9 hours ago, melvinmelvin said:

 

dunno C H but with all respect I feel your question is kinda out in the wild open and not particularly relevant,

Trump and company has determined that it conflicts with US sovereignty, whether that is objectively right or not doesn't really matter,

it is the US stance

 

Yes Trump shall, for the time being, do as he wishes but that is not an argument for accepting without challenge the pretext he offers for his actions.

11 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

I think you misrepresent the argument some.

 

As said, the sovereignty issue applies in either the general sense (having an international court who's pronouncements can be seen as potentially overriding national courts), and more realistically when investigations and proceedings directly involve legal procedures meant to be carried out within the non-signatory country's jurisdiction.

 

Pointed out earlier, this argument doesn't hold much water with regard to stages of investigation and proceedings occurring elsewhere (such as in the country initiating the case). 

 

However, an ICC investigation will ultimately seek to interview US personnel/officials and ask access to government documents. That's pretty much standard a standard course if one follows past investigations. If and when it comes to that, the sovereignty issue will be more clearly applicable. 

 

Whether the Trump-Bolton thing is a sort of preemptive move or whether it pertains to political (domestic and foreign) issues is another matter. I'd say its more likely a mix of several factors.

 

 

Agreed, the investigation will almost certainly call for witnesses and evidence that may be within the jurisdiction of the US and the US would  be perfectly entitled to withhold witnesses and information (US sovereignty maintained).

 

The issue of multiple nationality courts that may share jurisdictions clearly an issue for investigations involving multiple nationalities and the agencies of multiple governments, but not one that has never been overcome in the past.

 

Nevertheless the alleged crimes are alleged to have taken place in Afghanistan (a signatory to the ICC) or against persons first removed from Afghanistan to third country locations where it is alleged they were subjected to treatment allegedly constituting war crimes.

 

It appears the ICC has jurisdiction.

 

I still see no argument that the investigation breaches US sovereignty.

 

Sorry there are a lot of ‘allegeds’ in there but I wish that be clear, I am not taking the view that the ‘alleged’ crimes are a fact.

 

My view is an open transparent investigation will serve the truth - the dispensing of justice may be difficult to achieve but that is not an argument that justice should not be pursued.

 

Failing to investigate these serious allegations has serious poltical and diplomatic consequences, only made worse by threatening the ICC judges. 

 

The reasoning why Trump-Bolton has chosen such an overtly aggressive approach will, I feel, be revealed in the fullness of time. 

12 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Agreed, the investigation will almost certainly call for witnesses and evidence that may be within the jurisdiction of the US and the US would  be perfectly entitled to withhold witnesses and information (US sovereignty maintained).

 

The issue of multiple nationality courts that may share jurisdictions clearly an issue for investigations involving multiple nationalities and the agencies of multiple governments, but not one that has never been overcome in the past.

 

Nevertheless the alleged crimes are alleged to have taken place in Afghanistan (a signatory to the ICC) or against persons first removed from Afghanistan to third country locations where it is alleged they were subjected to treatment allegedly constituting war crimes.

 

It appears the ICC has jurisdiction.

 

I still see no argument that the investigation breaches US sovereignty.

 

Sorry there are a lot of ‘allegeds’ in there but I wish that be clear, I am not taking the view that the ‘alleged’ crimes are a fact.

 

My view is an open transparent investigation will serve the truth - the dispensing of justice may be difficult to achieve but that is not an argument that justice should not be pursued.

 

Failing to investigate these serious allegations has serious poltical and diplomatic consequences, only made worse by threatening the ICC judges. 

 

The reasoning why Trump-Bolton has chosen such an overtly aggressive approach will, I feel, be revealed in the fullness of time. 

 

I don't know that there was actually an argument to the effect that the investigation in Afghanistan is a breach of US sovereignty. Doubt that's included in my posts, for example. As to Trump-Bolton's comments - if such a claim was included, then it's nonsense.

 

As long as it's coordinated with Afghani authorities, the ICC's jurisdiction to conduct investigations and other legal procedures in Afghanistan, is not an issue - regardless of what Trump and Bolton spew. But when you state that the ICC appears to "have jurisdiction", that's partially correct. It does so up to a point.

 

So neither is the actual argument quite effected by your views (you seem to essentially accept it), and the bit rejected wasn't claimed (at least not by myself). In the same way, the asserting the ICC's jurisdiction holds depends on what exactly is referred to.

 

With regard to views as to supposed violations - it should be mentioned again, that countries may have different perceptions, takes and even definitions of what constitutes one. If the non-signatory nation is not party to international treaties relevant to such violations, there could certainly be some legal problems.

 

The prospects of the ICC completing such an investigation aren't bright. There could be a report based on partial information collected, but whether this holds much legal significance is a good question. As to other countries (even signatories) aiding to make persons of interest or suspects available (thinking international travel etc.), again not very likely. Countries failed to do so with regard to persons who were found guilty. And given that this is the US - consequences could be harsh. Might may not make right, but it is rather effective when it comes to giving pause. By the way, I would imagine that if this happened under previous administrations, they would still try to mitigate or prevent such moves - but go at it in a more subtle (and effective) ways.

 

What, IMO, this leads to is that the issue is more likely to end up being exploited as propaganda/PR fodder - in the service of both anti-US elements and the Trump administration. Sovereignty, justice and truth will become but labels in related interactions. I think browsing topics on this forum (or even this one) may help to illustrate the point.

 

Bringing up "transparency" on every topic is sort of like that. More a catchphrase then a realistically applied proposition. Transparency would require agreement as to the investigating body's identity, authority, impartiality and procedure. Your assertions on this point imply that you believe this is either a reality or a realistic possibility. Facts do not necessarily support such a point of view. I would say the same applies for other such terms such as "justice" or "truth". First casualties and all that, even if not as intended.

 

As for failure to investigate them allegations carrying "serious political and diplomatic consequences" - what would these be? The current US administration set a rather high bar when it comes to supposedly unacceptable, unreasonable, and outrageous foreign policy decisions. With each new episode, there are voices predicting "serious political and diplomatic consequences". And yes, there's some of that - but in effective terms, not quite as dire as predicted/hoped for. The subject matter of the OP is pretty routine as far as this administration goes. And slowly but surely, it stops to shock - and becomes accepted as the new normal. To be clear, this isn't a point of view condoning, praising or embracing  the Trump administration's conduct and policies - just one that looks at the "resistance" or push back in a realistic manner.

 

I think it's a fairly good bet that by the next news cycle or so there will be a new headline and a new outrageous story courtesy of Trump & Co. Maybe it's already on, haven't followed news today.

 

Edited September 12, 20187 yr by Morch

17 hours ago, farcanell said:

You seemed to be trying to equate Australia's actions and stance toward prosecuting ISIS members with the US's action (or in-action). If you meant it differently, I apologize. The bit referred to was:

 

The last is what I said, lifted from your post.

 

lol... you question my understanding.... clearly your two posts on my comment are different... a changed narrative.... but worse, neither of your posts are accurate.... as in... no I did not compare isis members to US servicemen... and no... I am not equating Australia’s stance to the US position.... I’m stating what Australia wants... and pointing out that the US could do similarly ( but it doesn’t, so no equating... or does it?... perhaps so in military prisons without gazette results??? Maybe)

 

From your post 86.... “As for references to other non-member countries being off topic, such objections would be a tad more credible if they were also expressed with regard to bringing up the "non-member" list in so many posts.”

 

I gave you the non member list....  because i saw this as a request to

provide the non member list. If I’m wrong in this assumption, please clear it up to improve my understanding of your point,

 

From post 143...

“I did not bring up "Asian countries". I referenced Thailand (LOS) as a general example for a country with less than stellar judicial and law enforcement systems. The comment wasn't intended as Asia specific”

 

what you did was pick a bad example to highlight your opinion that ICC judges were from dodgy countries and therefore suspect... your example was irrelevant as it is a non member, so judges cannot be thai.

 

I gave you the three choices for Asian judges, because you brought up Asian judges, without the rider attached here (“wasn’t intended as Asia specific”)... again... changing narrative. 

 

I have perused a few of the ICC judges bios, and in fairness to them, you should too, before casting aspersions on them and their abilities.

 

From post 143.

“And once more - the UNSC votes on forwarding cases to the ICC. As with any UNSC vote, permanent members can exercise their veto option. If a case was to involve the US, China, or Russia - they would just take it off the table. This essentially means that as far this venue goes, your comment about "obliged to cooperate" is meaningless when it comes to these countries.”

 

very true... so why is trump trumpeting? Lol... because the UN will have to veto any potential prosecution of US citizens, thereby publicly proving that the US can act with relative impunity (yes, China too, and Russia etc etc) which should be embarrassing for a responsible world player... which should bring a backlash

 

but don’t worry overly much, as the investigation, which can legally include anyone of any nation, that was in Afghanistan, was called for by the ICC, not the UNSC, so by law, UN members are not obliged to cooperate, as it’s not a UN mandated action.... yet.

 

More from 143

”The difference is that I do not assert it as fact, without support. Kinda failed to understand what was your point, though (Bosnia? Novichok?).“

 

nor did i, so it’s understandable that you missed the point?.. 

 

and... . I deliberately avoided talking US and Afghanistan to start with, because of all this crying, so examples were of other countries and things ( I can hardly use an example of Afghanistan, as that is yet to happen... May never happen... right?)

 

Bosnia, therefore, is an example of somewhere where war crimes were committed..... novochok poisioning in England by suspected Russian agents is also something that comes under crimes against humanity.

 

And... I still fail to see the sovereignty issue. Accusations have been made... one million I think... some are surely verifiable and true... if so, the US can investigate and prosecute, in need... under US law... (no breach of sovereignty.) and let’s not forget that the US is a Geneva convention participant... war crimes aren’t ok with that crowd either.

 

so what... so maybe invest in bananas.

 

 

I have no idea if it's your understanding or articulating that's the issue, but let's have a look at your comment regarding ISIS, Australia and the US:

 

Quote

Australia, for example, wants its isis fighters back, so it can prosecute them domestically... no issues about that from the ICC or the UN... no issues regarding sovereignty.

 

hey... the US could do the same.... no issue of sovereignty involved then

 

Australia wants ISIS members, holding Australian citizenship being extradited so they can face justice and/or punishment in Australia. Either than the "its" bit applying only in as much as they hold Australian citizenship - it has no meaning. They weren't sent there by the state, nor were they acting as agents of the state - quite the contrary. Further, there is no argument (as far as I'm aware) as to ISIS members committing a host of violations (as far as I recall, some of the relevant persons to your comment were already found guilty or confessed).

 

On the other hand US soldiers were sent by the government and acted as its agents. There is no general view (despite some posters pushing such - expected nonsense from the usual suspects probably forthcoming) that US army personnel are by and large war criminals. Certainly not as such things are associated with ISIS. Australians joining ISIS were acting illegally to begin with, even. Australia wishes to deal with people who committed crimes or are heavily suspected of such. And people who weren't carrying actions on behalf of their country. For your nonsensical "the US could do the same" to apply US personnel would have to be anything but. If you had an actual point it got eaten away by your way of putting it.

 

Equating as in Australia takes actions against ISIS, hence it somehow follows the US should act against its own servicemen? Again, not even sure what you're on about. If this isn't about equating, then what's the point of pitting these two propositions? or the significance of "could do the same"?

 

I did not "request" any such list of countries as you keep claiming. Again - at one point you said that bringing up other countries is off topic, and yet later on went on about other countries, citing them as an unflattering comparison to the US. Other posters did so as well. The point made was that objecting to bringing up countries (for example, by me) as "off topic" would be more of a credible position if such objections were raised when others did so (never mind you as well). It was more to the effect of this objection being one-sided and bogus.

 

With regard to the "Asian countries" nonsense - once more, Thailand was picked as easily accessible (this is a mainly Thai-related forum) example meant to illustrate a general point. The example could have used another country, with similar parameters and issues, on another continent. What is "irrelevant" is whether Thailand is a member or the fact that Thailand is an "Asian country". And I didn't make a general comment about all ICC judges, or even on acting ones - but pointed to a an issue that might raise some doubts as to the general praise heaped on ICC judges. My comment was qualified, whereas those I was responding to weren't. No narrative was changed.

 

If the Trump-Bolton response to the ICC thing was supposed to divert a potential embarrassing situation in the UNSC, then this kinda backfired. Considering Trump doesn't seem to recognize the concept of "embarrassing" and taking into account the many previous instances of creating such, the elaborate argument presented is not particularly compelling. As for "backlash" - Trump's conduct, decisions and statements are continuously outrageous. Each and every time, pundits talk about "backlash" and such. In actual terms - the responses generally fall short of predictions. I don't have a clear metric as to gauge Trump's nonsense, but I don't know that either current episode or the hypothetical one suggested in your post, would rate higher than previous ones. Hence, expecting a different level or quality of response is not necessarily a realistic take.

 

And yes, I was under the impression we were discussing the OP. Sorry about that. Silly of me. Should have "obviously" figured you were referring to anything but. Combined with your earlier bit (referenced above) about other countries being "off topic", that's kinda rich.

 

The sovereignty issue applies is and when an ICC investigation comes to the phase where it requires interviewing US servicemen or agents, conducting legal procedures in the US or requesting access government documents and related information. It would not apply to ICC investigation in Afghanistan (so long as it's accepted by the Afghani authorities). That said - if the ICC investigation would seek to interview US personnel currently stationed in Afghanistan or request access to US bases and documents in Afghanistan things could get complicated.

 

Also, the US is not obliged to adopt ICC views with regard to initiating investigations or the call for such.

12 hours ago, Morch said:

 

I have no idea if it's your understanding or articulating that's the issue, but let's have a look at your comment regarding ISIS, Australia and the US:

 

 

Australia wants ISIS members, holding Australian citizenship being extradited so they can face justice and/or punishment in Australia. Either than the "its" bit applying only in as much as they hold Australian citizenship - it has no meaning. They weren't sent there by the state, nor were they acting as agents of the state - quite the contrary. Further, there is no argument (as far as I'm aware) as to ISIS members committing a host of violations (as far as I recall, some of the relevant persons to your comment were already found guilty or confessed).

 

On the other hand US soldiers were sent by the government and acted as its agents. There is no general view (despite some posters pushing such - expected nonsense from the usual suspects probably forthcoming) that US army personnel are by and large war criminals. Certainly not as such things are associated with ISIS. Australians joining ISIS were acting illegally to begin with, even. Australia wishes to deal with people who committed crimes or are heavily suspected of such. And people who weren't carrying actions on behalf of their country. For your nonsensical "the US could do the same" to apply US personnel would have to be anything but. If you had an actual point it got eaten away by your way of putting it.

 

Equating as in Australia takes actions against ISIS, hence it somehow follows the US should act against its own servicemen? Again, not even sure what you're on about. If this isn't about equating, then what's the point of pitting these two propositions? or the significance of "could do the same"?

 

I did not "request" any such list of countries as you keep claiming. Again - at one point you said that bringing up other countries is off topic, and yet later on went on about other countries, citing them as an unflattering comparison to the US. Other posters did so as well. The point made was that objecting to bringing up countries (for example, by me) as "off topic" would be more of a credible position if such objections were raised when others did so (never mind you as well). It was more to the effect of this objection being one-sided and bogus.

 

With regard to the "Asian countries" nonsense - once more, Thailand was picked as easily accessible (this is a mainly Thai-related forum) example meant to illustrate a general point. The example could have used another country, with similar parameters and issues, on another continent. What is "irrelevant" is whether Thailand is a member or the fact that Thailand is an "Asian country". And I didn't make a general comment about all ICC judges, or even on acting ones - but pointed to a an issue that might raise some doubts as to the general praise heaped on ICC judges. My comment was qualified, whereas those I was responding to weren't. No narrative was changed.

 

If the Trump-Bolton response to the ICC thing was supposed to divert a potential embarrassing situation in the UNSC, then this kinda backfired. Considering Trump doesn't seem to recognize the concept of "embarrassing" and taking into account the many previous instances of creating such, the elaborate argument presented is not particularly compelling. As for "backlash" - Trump's conduct, decisions and statements are continuously outrageous. Each and every time, pundits talk about "backlash" and such. In actual terms - the responses generally fall short of predictions. I don't have a clear metric as to gauge Trump's nonsense, but I don't know that either current episode or the hypothetical one suggested in your post, would rate higher than previous ones. Hence, expecting a different level or quality of response is not necessarily a realistic take.

 

And yes, I was under the impression we were discussing the OP. Sorry about that. Silly of me. Should have "obviously" figured you were referring to anything but. Combined with your earlier bit (referenced above) about other countries being "off topic", that's kinda rich.

 

The sovereignty issue applies is and when an ICC investigation comes to the phase where it requires interviewing US servicemen or agents, conducting legal procedures in the US or requesting access government documents and related information. It would not apply to ICC investigation in Afghanistan (so long as it's accepted by the Afghani authorities). That said - if the ICC investigation would seek to interview US personnel currently stationed in Afghanistan or request access to US bases and documents in Afghanistan things could get complicated.

 

Also, the US is not obliged to adopt ICC views with regard to initiating investigations or the call for such.

Way way way to much to much.... this is getting overly complicated

 

to simplify..... should a person accussed (and be proven) to have committed a war crime or an act of genocide, be held accountable for that war crime or act of genocide.?

 

dont care where... don’t care by who.... should he/ she be held accountable.?

14 hours ago, Morch said:

 

I don't know that there was actually an argument to the effect that the investigation in Afghanistan is a breach of US sovereignty. Doubt that's included in my posts, for example. As to Trump-Bolton's comments - if such a claim was included, then it's nonsense.

 

As long as it's coordinated with Afghani authorities, the ICC's jurisdiction to conduct investigations and other legal procedures in Afghanistan, is not an issue - regardless of what Trump and Bolton spew. But when you state that the ICC appears to "have jurisdiction", that's partially correct. It does so up to a point.

 

So neither is the actual argument quite effected by your views (you seem to essentially accept it), and the bit rejected wasn't claimed (at least not by myself). In the same way, the asserting the ICC's jurisdiction holds depends on what exactly is referred to.

 

With regard to views as to supposed violations - it should be mentioned again, that countries may have different perceptions, takes and even definitions of what constitutes one. If the non-signatory nation is not party to international treaties relevant to such violations, there could certainly be some legal problems.

 

The prospects of the ICC completing such an investigation aren't bright. There could be a report based on partial information collected, but whether this holds much legal significance is a good question. As to other countries (even signatories) aiding to make persons of interest or suspects available (thinking international travel etc.), again not very likely. Countries failed to do so with regard to persons who were found guilty. And given that this is the US - consequences could be harsh. Might may not make right, but it is rather effective when it comes to giving pause. By the way, I would imagine that if this happened under previous administrations, they would still try to mitigate or prevent such moves - but go at it in a more subtle (and effective) ways.

 

What, IMO, this leads to is that the issue is more likely to end up being exploited as propaganda/PR fodder - in the service of both anti-US elements and the Trump administration. Sovereignty, justice and truth will become but labels in related interactions. I think browsing topics on this forum (or even this one) may help to illustrate the point.

 

Bringing up "transparency" on every topic is sort of like that. More a catchphrase then a realistically applied proposition. Transparency would require agreement as to the investigating body's identity, authority, impartiality and procedure. Your assertions on this point imply that you believe this is either a reality or a realistic possibility. Facts do not necessarily support such a point of view. I would say the same applies for other such terms such as "justice" or "truth". First casualties and all that, even if not as intended.

 

As for failure to investigate them allegations carrying "serious political and diplomatic consequences" - what would these be? The current US administration set a rather high bar when it comes to supposedly unacceptable, unreasonable, and outrageous foreign policy decisions. With each new episode, there are voices predicting "serious political and diplomatic consequences". And yes, there's some of that - but in effective terms, not quite as dire as predicted/hoped for. The subject matter of the OP is pretty routine as far as this administration goes. And slowly but surely, it stops to shock - and becomes accepted as the new normal. To be clear, this isn't a point of view condoning, praising or embracing  the Trump administration's conduct and policies - just one that looks at the "resistance" or push back in a realistic manner.

 

I think it's a fairly good bet that by the next news cycle or so there will be a new headline and a new outrageous story courtesy of Trump & Co. Maybe it's already on, haven't followed news today.

 

So we agree. 

 

Subject to conditions and agreements with Afghanistan (which are nothing to do with US sovereignty) the ICC investigation is legitimate*.

 

Where the ICC investigation requires access to evidence or persons within US Jurisdiction the ICC must rely on US cooperation (which the US has a sovereign right to withhold).

 

Following from that:

 

The threats made by Trump/Bolton against the ICC judges undertaking the legitimate* investigation are therefore unquestionably an attempt to interfere with the investigation.

 

Do I need to list the serious political and diplomatic consequences of the US so overtly attempting to interefere in the work of the ICC?

 

In general terms, undermining the ICC, undermining trust in the US, alienating allies, alienating global public opinion, handing a wide spectrum of  adversaries an example of US exceptionalism, demonstrating that strength and coercion above diplomacy and cooperation.

 

I stand by my belief in openness and transparency.

 

Voltaire’s Candide dealt with the argument that this is the best of all possible worlds, he did so before the US was founded.

 

(Legitimate* insomuch as within ICC jurisdiction were the alleged crimes are alleged to have taken place in Afghanistan, a signatory to the ICC and/or against persons first captured in and removed from Afghanistan - let’s not have a pedant’s argument on that).

49 minutes ago, farcanell said:

Way way way to much to much.... this is getting overly complicated

 

to simplify..... should a person accussed (and be proven) to have committed a war crime or an act of genocide, be held accountable for that war crime or act of genocide.?

 

dont care where... don’t care by who.... should he/ she be held accountable.?

 

It is complicated because it is a complicated issues. Trying for over-simplification is what some do when they can't handle complex issues, or support arguments previously made.

 

You do not get to dictate how the premise of the issue and the discussion are determined, certainly not along contrived, simplistic lines. If you're bent on ignoring arguments and points made, that's fine - but don't expect a serious reply based on, as you called it before "a changed narrative".

Caveat to my last response:

 

 

Where the ICC investigation requires access to evidence or persons within US Jurisdiction the ICC must rely on US cooperation (which the US has a sovereign right to withhold).

 

Individuals within the US may agree to provide testimony and/or evidence to the ICC even though the US government chooses a non cooperation policy (First Ammendment rights apply)

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

So we agree. 

 

Subject to conditions and agreements with Afghanistan (which are nothing to do with US sovereignty) the ICC investigation is legitimate*.

 

Where the ICC investigation requires access to evidence or persons within US Jurisdiction the ICC must rely on US cooperation (which the US has a sovereign right to withhold).

 

Following from that:

 

The threats made by Trump/Bolton against the ICC judges undertaking the legitimate* investigation are therefore unquestionably an attempt to interfere with the investigation.

 

Do I need to list the serious political and diplomatic consequences of the US so overtly attempting to interefere in the work of the ICC?

 

In general terms, undermining the ICC, undermining trust in the US, alienating allies, alienating global public opinion, handing a wide spectrum of  adversaries an example of US exceptionalism, demonstrating that strength and coercion above diplomacy and cooperation.

 

I stand by my belief in openness and transparency.

 

Voltaire’s Candide dealt with the argument that this is the best of all possible worlds, he did so before the US was founded.

 

(Legitimate* insomuch as within ICC jurisdiction were the alleged crimes are alleged to have taken place in Afghanistan, a signatory to the ICC and/or against persons first captured in and removed from Afghanistan - let’s not have a pedant’s argument on that).

 

I think that the US may state that it doesn't recognize the legitimacy of any ICC investigation, regardless of location. It would be, of course, an extreme position, as well as an extremely hypocritical one, considering the US supported (or had no objections) for other ICC investigations in the past. But if the US chose to, it could, and I guess there could be some legal argument or the other to support such nonsense.

 

A point which may become an issue complicating things is the distinct possibility that an ICC investigation carried out in Afghanistan may wish to interview US servicemen and other personnel stationed in-country, or seek access to US government documents and facilities in-country. I'm sure that the legal status of such persons and facilities was previously discussed and agreed upon, but don't rightly know how this may relate to an ICC investigation. Countries having bilateral agreements is more or less straightforward, one of the sides bringing in a third party is different story.

 

The "following from that" bit is not, I think quite obvious, then. If the US doesn't consider the investigation to be legitimate, then attempts to thwart carry a different legal meaning. That's not to say that Trump-Bolton's thuggish style is acceptable or endorsed.

 

And yes, you do need to make clear what is effectively meant by "serious political and diplomatic consequences". All the more so considering the way the present US administration rolls and its track record of such instances and incidents. All them things you list aren't exactly new when it comes to Trump's presidency's international interactions (and  domestic ones as well, for that matter). And yet, it doesn't seem to phase Trump and some of his advisors - or cause them to amend their ways.

 

You can stand by your claims regarding "transparency" and them other labels tossed about. No problems. Add the "obligatory" smart sounding one liner reference while at it. Still doesn't tie any of this to reality much.

11 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Caveat to my last response:

 

 

Where the ICC investigation requires access to evidence or persons within US Jurisdiction the ICC must rely on US cooperation (which the US has a sovereign right to withhold).

 

Individuals within the US may agree to provide testimony and/or evidence to the ICC even though the US government chooses a non cooperation policy (First Ammendment rights apply)

 

Wouldn't know about that. Such individuals often sign some stuff regarding passing information to others in an unauthorized manner etc. And while you may confidently assert the First Amendment covers it, I doubt the legal reality is all that simple.

On 9/11/2018 at 4:34 PM, from the home of CC said:

ok  mr. substandard lunch meat, in your not so humble opinion, why is america trying to preemptively remove culpability in actions on the world stage?

Because they don't want to be culpable for their actions on the world stage. No need to look further.

Another off topic trolling post has been removed as well as the replies.  Anymore attempts to hijack this topic will find this topic closed. 

On 9/12/2018 at 10:26 AM, BestB said:

Speaking of idiotic comments , seems  no shortage of it ?

Mostly from you. After all you asked the question.

 

On 9/12/2018 at 9:48 AM, BestB said:

One would struggle to come up with something as idiotic as this .

 

what does Netanyahu have to do with US in Afghanistan ?

 

43 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

So we agree. 

 

Subject to conditions and agreements with Afghanistan (which are nothing to do with US sovereignty) the ICC investigation is legitimate*.

 

Where the ICC investigation requires access to evidence or persons within US Jurisdiction the ICC must rely on US cooperation (which the US has a sovereign right to withhold).

 

Following from that:

 

The threats made by Trump/Bolton against the ICC judges undertaking the legitimate* investigation are therefore unquestionably an attempt to interfere with the investigation.

 

Do I need to list the serious political and diplomatic consequences of the US so overtly attempting to interefere in the work of the ICC?

 

In general terms, undermining the ICC, undermining trust in the US, alienating allies, alienating global public opinion, handing a wide spectrum of  adversaries an example of US exceptionalism, demonstrating that strength and coercion above diplomacy and cooperation.

 

I stand by my belief in openness and transparency.

 

Voltaire’s Candide dealt with the argument that this is the best of all possible worlds, he did so before the US was founded.

 

(Legitimate* insomuch as within ICC jurisdiction were the alleged crimes are alleged to have taken place in Afghanistan, a signatory to the ICC and/or against persons first captured in and removed from Afghanistan - let’s not have a pedant’s argument on that).

 

nice work C H, easy to accept what you say, except a small bit

you talk about serious political and diplomatic consequences re Bolton/trump outbursts

 

I think the consequences will be very few and very far between - and close to zilch

the world has since long got used to US presidency/national assembly utterly childish outbursts and behavior

no worries - as they say further south

 

kinda amusing listening to Bolton's tirades about the US always standing by their allies

considering the whole ICC resides in one of their NATO allies, namely Netherlands.

2 minutes ago, melvinmelvin said:

 

nice work C H, easy to accept what you say, except a small bit

you talk about serious political and diplomatic consequences re Bolton/trump outbursts

 

I think the consequences will be very few and very far between - and close to zilch

the world has since long got used to US presidency/national assembly utterly childish outbursts and behavior

no worries - as they say further south

 

kinda amusing listening to Bolton's tirades about the US always standing by their allies

considering the whole ICC resides in one of their NATO allies, namely Netherlands.

Let’s see how these impacts pan out.

 

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Let’s see how these impacts pan out.

 

 

What "impacts" and why would this instance be different than others?

 

 

35 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

It is complicated because it is a complicated issues. Trying for over-simplification is what some do when they can't handle complex issues, or support arguments previously made.

 

You do not get to dictate how the premise of the issue and the discussion are determined, certainly not along contrived, simplistic lines. If you're bent on ignoring arguments and points made, that's fine - but don't expect a serious reply based on, as you called it before "a changed narrative".

Dude... I fully responded to damn near everything...  multiple times.... if I missed something, it’s buried to deep to see, as far as I’m concerned.

 

that said... raise the specifics I missed again... and I will address whatever argument you want... even though we will obviously disagree on those points... but I will address them

 

Now... imo... you have steadfastly argued the same points, which are borderline irrelevant... sovereignty breach’s being the main example

 

if someone... anyone... has committed a war crime, they should be held accountable. That’s it... end of story.

 

proving it, is a different story.... not co operating with investigations hinders proving it.... political genders hinder it... yes, I know, but that does mean you should not attempt to prosecute war criminals

 

you are deliberately stuffing everything with irrelevancies to over complicate the issue, and are ignoring valid points, in an attempt to legitimize obstructing an international court

 

if a case is complicated... and I don’t argue that it might be... then let it take ten years of investigation and prosecution and exchanging of spit or whatever, doesn’t matter.

 

If proven guilty... convict... yes or no?

 

oh... changed narrative, as I called it, was directly aimed at your comments, wherein I demonstrated that you twisted my comments... twice... incorrectly... in an attempt to confuse what I stated, and change the narrative that the post was about... lol... and I see ( but didn’t respond) that you have done it a third time

 

all this confuses... cut away... simplify... deal with it one step at a time, because ( to oversimplify) if you say “no” to the simple question (prosecute war criminals or not), then everything else falls away. (As in the how of it... that’s a secondary consideration)

 

 

 

 

 

2 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

What "impacts" and why would this instance be different than others?

 

 

Morch, I’ve stated generalized consequences (the consequences are not the subject of the thread).

 

However given that you yourself frequently refer to the complex reality and realpolitik of iInternational affairs I’m not about to engage in your game of pretence that generalized consequences I’ve listed don’t exist or are not significant.

 

If these threats by Trump/Bolton have no broader consequences then I’ll

be proven wrong and you can write dozens of paragraphs reminding me of my error.

 

 

 

9 minutes ago, farcanell said:

Dude... I fully responded to damn near everything...  multiple times.... if I missed something, it’s buried to deep to see, as far as I’m concerned.

 

that said... raise the specifics I missed again... and I will address whatever argument you want... even though we will obviously disagree on those points... but I will address them

 

Now... imo... you have steadfastly argued the same points, which are borderline irrelevant... sovereignty breach’s being the main example

 

if someone... anyone... has committed a war crime, they should be held accountable. That’s it... end of story.

 

proving it, is a different story.... not co operating with investigations hinders proving it.... political genders hinder it... yes, I know, but that does mean you should not attempt to prosecute war criminals

 

you are deliberately stuffing everything with irrelevancies to over complicate the issue, and are ignoring valid points, in an attempt to legitimize obstructing an international court

 

if a case is complicated... and I don’t argue that it might be... then let it take ten years of investigation and prosecution and exchanging of spit or whatever, doesn’t matter.

 

If proven guilty... convict... yes or no?

 

oh... changed narrative, as I called it, was directly aimed at your comments, wherein I demonstrated that you twisted my comments... twice... incorrectly... in an attempt to confuse what I stated, and change the narrative that the post was about... lol... and I see ( but didn’t respond) that you have done it a third time

 

all this confuses... cut away... simplify... deal with it one step at a time, because ( to oversimplify) if you say “no” to the simple question (prosecute war criminals or not), then everything else falls away. (As in the how of it... that’s a secondary consideration)

 

 

 

 

 

 

You can surely grasp that my last reply was directly addressing your last post - in which your basically tried to disregard previous arguments, and re-frame the discussion in an over-simplified manner more fitting to your point of view. Your "end of story" nonsense is just about that. You keep bringing up a line of argument which wasn't part of my posts, but rather imagined by yourself as such.

 

That you refuse to accept hos the sovereignty issue plays when it comes to relations between the ICC and non-signatory countries doesn't turn it into being "irrelevant", but rather more indicative of either failing to grasp a point or choosing to deflect. You may reject some non-signatory countries seeing things this way, but it doesn't alter the fundamentals of the argument or its relevance.

 

I haven't "twisted" your comments, and you haven't demonstrated anything to that effect, even.

 

It is always a source of amusement to see an ardent Trump opposer turn to populist arguments, over-simplifications and misleading claims about other people's words. Well done. 

9 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Morch, I’ve stated generalized consequences (the consequences are not the subject of the thread).

 

However given that you yourself frequently refer to the complex reality and realpolitik of iInternational affairs I’m not about to engage in your game of pretence that generalized consequences I’ve listed don’t exist or are not significant.

 

If these threats by Trump/Bolton have no broader consequences then I’ll

be proven wrong and you can write dozens of paragraphs reminding me of my error.

 

 

 

 

Well, you brought the up the issue, and now it's off topic? Or rather, you feel it should only be discussed in a manner fitting your argument? Considering Trump & Co.'s threats weren't all that generalized, why would discussion of consequences be limited to vague generalizations? You haven't argued anything specific, tangible or relating to a time-frame, hence any future comment could be deflected.

39 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

You can surely grasp that my last reply was directly addressing your last post - in which your basically tried to disregard previous arguments, and re-frame the discussion in an over-simplified manner more fitting to your point of view. Your "end of story" nonsense is just about that. You keep bringing up a line of argument which wasn't part of my posts, but rather imagined by yourself as such.

 

That you refuse to accept hos the sovereignty issue plays when it comes to relations between the ICC and non-signatory countries doesn't turn it into being "irrelevant", but rather more indicative of either failing to grasp a point or choosing to deflect. You may reject some non-signatory countries seeing things this way, but it doesn't alter the fundamentals of the argument or its relevance.

 

I haven't "twisted" your comments, and you haven't demonstrated anything to that effect, even.

 

It is always a source of amusement to see an ardent Trump opposer turn to populist arguments, over-simplifications and misleading claims about other people's words. Well done. 

Yep... you couldn’t do it.

 

Attempt to punish proven war criminals or not... yes or no?

 

meanwhile.... on another topic ?????? I love the last paragraph.... so sweet.... trumps supporters going along with about 5000 varified lies so far up his potus period ?????????

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

Well, you brought the up the issue, and now it's off topic? Or rather, you feel it should only be discussed in a manner fitting your argument? Considering Trump & Co.'s threats weren't all that generalized, why would discussion of consequences be limited to vague generalizations? You haven't argued anything specific, tangible or relating to a time-frame, hence any future comment could be deflected.

I brought up the issue of consequences and gave examples, you disagree with my thoughts on the matter and want me to discuss further.

 

No, I’m not playing the ‘wear your opponent down with 23 paragraphs per post’ game.

 

We’ll agree to disagree and you can remind me later if I’m proven wrong.

some bickering posts removed

Most intelligent, reasonable people would agree that alleged war criminal accusations should be investigated, and if found substantive and the country responsible does not do anything to bring the perpetrators to justice, be tried by a group of respected international jurists in the court designed for this very purpose: the ICC.

 

The only reason anyone would attack the ICC is because like Bolton, Trump, China and Israel, they want to smother the truth to protect themselves and their friends who have been behaving very badly. They do so by hiding behind a wall of obfuscation.

5 minutes ago, dexterm said:

Most intelligent, reasonable people would agree that alleged war criminal accusations should be investigated, and if found substantive and the country responsible does not do anything to bring the perpetrators to justice, be tried by a group of respected international jurists in the court designed for this very purpose: the ICC.

 

The only reason anyone would attack the ICC is because like Bolton, Trump, China and Israel, they want to smother the truth to protect themselves and their friends who have been behaving very badly. They do so by hiding behind a wall of obfuscation.

 

No, that would be you cheering for an body which you consider as useful in promoting the agenda and narrative you support. When officials of the same body expressed unfavorable views to your positions, you either ignored or objected.

 

There was reasoning enough supplied on previous posts as to not embracing the ICC. That you try to claim some "only reason" is counterfactual. Equating all critical arguments regarding the ICC with Trump-Bolton's narrative. is about as honest a representation as can be expected from some posters.

A baiting post has been removed.   Continue and face a suspension.