Harris mingled with Tehran regime operative who promotes terrorism

[robblok]

1 hour ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

One point I'd note here just in general, and not specific to the U.S.

 

Civilians and innocents do get injured and killed in war and conflict zones. That is inevitable. But there are different ways that can happen.

 

1. By sheer unavoidable accident

2. By neglect or incompetence

3. By deliberate, intentional action (genocide, human shields, crimes against civilians like rape, etc etc.)

 

If the ICC is going to play a role in the world, IMHO, it ought to be focusing first on crimes against humanity or innocents/civilians where those occurred by deliberate action.

 

I think the cases of #3 by the U.S. military in conflicts abroad are relatively rare, but where they occur, they certainly should be prosecuted, and I'd believe normally would be by the U.S. justice system.

 

However, there are other countries and forces where the #3 mode is their norm and where there is little or no internal enforcement of laws and legal norms against their forces, or they're actually following the policy of their government/leaders. Myanmar's ethnic cleansing, Duterte's drug war, the terrorist groups and others come to mind.

 

Personally, I wouldn't put those latter kinds of crimes in the same basket as a U.S. drone strike in Afghanistan where the U.S. is seeking to take out some terrorists and ends up, despite precautions, inadvertently killing civilians as collateral damage.

 

 

Certainly not the same thing as willingly use civilians as shields.. but do you think that there should be no punishment for killing civilians by drone strikes ? Or is... oops sorry I did not mean for this to happen enough ?

 

You make a real good point about other countries not following the rules.. but the US has an example to set as they are supposed to be good guys.

 

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

30 minutes ago, robblok said:

 but do you think that there should be no punishment for killing civilians by drone strikes ?

 

 

If it's done intentionally or with reckless disregard for the potential for collateral damage, yes.

 

If it's done unintentionally and despite policy precautions to avoid or minimize collateral damage, no.

 

[Sir Swagman]

 The entire administation(s) involved and all the military, right down to the basic soldier level is in breach of the law. The Kellog-Briand Pact, to which America is a signatory, means this has been the case in practically every one of the dirty little, and big, wars in which the US has participated.

[mvdf]

1 hour ago, Thaidream said:

I might add that all US military officers take extensive training in the rule of War  and I know no officer that would engage in killing of civilians. 

 

You're deluded. Yours is a country of trigger-happy uniformed law enforcers. Why wouldn't your military officers be any different?

 

As mentioned by some here... keep within your borders and stop meddling in the affairs of other countries. We Asians hate the nosiness and meddling tendencies of westerners!

 

[Morch]

1 hour ago, robblok said:

The whole point is to get an independent body to check.. do you honestly believe the US is not a bit bias towards his soldiers ? The US is just afraid that their bad deeds get exposed that is it nothing more nothing less. 

 

If they are so afraid.. then don't start wars and don't commit war crimes. The US just shows again they don't care about anyone but themselves even if war crimes are committed. Stupid stance of course from a country that is supposed to be "good"

 

Not all countries subscribe to this.. usually countries with something to hide.. less desirable countries and such don't like this. So the US is in good company. 

 

This is NOT an anti US rant.. just an anti US policy rant. 

 

As said in another post, the ICC is a fine idea with less than impressive implementation. Seeing as it isn't only the US that doesn't recognize its authority, making this solely a US thing is nice, but not credible. Independent? If you say so. In reality, I somehow doubt that's quite the case.

 

There wasn't anything said or claimed about the US not being "biased toward its soldiers". That's normal, and as long as we do not have a world government, it shall remain so.

 

I don't know that the "US is just afraid..." etc. The arguments cited is more to do with sovereignty, and recognizing that lofty notions of international organizations' impartiality do not always conform to reality.

 

Once again, you seem certain that war crimes were committed, and that wars were started by the US. Disregarding the wide brush nature of such claims, I'll posit again - who gets to decide? And why is it that other countries do not come under such scathing criticism on the same grounds?

 

If some choose to see the US as a knight in shining armor, they are welcome to their illusion. Many times, IMO, such "views" are more straw-men arguments. The "good" thing is a matter of degree - bashing and frothing notwithstanding, I would choose the US over the other two candidates any day of the week. Does it make the US saintly - hell, no.

[farcanell]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

Who gets to decide if war crimes were committed? Who's got the authority to apply punishments? Do all countries subscribe to this? Do all get treated in the same manner?

 

 

ICC judges decide on case, dependent on the evidence as presented by prosecutors. ( I would think)... anyway... just an opinion.

 

the guts of the story is that US citizens cannot be punished for acts of genocde, war crimes or acts against humanity ( the ICCs main function?) By a foreign court, unless it changes its constitution, per what other countries have done.

 

hwever... it doesn’t surprise my that a neo nazi sympathizer wants to protect his “agents” from prosecution for war crimes, crimes  against humanity and genercide, despite the fact that the leader of the free world should be championing the persecution of perpetrators of heinous crimes   

 

 

[Morch]

12 minutes ago, mvdf said:

 

You're deluded. Yours is a country of trigger-happy uniformed law enforcers. Why wouldn't your military officers be any different?

 

As mentioned by some here... keep within your borders and stop meddling in the affairs of other countries. We Asians hate the nosiness and meddling tendencies of westerners!

 

 

You do not speak for all Asians. Nor any "we", for that matter. And, obviously, not all Asian share your views. Got to wonder what "We Asians" make of China, Japan or the current nutter in the Philippines.

[Morch]

5 minutes ago, farcanell said:

ICC judges decide on case, dependent on the evidence as presented by prosecutors. ( I would think)... anyway... just an opinion.

 

the guts of the story is that US citizens cannot be punished for acts of genocde, war crimes or acts against humanity ( the ICCs main function?) By a foreign court, unless it changes its constitution, per what other countries have done.

 

hwever... it doesn’t surprise my that a neo nazi sympathizer wants to protect his “agents” from prosecution for war crimes, crimes  against humanity and genercide, despite the fact that the leader of the free world should be championing the persecution of perpetrators of heinous crimes   

 

 

 

And ICC judges are extra-terrestrial? No backgrounds? No nationalities? No political views? No political pressures involved? Yeah....

 

The US is not the only country not recognizing the ICC's authority. And the Trump administration isn't breaking new grounds with regard to maintaining this position. Where it departs from past administrations' is as it comes to thuggish threats and language. Them "agents" you allude to are US soldiers rather than "his", and I think we can dispense with the "leader of the free world" label, at least until Trump is out of office.

[metisdead]

An off topic trolling post has been removed.  An offensive post removed as well. 

[farcanell]

8 hours ago, webfact said:

The United States will use any means necessary to protect our citizens and those of our allies from unjust prosecution by this illegitimate court," Bolton will say, according to a draft of his speech seen by Reuters.

???? but it is not illegitimate according to the greater part of the international community.

 

moreover, apart from isreal, America’s allies are a part of the ICC and would likely reject US attempts to interfere with prosecutions against its citizens accused of war crimes or genocide.

 

anyway... the handful of countries that oppose the ICC  are Russia and china ( no surprises), Yemen and Qatar. ( still not surprised), Libya (20 years ago... more of not being surprised) and.... the US of A and Iraq.

 

damn good company y’all are keeping.

[farcanell]

11 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

And ICC judges are extra-terrestrial? No backgrounds? No nationalities? No political views? No political pressures involved? Yeah....

 

The US is not the only country not recognizing the ICC's authority. And the Trump administration isn't breaking new grounds with regard to maintaining this position. Where it departs from past administrations' is as it comes to thuggish threats and language. Them "agents" you allude to are US soldiers rather than "his", and I think we can dispense with the "leader of the free world" label, at least until Trump is out of office.

The judges are judges.... just like nominated judges in the US. Have faith in them, or don’t, both at home and abroad.

 

and no, the US is not the only country involved in not recognizing the ICC.... they are in good company with the like of Iraq and trumps mate, vlad, and his country.

[Grouse]

4 hours ago, ezzra said:

Kinda not easy to do when the US is forking out billions in aids to countries and institutions that in a cynical ways despise and abhor the US and for all it stand for but that never stops them from reaching out for more aid and protection....

Reaching out for aid? Who? Israel? Mexico? Who?

[from the home of CC]

I believe some of the push back to the investigation of the ICC stems from the fear that if allowed, it's possible enlistment in the services could drop. Men and women contemplating a career in the military may feel that they would be vulnerable to prosecution during military action, without the protection of the government asking them to risk their lives. 

[Spidey]

2 hours ago, Thaidream said:

hI might add that all US military officers take extensive training in the rule of War  and I know no officer that would engage in killing of civilians. They simply wouldn't follow the order if given.

I think that there a few villagers in Mee Lai that might disagree with that.

 

And before you say "That was a long time ago", Abu Ghraib wasn't.

[candide]

I tried to know more about countries who don't want to recognise the ICC. That's what I found:

"Seven countries voted against the statute: China, Iraq, Israel, Libya, Qatar, the United States, and Yemen. China objected on grounds that "the statute is an attempt to interfere with the domestic affairs of a sovereign nation." Other non-members include India, Iran, Japan, North Korea, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, and Turkey. While most Western European and South American countries are signatories, there are only two Arab nation members—Jordan and Tunisia. There are eighteen Asian members of the ICC."

https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/frequently-asked-questions-about-international-criminal-court

Edited September 11, 2018 by metisdead
Oversize font reset to normal.

[farcanell]

3 minutes ago, from the home of CC said:

Men and women contemplating a career in the military may feel that they would be vulnerable to prosecution during military action, without the protection of the government asking them to risk their lives. 

Men and women contemplating joining, would then be best advised not to commit war crimes, acts against humanity or acts of genocide... that should solve the problem about falling enlistments.

 

falling enlistments, amongst those concerned that they might commit criminal offenses, seems to be better than a good thing

 

men and women of the 120 plus countries that have ratified the ICCs position, still have men and women joining their armies

 

the US can still give its errant citizens protection with robust legal representation.

 

funnily enough.... this reminds me of the international attempts to kill off the slave trade, whereby most other nations accepted that the prime mover in stopping the slave trade ( the English navy) could board and search for slaving activities... it was an internationally accepted deal, much like the ICC.... and opposed by the US, who steadfastly refused joining into any actions that interfered with their slavers (US flagged ships).

 

make America great... protect its own greatest villains... way to go trump.

 

[BestB]

6 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Trump really does have a problem with investigations.

Here is the funny part , most of the atrocities and bombs were dropped under obama administration , if anything should be praising him rather than bashing him .

 

not that I agree US should have a free pass 

[Grouse]

On 9/10/2018 at 6:43 PM, candide said:

I tried to know more about countries who don't want to recognise the ICC. That's what I found:

"Seven countries voted against the statute: China, Iraq, Israel, Libya, Qatar, the United States, and Yemen. China objected on grounds that "the statute is an attempt to interfere with the domestic affairs of a sovereign nation." Other non-members include India, Iran, Japan, North Korea, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, and Turkey. While most Western European and South American countries are signatories, there are only two Arab nation members—Jordan and Tunisia. There are eighteen Asian members of the ICC."

https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/frequently-asked-questions-about-international-criminal-court

Once again, Japan is a surprise. I wonder why? 

[Morch]

30 minutes ago, farcanell said:

???? but it is not illegitimate according to the greater part of the international community.

 

moreover, apart from isreal, America’s allies are a part of the ICC and would likely reject US attempts to interfere with prosecutions against its citizens accused of war crimes or genocide.

 

anyway... the handful of countries that oppose the ICC  are Russia and china ( no surprises), Yemen and Qatar. ( still not surprised), Libya (20 years ago... more of not being surprised) and.... the US of A and Iraq.

 

damn good company y’all are keeping.

 

26 minutes ago, farcanell said:

The judges are judges.... just like nominated judges in the US. Have faith in them, or don’t, both at home and abroad.

 

and no, the US is not the only country involved in not recognizing the ICC.... they are in good company with the like of Iraq and trumps mate, vlad, and his country.

 

That's nice, but the bottom line is that the three most powerful nations on earth do not recognize the ICC's authority. So once more, making it a US thing is off mark. So is ignoring valid reasons related to sovereignty. As for the rest of the international community - I somehow doubt that all support/accept/assist the ICC to the same degree. What I am sure of that like all international institutions, politics and interests play their part.

 

With regard to your second comment, countries regulate their own judicial and legal systems. There are usually checks and balances involved which allow corrections. If asking who regulates (or will regulate) the ICC, we return to the issue of international politics and interests. Also, "national" judges are bound by their countries rules and legal system. Who gets to decide the ICC's?

 

The easy answer would be international law, international agreements, conventions and such. I think you'll have a hard time arguing these come about without international politics and interests playing a part.

[candide]

5 minutes ago, Grouse said:

Once again, Japan is a surprise. I wonder why? 

Actually, I checked, Japan joined the Rome statute later. It seems this quote is not up-to-date.

[dexterm]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

And ICC judges are extra-terrestrial? No backgrounds? No nationalities? No political views? No political pressures involved? Yeah....

 

The US is not the only country not recognizing the ICC's authority. And the Trump administration isn't breaking new grounds with regard to maintaining this position. Where it departs from past administrations' is as it comes to thuggish threats and language. Them "agents" you allude to are US soldiers rather than "his", and I think we can dispense with the "leader of the free world" label, at least until Trump is out of office.

The USA has some decidedly undemocratic bedfellows who also do not recognize the ICC. You'd think the USA would be a beacon of international justice rather than casting their lot with some of these repressive regimes.

 

"On 17 July 1998, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court was adopted by a vote of 120 to 7, with 21 countries abstaining. The seven countries that voted against the treaty were China, Iraq, Israel, Libya, Qatar, the United States, and Yemen."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court

 

Just because USA and China are powerful does not make their exemption correct. Might is not right.

Edited September 10, 2018 by dexterm

[Grouse]

1 minute ago, dexterm said:

The USA has some strange decidedly undemocratic bedfellows who do not recognize the ICC. You'd think the USA would be a beacon of international justice rather than casting their lot with some of these repressive regimes.

 

"On 17 July 1998, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court was adopted by a vote of 120 to 7, with 21 countries abstaining. The seven countries that voted against the treaty were China, Iraq, Israel, Libya, Qatar, the United States, and Yemen."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court

You'dthink the USA would be a beacon of international justice rather than casting their lot with some of these repressive regimes.

 

How embarrassing is that???

[janclaes47]

6 hours ago, simoh1490 said:

Trump really does have a problem.

 

Not about Trump, I remember Bush during his term already declared that the US was above any claims about war crimes

[Tug]

War sucks ones who make war outside the normal rules must be accountable that is the ones giving the orders not the poor slob having to carry them out

[candide]

14 minutes ago, janclaes47 said:

 

Not about Trump, I remember Bush during his term already declared that the US was above any claims about war crimes

Bush rejected the ratification of the Rome statute less than one year before the Irak war. Let's hope Trump's sudden interest for blaming the ICC is not similarly motivated.

[Morch]

31 minutes ago, dexterm said:

The USA has some decidedly undemocratic bedfellows who also do not recognize the ICC. You'd think the USA would be a beacon of international justice rather than casting their lot with some of these repressive regimes.

 

"On 17 July 1998, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court was adopted by a vote of 120 to 7, with 21 countries abstaining. The seven countries that voted against the treaty were China, Iraq, Israel, Libya, Qatar, the United States, and Yemen."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court

 

Just because USA and China are powerful does not make their exemption correct. Might is not right.

 

The US and China are not "exempt", they simply don't accept the premise. There is no compulsion to do so and no means to enforce it even if there was. You may not like it, but such is life. Parroting pseudo-idealistic slogans will not change things either.

 

Despite what some posters seem to fantasize, there is no world government. There is no single or unified authority which can dictate (especially not to powerful countries) how to act. There are imperfect international bodies aimed more at maintaining dialogue and avoiding conflagrations. They do not, however, possess the sort of authority (or if it came down to it, proper enforcement means). Other posters seem to entertain the illusion that the world is governed (or ought to be governed) by a super-democratic system (one nation, one vote). Good luck with that.

 

Allow me to doubt that your position on this is anything but an extension of your standing single-issue agenda.

Edited September 10, 2018 by Morch

[Spidey]

41 minutes ago, Thaidream said:

The current  Code of Military Justice outlaws torture; extra judicial killings and any targeting of civilians.  I firmly believe that  99.9% of US Officers/NCO's would refuse any such orders as illegal and not carry them out. The officer who ordered such a thing would be investigated and expelled from the military.

So no worries being answerable to the ICC then.

[Morch]

2 minutes ago, candide said:

Bush rejected the ratification of the Rome statute less than one year before the Irak war. Let's hope Trump's sudden interest for blaming the ICC is not similarly motivated.

 

Nicely thrown in unsupported assumption regarding Bush there. And Trump as well, really - is there anything to indicate Trump having much by long term view, planning or consistency when it comes to such matters?

[Chomper Higgot]

An investigation is not a trial.

 

It is quite conceivable that an investigation finds grounds for a trial and forwards the findings to the government of the nation who’s military personnel are the suspects from the investigation.

 

Of course the nation receiving the investigation’s report may choose not to accept it or not to act upon it.

 

But that’s no excuse for the wider international community to ignore alleged war crimes, not to investigate the allegations or not to publish the findings of their investigation.

[farcanell]

48 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

 

That's nice, but the bottom line is that the three most powerful nations on earth do not recognize the ICC's authority. So once more, making it a US thing is off mark. So is ignoring valid reasons related to sovereignty. As for the rest of the international community - I somehow doubt that all support/accept/assist the ICC to the same degree. What I am sure of that like all international institutions, politics and interests play their part.

 

With regard to your second comment, countries regulate their own judicial and legal systems. There are usually checks and balances involved which allow corrections. If asking who regulates (or will regulate) the ICC, we return to the issue of international politics and interests. Also, "national" judges are bound by their countries rules and legal system. Who gets to decide the ICC's?

 

The easy answer would be international law, international agreements, conventions and such. I think you'll have a hard time arguing these come about without international politics and interests playing a part.

The 18 ICC judges are elected by the 120 plus nations involved in the ICC ( and must be qualified to be admitted to the highest courts of their respective countries).... seems very very fair... fairer than the US Supreme Court nominations,... and ICC judges are only valid for nine years or so, and can be removed if they don’t perform.... ya really can’t beat that for fairness and impartiality. 

 

That the most most powerful nations, that compete economically and militarily, are not members, should be a worry to sane people, because for one, these countries might allow (or continue to allow) war crimes and acts of inhumanity, by their agents.

 

that the US can’t appoint judges here, is their fault... if they don’t support genocide etc, then they can join and appoint judges... same same for Iraq.

 

meanwhile, 127 voting countries still voted 120 to 7... the US and Iraq are brothers in this vote.

 

Also... the United Nations is the genesis of the ICC, and uses united nation Law.... but... if a sovereign nation prosecutes its own people, that’s ok by the ICC.... they only intercede when a nation can not or will not prosecute its war criminals. ( regards your para two)

 

so... no need to persecute ICC judges if the US prosecutes it’s own scum... but given that there is an issue ( otherwise no story) it appears as though the US condones war crimes committed by US citizens (Russia.... think novochok poisioning perhaps, and China, with its extra judicial state killings probably don’t prosecute their scum nationally... not so strange bedfellows these days)

 

as to it being a US thing... please re read the OP title.... the OP made it a US thing. I’m happy to critise Russia on this, once Putin pokes his head out and threatens internationally appointed international law judges, and that article appears here.

 

regards your last paragraph... ICC is based on international law and includes (specific wording is there, in need) treaties and conventions already.... so no issue

 

regards international politics... what?

 

the US is raving about republican judges vs Democrats judges... they are obviously politically aware.... why would an international judge not be as aware. The simplest thing to do would be to join and assist in the appointment of judges... or self manage by prosecuting your own.

 

so anyway.... who is being protected by trumps latest colon spasm?