with idiots who cant tell the difference between American Marines and other military and terrorist or insurgents . Not to mention the idiots that think a terrorist has rights accorded by the geneva convention. Isnt it time for you guys to invade each other AGAIN ? There seems to be a need of some more weeding out over there .

Actually it's equal, they're both "supreme." When there's conflict it will be up to the US Supreme Court to determine which one to follow. Somehow I don't think they would choose to follow a treaty for the precedent that would set. But they're equal nonetheless.

Nope, try again. Or go back to law school.

There's a first time for everything. (http://www.antiwar.com/comment/pows.html)


Showing enemy POWs on TV is a violation of Article 13 (http://www.civil-rights.net/webdocs/geneva_pow.html) of the Geneva Convention. The administration got pissed when American POWs were shown on al Jazeera, and Rumsfeld threatened to seek prosecution. Then everyone remembered that the previous day Fox News had shown footage of Iraq POWs.

Two other violations were the publishing photos of Saddam naked (http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=775609&page=1), given by the US military to a British tabloid, and the rape and torture of Iraqi prisoners (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_prisoner_abuse)(4th Convention: female prisoners must be protected from indecent assault)

And of course there's still the deal with "enemy combatants" who on January 11th 2002 the administration claimed were not covered by the Geneva Convention, even though most were captured in the field of battle. That serves as a flagrant and continuous violation of Article 5 of the Geneva Convention, which states that any ambiguity in prisoner status is to be resolved by a competent international tribunal.

Now every time we get angry at another nation for not abiding by the Geneva Convention it sounds ridiculous because we're not following it either.

So, does that meet your bar for reliable, accurate, and existent proof of what we did to violate International Law? Would you like me to type up all the
articles of the Geneva Convention for you?\

Maybe you should read Convention I, Article 2.

"Art. 2. In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peacetime, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.

The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.

Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof."


Read it carefully. The Geneva Conventions only apply to soldiers who belong to the armed forces of a state (that's a nation state) which is a signatory to the Conventions, or to an organization that has publicly stated its intention to accept and apply the provisions thereof.

I was taught in the Army - MANY MANY TIMES - if they aren't in uniform, they aren't subject to the protections of the Convention, unless they can prove (usually by a form of official military ID) that they are members of one of the armed forces of a signatory. If the US grants any Geneva protections at all, it is at their mercy, and not by force of the Geneva Conventions.

Insurgents, in particular, are screwed. Terrorists are screwed.

Yes, we would have to treat the prisoners differently if they were uniformed soldiers who belonged to the armed forces of a signatory (high contracting party). But they DO NOT accept or apply the provisions of the Conventions, nor are they members of a high contracting party.

So get off your high horse.

So, does that meet your bar for reliable, accurate, and existent proof of what we did to violate International Law? Would you like me to type up all the articles of the Geneva Convention for you?

Once again I was referring to the mass murder and genocide the US has been accused of taking part in over the last decade, but I guess if you want to beat a dead horse go for it.

Dont you just love it when idiots cant tell the difference between isolated idividual actions and government or military policy ? The little game of scoring points against the cruel meannys , them brutes the Americans !
Oooooh your sooooooo BAD. You just want to be spanked dont you big boy ...Grow the fuck up your intentions are as transparent as glass .
Did you ever wonder why Americans ran away from Europe to live here ?
Listen to yourself for a clue . We could stand living with idiots who cant tell the difference between American Marines and other military and terrorist or insurgents . Not to mention the idiots that think a terrorist has rights accorded by the geneva convention. Isnt it time for you guys to invade each other AGAIN ? There seems to be a need of some more weeding out over there .

Actually I'm American, buddy, as I thought would be apparent from the fact I consistently said 'we' and not 'you Americans'. And your ignorant flaming is really started to get on my fucking nerves. If I were you I'd stop. Now.

Nope, try again. Or go back to law school.
You go back to law school, Mr Lawyer-Big-Shot. Supreme means that there are no others above it, the Constitution says that both itself and treaties are supreme, so one can not be above the other (that would make either one not supreme).

As I said, in the event of conflict, the Court will decide.

You go back to law school, Mr Lawyer-Big-Shot. Supreme means that there are no others above it, the Constitution says that both itself and treaties are supreme, so one can not be above the other (that would make either one not supreme).

As I said, in the event of conflict, the Court will decide.

I'm not the only lawyer who thinks so.
http://www.internationallawhelp.com/Forum/messages/561.html

Go back to law school, please.

Once again I was referring to the mass murder and genocide the US has been accused of taking part in over the last decade, but I guess if you want to beat a dead horse go for it.

Oh were you? So I guess I misread this part of your post:

A lot of people claim that the US violates internation laws but I have yet to see one person give me a reliable, accurate, or even existent source pointing out exactly what we did.

hmmm seems as though you didn't believe the US has violated any international laws. And btw who has accused us of taking part in genocide? I for one haven't heard that from anyone.

I'm not the only lawyer who thinks so.
http://www.internationallawhelp.com/Forum/messages/561.html

Go back to law school, please.
Then let me correct: "in the event of conflict the opinion of a lawyer in an internet forum should clarify."

Then let me correct: "in the event of conflict the opinion of a lawyer in an internet forum should clarify."

Tell you what, why don't you ask Cat-Tribe.

This discussion about Constitution and treaties came up before, and he agreed with me.

He's a lawyer.

Since we aren't a party to the treaty, it is not applicable to us. Just like it isn't applicable in Iraq because they never ratified it either.

In order for a treaty to be bounding for us, it has to be signed by our representative then ratifed by 2/3rds majority in the Senate.

That didn't happen.

Are you having trouble understanding the statute or something? American ratification is irrelevant if the crime happens in the court's jurisdiction. So, if an American commits a crime that the ICC can prosecute in, for instance, Sweden, which is a signatory, that Amercian can be prosecuted by the court. The American failure to ratify is not a protection. Your American nationality does not make you immune.

You go back to law school, Mr Lawyer-Big-Shot. Supreme means that there are no others above it, the Constitution says that both itself and treaties are supreme, so one can not be above the other (that would make either one not supreme).

As I said, in the event of conflict, the Court will decide.
The Supreme Court of the United States ruled in Reid v Covert (1957) that the constitution is superior to international treaties. The Court can overrule itself in the future, of course, but IMO it is unlikely.

And btw who has accused us of taking part in genocide? I for one haven't heard that from anyone.

French, Spanish and Chinese posters on another forum I participate in, let me tell you, those Chinese government agents who post there make even the most anti-American europeans look like our best friends. I must admit though, I had a goog laugh when I read a post entitled "American commites genocide against own people! Read here first!" and the source was CCTV 7 (Chinese Communist Television, aka a state run media that makes Al Jazeera look unbiased and professional.) There was also others like "China to be first country to put man on moon." and "Mao's Cultural Revolution: China's greatest moment." Those guys are funny.

Oh, and did you know that every female in the PLA is super-model? I would not know that if it wasn't for CCTV 7. And China's Army is the most advanced in the world too.</bullshit>

The Supreme Court of the United States ruled in Reid v Covert (1957) that the constitution is superior to international treaties. The Court can overrule itself in the future, of course, but IMO it is unlikely.
Iztate, are you happy now?

Are you having trouble understanding the statute or something? American ratification is irrelevant if the crime happens in the court's jurisdiction. So, if an American commits a crime that the ICC can prosecute in, for instance, Sweden, which is a signatory, that Amercian can be prosecuted by the court. The American failure to ratify is not a protection. Your American nationality does not make you immune.

Well this is the controversy isn't it? Does the court really have jurisdiction over US personel even if we're not a party to it?

That is really the question isn't it?

The answer that some would say is no because they are US Citizens. However, the other side can say yes because it happened in a nation where they did ratify it.

This will be a massive legal challenge.

I am of the belief though that since we aren't a party to it, no US citizen can be brought before it and that is precisely what I would argue.

Well this is the controversy isn't it? Does the court really have jurisdiction over US personel even if we're not a party to it?

That is really the question isn't it?

The answer that some would say is no because they are US Citizens. However, the other side can say yes because it happened in a nation where they did ratify it.

This will be a massive legal challenge.

I am of the belief though that since we aren't a party to it, no US citizen can be brought before it and that is precisely what I would argue.

Well, if a non-US citizen broke the law of the United States whilst on US territory, he would not be immune from facing the consequences that US law makes for that law-breaking.

This situation is little different.

Iztate, are you happy now?
Yup, and we both are right. They are both supreme, in the event of conflict the Supreme Court decides, and it did in favor of the Constitution, as I thought it would.

Now, this was only one case setting precedent, and I doubt it will be reversed in any case, but has jurisprudence been established?

Yup, and we both are right. They are both supreme, in the event of conflict the Supreme Court decides, and it did in favor of the Constitution, as I thought it would.

Now, this was only one case setting precedent, and I doubt it will be reversed in any case, but has jurisprudence been established?

That's the way it works now. No challenges are on the horizon.

Well, if a non-US citizen broke the law of the United States whilst on US territory, he would not be immune from facing the consequences that US law makes for that law-breaking.

This situation is little different.

Yep, it is different.

We are talking about International Law and not domestic law. When your dealing with International Law, you are in a vast grey area in what is considered binding international law.

One can make a case that since we are not a party to the ICC that our people cannot be brought before the ICC.

That is just one thing that a lawyer would argue.

Well this is the controversy isn't it? Does the court really have jurisdiction over US personel even if we're not a party to it?

Even if they had, the US has the mechanisms to carry a fair and unbiased trial against its military personnel, so the ICC would just let the US deal with them.

I suspect that's what's going to happen if it ever comes up, which I doubt.

Even if they had, the US has the mechanisms to carry a fair and unbiased trial against its military personnel, so the ICC would just let the US deal with them.

I suspect that's what's going to happen if it ever comes up, which I doubt.

You are indeed correct. We do have mechanisms for a fair and unbiased trial so why should we get involved with the ICC? We punish those that actually violate International Law.

Yep, it is different.

We are talking about International Law and not domestic law. When your dealing with International Law, you are in a vast grey area in what is considered binding international law.

One can make a case that since we are not a party to the ICC that our people cannot be brought before the ICC.

That is just one thing that a lawyer would argue.
You misunderstood, I said there is little difference.

If a US citizen is in ( for example ) Sweden, they are party to Swedish law. If they commit a crime that is against Swedish law, they will be punished in Sweden according to Swedish law.

As Sweden is party to the ICC, that means that if a US citizen commits a crime that is covered by the ICC in Sweden, they are under the jurisdiction of the ICC. It's quite simple really (unless they have diplomatic immunity, then perhaps it gets more complex I suppose).

You misunderstood, I said there is little difference.

If a US citizen is in ( for example ) Sweden, they are party to Swedish law. If they commit a crime that is against Swedish law, they will be punished in Sweden according to Swedish law.

As Sweden is party to the ICC, that means that if a US citizen commits a crime that is covered by the ICC in Sweden, they are under the jurisdiction of the ICC. It's quite simple really (unless they have diplomatic immunity, then perhaps it gets more complex I suppose).

I trust that your police are nicer than the German variety, who seem to favor a "beat and release" policy for certain crimes rather than taking you to jail.

You misunderstood, I said there is little difference.

If a US citizen is in ( for example ) Sweden, they are party to Swedish law. If they commit a crime that is against Swedish law, they will be punished in Sweden according to Swedish law.

Again, that is domestic law. It is totally different from International Law.

As Sweden is party to the ICC, that means that if a US citizen commits a crime that is covered by the ICC in Sweden, they are under the jurisdiction of the ICC. It's quite simple really (unless they have diplomatic immunity, then perhaps it gets more complex I suppose).

However, a good lawyere would argue correctly that the court doesn't have jurisdiction because of the fact that the US isn't a party to it.

It all goes down to the arguements.

Again, that is domestic law. It is totally different from International Law.



However, a good lawyere would argue correctly that the court doesn't have jurisdiction because of the fact that the US isn't a party to it.

It all goes down to the arguements.
But the argument is wrong... it doesn't make sense. The authorties would laugh at it.
If an American is in the EU, he is party to EU law. You can't argue because you are not an EU citizen, it doesn't apply. It doesn't work like that.

But the argument is wrong... it doesn't make sense. The authorties would laugh at it.
If an American is in the EU, he is party to EU law. You can't argue because you are not an EU citizen, it doesn't apply. It doesn't work like that.

Speaking as US citizen who has been both beaten and arrested by German police, I know Borgoa is right.

It doesn't do you any good to tell the police they're wrong, because you're in their country. They make the rules. And if they enforce the ICC, then they can have you.

In the case of an ICC violation, I'm not sure diplomatic immunity would do you any good.

You are indeed correct. We do have mechanisms for a fair and unbiased trial so why should we get involved with the ICC? We punish those that actually violate International Law.
Yes, but the thing is that you are not an International Court. Let's take the case of Saddam Hussein. He is an Iraqi who committed crimes against the Iraqi people and as such is going to stand trial in Iraq. But we also know that he committed crimes in Kuwait and Iran against Kuwaities and Iranies, but he would have to stan trial in Kuwait and Iran for those, and he could get off under the argument that he was president and there was a war going on since neither Iran or Kuwait are an international court and have no jurisdiction over him.

When a country signs up with the ICC they're giving this court jurisdiction over its citizens under a very special set of circumstances EXCLUSIVELY. So, it's not any random Joe taking a granny's purse in Lisbon, but serious crimes against humanity and such.

Of course what bothers the US is that any country can fabricate or use this court to, say, charge GW and bring him to court. I don't think the court will ever take such a case and I'm sure there will be enough mechanisms to keep frivolous or malicious cases from coming up, but it's the principle of giving an external court authority over its citizens that the US is against.

Of course what bothers the US is that any country can fabricate or use this court to, say, charge GW and bring him to court. I don't think the court will ever take such a case and I'm sure there will be enough mechanisms to keep frivolous or malicious cases from coming up, but it's the principle of giving an external court authority over its citizens that the US is against.

The argument I hear most often is either for prominent government officials (President, Secretary of Defense), or for US soldiers aboard, even if on peacekeeping duties.

Anyone who wanted to stop US involvement in a peacekeeping operation would only have to assert that US troops were committing atrocities. Even if false, there would have to be an investigation. It is likely that US troops would pull out of the area for the duration.

At least that's the argument I heard during the Clinton Administration. He was worried about scenarios like Kosovo - where the players would game the whole thing.

Well this is the controversy isn't it? Does the court really have jurisdiction over US personel even if we're not a party to it?

That is really the question isn't it?

That isn't the question at all. The court has jurisdiction. Read the Statute.

That isn't the question at all. The court has jurisdiction. Read the Statute.
In countries that support the ICC, yes. In countries that do not support it, no.

Depends on where you are.

In countries that support the ICC, yes. In countries that do not support it, no.

Depends on where you are.

Exactly. But Corneliu is arguing that it doesn't even in countries that are signatories, which is preposterous.

Exactly. But Corneliu is arguing that it doesn't even in countries that are signatories, which is preposterous.
He's never been beaten by a German policeman yet. He's young - cut him some slack.

He's never been beaten by a German policeman yet. He's young - cut him some slack.

So, I am curious, why were you in trouble with the German polizei?

So, I am curious, why were you in trouble with the German polizei?
They routinely question US soldiers who are off duty who come out of bars.

Note to self: when in Europe, police are allowed to ask you far more questions than here in the US, and you MUST answer them.

Try a smart assed remark (I told him he looked like Himmler's grandkid).

Honestly, he did. Little round glasses and everything. It seems he had Himmler's attitude as well.

Again, that is domestic law. It is totally different from International Law.



However, a good lawyere would argue correctly that the court doesn't have jurisdiction because of the fact that the US isn't a party to it.

It all goes down to the arguements.


A GOOD lawyer would not use that argument, unless you were paying him to lose your case.

Because a GOOD lawyer understands the concept of jursisdiction.

They routinely question US soldiers who are off duty who come out of bars.

Note to self: when in Europe, police are allowed to ask you far more questions than here in the US, and you MUST answer them.

Try a smart assed remark (I told him he looked like Himmler's grandkid).

Honestly, he did. Little round glasses and everything. It seems he had Himmler's attitude as well.

Ok, I really don't feel that much sympathy for you if I am honest. Maybe it is wrong to be beaten... but telling someone in the German Police they look like Himmer's grandchild is highly offensive. Telling anyone that would be. Doing so whilst effectively representing the USA as a soldier... it's hardly the thing that helps to enhance the USA's reputation in the world is it?

A GOOD lawyer would not use that argument, unless you were paying him to lose your case.

Because a GOOD lawyer understands the concept of jursisdiction.

I'm hoping you're reading back in the thread, hoping you'll try and contradict my statements about the relative weight of the US Constitution vs. treaty under US law.

Exactly. But Corneliu is arguing that it doesn't even in countries that are signatories, which is preposterous.

I am curious, when is Jean Chretien's arraignment date before the ICC?

Ok, I really don't feel that much sympathy for you if I am honest. Maybe it is wrong to be beaten... but telling someone in the German Police they look like Himmer's grandchild is highly offensive. Telling anyone that would be. Doing so whilst effectively representing the USA as a soldier... it's hardly the thing that helps to enhance the USA's reputation in the world is it?

I blame the vast quantities of doppelbock I consumed...

Who cares about your constitution anyway? The ICC won't.
That a a little more than a little rude, you know. We Americans aren't perfect, but that doesn't mean you can badmouth us like that.

I'm hoping you're reading back in the thread, hoping you'll try and contradict my statements about the relative weight of the US Constitution vs. treaty under US law.
But US law only applies in the US! ICC treaty applies in all signatory territories... even if a citizen of a non-signatory territory commits crimes covered by ICC, he will be subject to its juristiction when in a signatory territory...

A GOOD lawyer would not use that argument, unless you were paying him to lose your case.

Because a GOOD lawyer understands the concept of jursisdiction.

I've not read the treaty, so you could be right, but remember jurisdiction is more than just a geographic area.

I blame the vast quantities of doppelbock I consumed...
How old were you at the time? Below 21?

And they say Europeans are full of themselves.
Once again, not just a little rude.

But US law only applies in the US! ICC treaty applies in all signatory territories... even if a citizen of a non-signatory territory commits crimes covered by ICC, he will be subject to its juristiction when in a signatory territory...

I'm the one who started this thread. And I said that some people believe that the US itself has to obey international law, because they believe that international law is superior to the US Constitution.

And I've pointed out, in the initial post, that this is not the case. Later in the thread, Olantia pointed out that there is case law to this effect.

The whole thread is in relation to people who believe that the Iraq War was an illegal declaration of war under US law, or a treaty violation. It is neither.

How old were you at the time? Below 21?
I was 27. And he did look just like Himmler.

I've just read the list of signatories to the Rome Statue. It's absolutely chock full of countries that shelter people who routinely violate norms of international law. And what is the biggest concern, "the US didn't sign!". "Soon US citizens will face trial there, hehehehe!".

As I suspected, and like pretty much all multilateral treaties since WWII, it is fundamentally a vehicle for anti-US policy and sentiment.

You know what, keep this up, and there will be a complete collapse in international law.

I was 27. And he did look just like Himmler.

That's as may be. But how would you feel if someone likened you to a mass-murdering, human rights abusing Nazi? If someone called you George W Bush's grandson for instance?

People on this forum really like to argue about politics, don't they?

As I suspected, and like pretty much all multilateral treaties since WWII, it is fundamentally a vehicle for anti-US policy and sentiment.

.

I think it's rather arrogant to assume international law has the sole purpose of being "anti-USA". The EU was one of the strongest supporters of the ICC, and yet the EU countries are some of the USA's strongest allies...

I really don't think it is aimed at USA at all, any more that it is aimed at any other country...

I think it's rather arrogant to assume international law has the sole purpose of being "anti-USA". The EU was one of the strongest supporters of the ICC, and yet the EU countries are some of the USA's strongest allies...

I really don't think it is aimed at USA at all, any more that it is aimed at any other country...

No, international law in general isn't. It can't be, it's just a system of law.

However, most of these damn multi-party treaties (which are the manifest intent of the parties) obviously are.

Answer my question, why are people so eager to arraign US citizens in the ICC otherwise, especially as if you look through the list of signatories there is enough work their for the next hundred years.

I will accept your statement that these are not anti-US in intention, when Mugabe and Chretien are standing in the dock at the ICC. Not until.

I'm the one who started this thread. And I said that some people believe that the US itself has to obey international law, because they believe that international law is superior to the US Constitution.

...
To be sure, the US has to obey international law, namely the international treaties to which the US is a party--they are equal to federal laws.

I've just read the list of signatories to the Rome Statue. It's absolutely chock full of countries that shelter people who routinely violate norms of international law. And what is the biggest concern, "the US didn't sign!". "Soon US citizens will face trial there, hehehehe!".

As I suspected, and like pretty much all multilateral treaties since WWII, it is fundamentally a vehicle for anti-US policy and sentiment.

You know what, keep this up, and there will be a complete collapse in international law.

ROFLMAO. Look outside, it's already happened.

Just have to take one look at the smarmy, bellycrawling, mewling, fawning, Kofi Annan, and you know the state of affairs of international law.

...

I will accept your statement that these are not anti-US in intention, when Mugabe and Chretien are standing in the dock at the ICC. Not until.
Chretien? Jean Chretien? Why?

To be sure, the US has to obey international law, namely the international treaties to which the US is a party--they are equal to federal laws.

Just not superior to the Constitution. So, in the case of Iraq, the Congress can either declare war or authorize it, using their Constitutional power. Thereby acting against a treaty, but not violating US law by doing so.

Chretien? Jean Chretien? Why?

He ordered the "illegal" bombing of a sovereign nation in 1999. Said nation, never threatened to invade Canada - or had the wherewithall to do so. Clearly, from the norms of international law espoused by most of the people who seem to support the ICC (Robert Mugabe notwithstanding), he is a war criminal. I demand justice be done.

Oh and here's another one. I want Gerry Adams in the dock too.

Just not superior to the Constitution. So, in the case of Iraq, the Congress can either declare war or authorize it, using their Constitutional power. Thereby acting against a treaty, but not violating US law by doing so.
Yes, of course. There are some murky legal ponds in the Constitutional Garden of War Powers, but basically it is so. The Congress can pass a declaration of war against the United Kingdom--it will be against international law (and common sense), but also it will be constitutional.

Yes, of course. There are some murky legal ponds in the Constitutional Garden of War Powers, but basically it is so. The Congress can pass a declaration of war against the United Kingdom--it will be against international law (and common sense), but also it will be constitutional.
Isn't that the way law is done? It has nothing to do with common sense.

He ordered the "illegal" bombing of a sovereign nation in 1999. Said nation, never threatened to invade Canada - or had the wherewithall to do so.
...
What nation, Serbia?

What nation, Serbia?
At this rate, everyone will be in the dock.

No, international law in general isn't. It can't be, it's just a system of law.

However, most of these damn multi-party treaties (which are the manifest intent of the parties) obviously are.

Answer my question, why are people so eager to arraign US citizens in the ICC otherwise, especially as if you look through the list of signatories there is enough work their for the next hundred years.

I will accept your statement that these are not anti-US in intention, when Mugabe and Chretien are standing in the dock at the ICC. Not until.
I think you have the impression the ICC is solely interested in the US citizens because of the way the US media reports things (i.e. ignores things that don't pertain to the USA). There have been equal and actually more loud calls for other countries' citizens to face justice at the ICC... the Israel Prime Minister Sharon comes to mind...

Isn't that the way law is done? It has nothing to do with common sense.
Indeed. :D

At this rate, everyone will be in the dock.
Beginning with Queen Elizabeth II--I'm sure that she 'ordered' more wars that anyone can count in her 53 years on the throne. ;)

Just not superior to the Constitution. So, in the case of Iraq, the Congress can either declare war or authorize it, using their Constitutional power. Thereby acting against a treaty, but not violating US law by doing so.

It doesn't matter anyway. The UN charter, which is what everyone says is the sticking point, was signed by the US before 1967, (vienna convention on treaties), which means that no written instrument is required to announce suspension of a seperable clause.

And under the general rule of the validity of multiparty treaties (i.e. if one or more parties to a treaty materially violate said treaty then any and all of the other parties may suspend, void or withdraw from the entire treaty, or specific provision if seperable), it's pretty much evident that article 39 et. seq. have not be binding upon anyone since the late fourties.

Meh. People probably would complain that the US no-longer abides by the Washington Conference on Naval Disarment treaty if they thought they could get away with it.

People on this forum really like to argue about politics, don't they?
Yes. Sex and religion also get good responses.

...

And under the general rule of the validity of multiparty treaties (i.e. if one or more parties to a treaty materially violate said treaty then any and all of the other parties may suspend, void or withdraw from the entire treaty, or specific provision if seperable), it's pretty much evident that article 39 et. seq. have not be binding upon anyone since the late fourties.

...
Actually, there is no such general rule.

It doesn't matter anyway. The UN charter, which is what everyone says is the sticking point, was signed by the US before 1967, (vienna convention on treaties), which means that no written instrument is required to announce suspension of a seperable clause.

And under the general rule of the validity of multiparty treaties (i.e. if one or more parties to a treaty materially violate said treaty then any and all of the other parties may suspend, void or withdraw from the entire treaty, or specific provision if seperable), it's pretty much evident that article 39 et. seq. have not be binding upon anyone since the late fourties.

Meh. People probably would complain that the US no-longer abides by the Washington Conference on Naval Disarment treaty if they thought they could get away with it.


Kellogg Briand - you forgot that old toad. Deader than a doornail, but a lot of people on this forum have been known to bring it up, saying that it made war illegal.

...

And under the general rule of the validity of multiparty treaties (i.e. if one or more parties to a treaty materially violate said treaty then any and all of the other parties may suspend, void or withdraw from the entire treaty, or specific provision if seperable), it's pretty much evident that article 39 et. seq. have not be binding upon anyone since the late fourties.

...
Maybe... No one has suspended, voided, or withdrew from any provision of the UN Charter, though, since Indonesia in 1965.

What nation, Serbia?

Yes, he bombed it several months before the UN authorized the use of force. And his lackey, Paul Martin, the current PM - I think, i don't really keep track of these things - even boasted about it. He claimed the "UN is now irrelevant" or some such.

Of course, this was fine until the US did something that canada didn't like - actually, more specifically, a president that canada doesn't like did something - then the "binding" UN charter hats came right back on.

Frankly, it's utter hypocracy that the man has not been arraigned for what everyone now seems to consider a gross violation of the norms of international law.

Maybe... No one has suspended, voided, or withdrew from any provision of the UN Charter, though, since Indonesia in 1965.

Substantial portions of the Hague Conventions can be considered invalid by those means though.

And I get the impression that the Geneva Conventions won't be too long afterwards.

Kellogg Briand - you forgot that old toad. Deader than a doornail, but a lot of people on this forum have been known to bring it up, saying that it made war illegal.
The funny thing is that it did--the Kellogg-Briand Treaty was the legal basis for trying the Nazi war criminals for crimes against peace. Technically it is still a law, just like old town law of Chester in England that states that Welshmen wandering the streets at night can be beheaded.

Maybe... No one has suspended, voided, or withdrew from any provision of the UN Charter, though, since Indonesia in 1965.

You don't have to make a written withdrawl though, because it is came into existence prior to the Veinna Convention, which made that a requirement. Prior to that, plenty of treaties were suspended/voided/withdrawn simply be manifesting the intent to do so. And as long as this was done with cause, i.e., other parties materially violating the provisions of the treaty, then said party could not be held in material breech, the lack of any formal written instrument notwithstanding.

And it's pretty clear that this is well accepted in respect of the UN charter. If one cares to look at the history of the last sixty odd year, there are planty of incidents where agressive wars have been conducted by signatories, and not only has the UN failed to even act, nobody even bother to label them illegal.

Like I said, you might as well complain about the US breeching the pre-war naval treaty, it never formally withdrew from that, either.

The funny thing is that it did--the Kellogg-Briand Treaty was the legal basis for trying the Nazi war criminals for crimes against peace. Technically it is still a law, just like old town law of Chester in England that states that Welshmen wandering the streets at night can be beheaded.

Both Kellog-Briand and the Chester law both run afoul of desuetude and supervening pre-emptory norms.

You don't have to make a written withdrawl though, because it is came into existence prior to the Veinna Concention, which made that a requirement. Prior to that, plenty of treaties were suspended/voided/withdrawn simply be manifesting the intent to do so. And as long as this was done with cause, i.e., other parties materially violating the provisions of the treaty, then said party could not be held in material breech, the lack of any formal written instrument notwithstanding.

...

Like I said, you might as well complain about the US breeching the pre-war naval treaty, it never formally withdrew from that, either.
The Vienna Convention was a codification of existing customary law, not something brand new and unheard of. The old maxim 'Pacta sunt servanda' comes to mind.

You are flat-out wrong about the Washington Naval Treaty of 1922. Read its Article XXIII, and you'll understand why it is a bad example.

Actually, there is no such general rule.

Yes there is. One party failing to abide by a treaty, always gives sufficient grounds for the other parties to suspend/withdraw without material breech. It's such a good rule, they even codified it in the vienna convention.

Yes there is. One party failing to abide by a treaty, always gives sufficient grounds for the other parties to suspend/withdraw without material breech. It's such a good rule, they even codified it in the vienna convention.
I edited that becaus I misread your statement. Of course, any international treaty can be denounced, with or without cause.

The Vienna Convention was a codification of existing customary law, not something brand new and unheard of. The old maxim 'Pacta sunt servanda' comes to mind.

You are flat-out wrong about the Washington Naval Treaty of 1922. Read its Article XXIII, and you'll understand why it is a bad example.

Alright, The Naval treaty was a bad example. It was the first thing in my head. I'll think of another.

As to the Veinna convention, I never said it wasn't a codification of existing customary law. My only point is that a written instrument is now required to suspend or void, whereas before that could be accomplished through either a written insturment, or simple action, and as long as there were sufficient grounds. It has nothing to do with respecting the pact.

I edited that becaus I misread your statement. Of course, any international treaty can be denounced, with or without cause.

But, depending on the treaty provisions, the denouncing party may be considered to be in material breech (i.e. violating international law) if the treaty is renounced without cause.

I am curious, when is Jean Chretien's arraignment date before the ICC?

If you knew anything about the ICC, you would know that its jurisdiction is not retroactive. It can only prosecute crimes that happened after its statute came into force on July 1 2002. You would also know that it can only prosecute genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. Even though the Court has jurisdiction over aggression, it will not exercise such jurisdiction until the crime has been further defined and conditions under which the Court will exercise its jurisdiction have been agreed upon.

If you knew anything about the ICC, you would know that its jurisdiction is not retroactive. It can only prosecute crimes that happened after its statute came into force on July 1 2002. You would also know that it can only prosecute genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. Even though the Court has jurisdiction over aggression, it will not exercise such jurisdiction until the crime has been further defined and conditions under which the Court will exercise its jurisdiction have been agreed upon.


So at the moment, the ICC is essentially useless because it is duplicative of every court in exsistence everywhere in the world already.

So at the moment, the ICC is essentially useless because it is duplicative of every court in exsistence everywhere in the world already.

Its role is not to replace national courts. It steps in when they can't or won't. Again, you would know that, if you just even so much as googled "icc."

Alright, The Naval treaty was a bad example. It was the first thing in my head. I'll think of another.

As to the Veinna convention, I never said it wasn't a codification of existing customary law. My only point is that a written instrument is now required to suspend or void, whereas before that could be accomplished through either a written insturment, or simple action, and as long as there were sufficient grounds. It has nothing to do with respecting the pact.
Actually, that absence of a written instrument (I cannot cite an example now, but I'm sure there were some) was made possible by the fact that mosty of the pre-WWI treaties were bilateral. AFAIK no one has yet enunciated the legal possibility of invalidating a multilateral treaty by an action or by withdrawal of some of its participants.

But, depending on the treaty provisions, the denouncing party may be considered to be in material breech (i.e. violating international law) if the treaty is renounced without cause.
Yes, there are individual provisions to that effect in a great number of treaties.

Its role is not to replace national courts. It steps in when they can't or won't. Again, you would know that, if you just even so much as googled "icc."
The ICC is meant to get rid of the necessity to create ad hoc international courts, like the tribunals for Yugoslavia and Rwanda.

The ICC is meant to get rid of the necessity to create ad hoc international courts, like the tribunals for Yugoslavia and Rwanda.

Precisely. It's the first permanent court to deal with these situations, and can only act when national courts don't, through inability or neglect.

It's inevitable with US expansionism. Some day one of your soldiers will fall under its jurisdiction and be tried. It'll make one hell of a show.

Since the US is not a party to the ICC treaty, none of our soldiers can possibly fall under its jurisdiction. If they do it anyway, it will be an act of unprovoked aggression against a sovereign country (US), and we will be perfectly justified in storming the ICC building and summarily executing all the judges therein (unless they wear military uniforms and satisfy other criteria of Geneva Convention).

Since the US is not a party to the ICC treaty, none of our soldiers can possibly fall under its jurisdiction. If they do it anyway, it will be an act of unprovoked aggression against a sovereign country (US), and we will be perfectly justified in storming the ICC building and summarily executing all the judges therein (unless they wear military uniforms and satisfy other criteria of Geneva Convention).

For goodness' sake, all of what you brought up has already been dealt with and proven wrong several pages ago. Next time, read the thread before wasting time, hmmkay?

Since the US is not a party to the ICC treaty, none of our soldiers can possibly fall under its jurisdiction. If they do it anyway, it will be an act of unprovoked aggression against a sovereign country (US), and we will be perfectly justified in storming the ICC building and summarily executing all the judges therein (unless they wear military uniforms and satisfy other criteria of Geneva Convention).
Somehow I don't think that Germany of 1945 was a party to the London Charter...

Its role is not to replace national courts. It steps in when they can't or won't. Again, you would know that, if you just even so much as googled "icc."

But why bother? Nations that respect international norms (jus cogens), enforce them already - I can think of several cases in the second department that cover just these issues. Those that don't, won't anyway, treaty or not.

But why bother? Nations that respect international norms (jus cogens), enforce them already - I can think of several cases in the second department that cover just these issues. Those that don't, won't anyway, treaty or not.
That's just like domestic criminal law. There are those who abide by it, there are those who do not.

Actually, that absence of a written instrument (I cannot cite an example now, but I'm sure there were some) was made possible by the fact that mosty of the pre-WWI treaties were bilateral. AFAIK no one has yet enunciated the legal possibility of invalidating a multilateral treaty by an action or by withdrawal of some of its participants.

How about Locarno, France never gave written notice of withdrawl after Germany remilitarized the Rhineland, but was still free to declare war three years later without any consideration that it had broken the pact?

Who cares about your constitution anyway? The ICC won't.

Same goes for the ICC. Who cares....

That's just like domestic criminal law. There are those who abide by it, there are those who do not.

Yes, but domestice law criminal law is different because one of the parties to the case holds a monopoly of force. Criminals do not generally "consent" to be bound by the provisions ahead of time.

I just really don't see the point in getting a whole bunch of nations to "consent" to something they are not going to do anyway. Especially when the ones that will do it already have the power they need to in the first place.

Precisely. It's the first permanent court to deal with these situations, and can only act when national courts don't, through inability or neglect.

What? Like the UK's long time refusal to prosecute Gerry Adams et al. Well then, I'm all for it.

How about Locarno, France never gave written notice of withdrawl after Germany remilitarized the Rhineland, but was still free to declare war three years later without any consideration that it had broken the pact?
I'll look into it.

Yes, but domestice law criminal law is different because one of the parties to the case holds a monopoly of force. Criminals do not generally "consent" to be bound by the provisions ahead of time.

I just really don't see the point in getting a whole bunch of nations to "consent" to something they are not going to do anyway. Especially when the ones that will do it already have the power they need to in the first place.
Hm, not so simple. For example, in old common law the criminals were expected to consent to be tried (i.e. to plead guilty or not guilty; for those declining to consent was provided peine forte and dure).

Most of the countries joined the ICC, and who knows what lies ahead.

What? Like the UK's long time refusal to prosecute Gerry Adams et al. Well then, I'm all for it.

You have information about ICC prosecutable crimes committed by him after July 1 2002? Perhaps you should contact the Office of the Prosecutor?

Same goes for the ICC. Who cares....

A majority of nations, actually.

I'll look into it.


Hm, not so simple. For example, in old common law the criminals were expected to consent to be tried (i.e. to plead guilty or not guilty; for those declining to consent was provided peine forte and dure).

Most of the countries joined the ICC, and who knows what lies ahead.

Consent to be tried really arose out of the fact that the common law courts didn't have exclusive jurisdiction at their inception. It's not like the criminal could not be theoretically tried in the Manor Courts, but I imagine it was easier just to drop stones on him till he agreed. In any case, it is hardly "consent" in the same sense as between nations. (Treaties obtained by force of arms are void).

It's also not like the criminal ever got to consent to the substance of the law either.

You have information about ICC prosecutable crimes committed by him after July 1 2002? Perhaps you should contact the Office of the Prosecutor?

That's not the point Fass, and you know it. The ICC is doomed to become a political kangaroo court.

Laws are only as strong as the force that enforces them, and at state-state level the only definitive force is military.

So the pretense of 'International law' is quite pointless since there is no truly Global Military force that can defeat ANY other military force necessary in bring criminals to justice.

States (in the context of whole nation) will recognize (but not necessarily obey) 'International Law' - as long as such laws do not violate their own interests.

So, in short succint terms, International Law is just a facade or lip-service to generate an illusion of international cooperation.

That's not the point Fass, and you know it.

Stop using such poor examples, then? At least try to have a connection to what the ICC can actually do.

The ICC is doomed to become a political kangaroo court.

No offence, but that's your opinion. I'm more optimistic.

No offence, but that's your opinion. I'm more optimistic.

It may surprise you, but I am not actually against enforcing the rule of law internationally. I just don't think it is possible with a three judge panel. The reason why I picked Gerry Adam's is because there is a guy who obviously could have been tried, but the government had more to gain by not trying him.

Inevitably only two things can happen to the ICC: Either it will start to try individuals to the disadvantage of the more powerful signatories, leading them to withdraw, or it will become political and only pick cases where it knows it can prosecute without ruffling any feathers.

The bottom line is it is easy to lean on Montenegro, far harder to do the same to the UK or France.

And there is no point saying that this kind of conflict won't arise, because if that's the case, and everyone is going to be well behaved in the future, what's the point in the first place. The ICC can only be meaningful if it can apply the law equally, under any circumstances, and as the League of Nations and the UN have discovered that is just not possible.

For goodness' sake, all of what you brought up has already been dealt with and proven wrong several pages ago. Next time, read the thread before wasting time, hmmkay?

Actually it hasn't been proven wrong. Its just in dispute.

That's not the point Fass, and you know it. The ICC is doomed to become a political kangaroo court.

And here's why we are not a party to it.

Well said Lacadaemon.

Laws are only as strong as the force that enforces them, and at state-state level the only definitive force is military.

So the pretense of 'International law' is quite pointless since there is no truly Global Military force that can defeat ANY other military force necessary in bring criminals to justice.

States (in the context of whole nation) will recognize (but not necessarily obey) 'International Law' - as long as such laws do not violate their own interests.

So, in short succint terms, International Law is just a facade or lip-service to generate an illusion of international cooperation.

A covenant without a sword is just words . The whole idea is a joke without enforcement power . can you ever see country giving away its sovergn power to a " world " court ? Lets be just a bit realistic . By giving any actual " power" to a world body you give up your power over your nation and put it at the mercy of a governing body. So you get something like the world court where a strong nation if it feels like enforcing a decision can say to the world " I can arrest this despot, war criminal , sleezbag , druglord , etc. because I have the moral authority and backing of the world court " no matter that to arrest him/ her / it you had to blow the country he was in to atoms . But let a country like Nicuragua try to do it .... Hence the world court is a joke. Could you see the world court finding against China or North Korea ? Who would enforce the decision ? Same if the world court found the US guilty or Great Britain or Russia. yet if the world court found against Lybia the cruise missles would be flying in a heartbeat. Thats the definition of a sham and a joke is it not ?

At any rate if you need info on treatys go here.
http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/legislative/d_three_sections_with_teasers/treaties.htm
Thats in reguard to the US ..but it list some books you can get that show all treatys and there significance to all nations .

Consent to be tried really arose out of the fact that the common law courts didn't have exclusive jurisdiction at their inception. It's not like the criminal could not be theoretically tried in the Manor Courts, but I imagine it was easier just to drop stones on him till he agreed. In any case, it is hardly "consent" in the same sense as between nations. (Treaties obtained by force of arms are void).

It's also not like the criminal ever got to consent to the substance of the law either.

Of course, but it is an example of giving consent; and sanctions can be a mdern equivalent of dropping stones. :)

As for Locarno--France signed there several treaties; one of them was a treaty with Poland that required mutual assistance in case of German aggression. So, France abided by the Treaties of Locarno in some sence when it declared war upon Germany.

And who cares about them?



It's inevitable with US expansionism. Some day one of your soldiers will fall under its jurisdiction and be tried. It'll make one hell of a show.

There is actually a group that spans many countries that are requesting to have GWB brought up on war crimes as a terrorist. I don't completely disagree with this radical stance, but it will not be effective.

Who cares about your constitution anyway? The ICC won't.
Who cares about the kangaroo ICC, with no authority, or ways to enforce said lack of authority? What a sick, sad, joke. Kinda like the worthless UN...another sad agency deserving of instant dissolution.

I'm hoping you're reading back in the thread, hoping you'll try and contradict my statements about the relative weight of the US Constitution vs. treaty under US law.


Why should I?

You are correct that within the strict confines of US domestic law a treaty or other international instrument in and of itself at best achieves legal standing in the absence of existing contradictory legislation but remains subject to your Constitution. And equally speaking that when push comes to shove your Supreme Court will often come down on the side of domestic law over international.

That's a no-brainer.

It is also an argument very limited in scope meaning only that your Supreme Court CAN limit the exposure of Americans to charges should they violate international instruments to which your country is signatory.

Doesn't mean that a treaty (or law) hasn't been broken, it's just an enforcement issue within the US court system which makes it even funnier when we see the US screaming about violations of international law at the UN.


However, upon ratification it is often common for domestic laws to be altered or implemented to reflect these international instruments at which point they ARE codified under domestic law hence making them domesticly enforceable as well as any international jurisdictions that the instrument may be operating under.

Case in point: The Geneva Conventions.

Yes, you are absolutely correct that no military person in Iraq is ever going to be tried in the US under a direct charge of violating the Geneva Conventions for the very reason you mention. What they instead face charges under is FM 27-10, the codified Law of Land Warfare which is the US implementation of the Geneva Conventions, or under applicable subsections of the UMCJ. This domestic codification was neccessary to create domestic jurisdictional authority for these offenses


As to the supremacy of the Geneva Conventions, the US government has attempted to have it thrown out when federal judges have referenced it in regards to lawsuits surrounding Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib. This tactic has met with limited success, and usually has hinged on a judges decision regarding inclusion or exclusion of people as being covered by said statutes along with questioning the limits of executive power. No judge yet has stated that the Geneva Conventions no longer apply under all circumstances.


The Supreme Court certainly has to walk a fine line regarding international instruments. In general they are often upheld based on their direct inclusion in the Constituion unless there is a truly compelling reason why the treaty should be tossed. And it should be pointed out that neither the courts nor the government are strictly interested as being seen to have no regard whatsoever for international law as they still want other countries to be willing to sign agreements with them, which they are less likely to do should the impression exist that they are totally worthless.



All of which, again, only boils down to matters relating to US domestic jurisdiction anyway.

Same thing for the US. Sure, it can be all 100% legal for your constitution to attack other countries, but not on the entire world eyes (or treaties that the US signed).


But the US has not ratified the ICC treaty. Therefore, it has (under your own rationale) no bearing on US personnel.

But the US has not ratified the ICC treaty. Therefore, it has (under your own rationale) no bearing on US personnel.

30-09-2005

Enough with the gravedigging, hmmkay?

By the by, that the US has not ratified is irrelevant if US forces find themselves in the territory of a country that has. But this thread needs to get locked.