Why is the MAGA movement so susceptible to crazy conspiracy theories?

[Morch]

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

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.

 

Investigation, in the relevant context (ICC) is a rung in a legal ladder. Such an investigation incorporates, for example, representatives of the ICC conducting interviews with relevant parties. I understand that some posters fail (or pretend to fail) seeing how this could be an issue.

 

The ICC investigation, is essentially a breach of a country's sovereignty, in that it effectively replaces national agencies. Countries who signed up for this, no problems. Countries who didn't, well now...

 

I could be wrong, but I do not think that the usual course of ICC procedure is to pass recommendations to local authorities and governments. The investigation, in ICC related cases is more to do with asserting whether the case has merit, and whether ICC intervention is called for. From the point of view of countries who didn't sign up for this arrangement, that's a non-starter anyway.

 

The so-called "wider international community" may carry investigations, through the ICC and other organizations. But that doesn't imply the non-signatories are compelled to cooperate or facilitate with such proceedings. That's pretty much the point of not signing up. It's worth pointing out though that ICC case applications are not normally submitted by the "wider international community" but by directly involved parties. Casting it as "international community" is, IMO, a sure way to further politicize the issue.

[Rhys]

Tough stance... he pulled out?

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

A political football in the U.S. Take note of the 3rd pgh in particular, recounting the evolution from Clinton to Bush to Obama  (and now Trump). Somehow, it's not surprising that anything Obama and his people touched Trump and Co. are looking to destroy.

 

Quote

 

The United States is not a State Party to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (Rome Statute),^[1] which founded the International Criminal Court (ICC) in 2002 as a permanent international criminal court to "bring to justice the perpetrators of the worst crimes known to humankind – war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide", when national courts are unable or unwilling to do so.^[2]
 

As of November 2016, 124 states are members of the Court.^[3] Other states that have not become parties to the Rome Statute include India, Indonesia, and China.^[3] On May 6, 2002, the United States, in a position shared with Israel and Sudan, having previously signed the Rome Statute formally withdrew its signature and indicated that it did not intend to ratify the agreement.^[3]
 

United States policy concerning the ICC has varied widely. The Clinton Administration signed the Rome Statute in 2000, but did not submit it for Senate ratification. The George W. Bush Administration, the U.S. administration at the time of the ICC's founding, stated that it would not join the ICC. The Obama Administration subsequently re-established a working relationship with the Court as an observer.^[4]

 

 

 

The U.S. should be at least working with the ICC, in regards to cases involving U.S. personnel.

 

For Trump and Bolton to personally threaten ICC judges is reprehensible.

 

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

 

Edited September 10, 2018 by TallGuyJohninBKK

[Morch]

12 minutes ago, farcanell said:

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?

 

 

That does sound impressive. Until one recalls that not all of them 120 countries are well-known for being paragons of rule of law, freedom and other related issues. Case in point, LOS. ICC judges can be removed and their performance is evaluated by...? As for the section process being "fairer than the US Supreme Court nominations" - if you say so. No need to actually support the assertion, as it is irrelevant. They are still foreign judges as far as the sovereignty argument goes.

 

That the most most powerful nations are not party to this may be worrisome, but bashing the US alone is kinda lame. And while the number of nations supporting the notion of the ICC vs. those who do not is impressive, the world is still not being run according to a one nation, one vote principal. Being on the other side of the fence doesn't necessarily say a whole lot about the relevant country's own legal landscape.

 

As to your description of ICC considerations, a bit more complex than that, but to address the point made - if a US court (or equivalent military body) rules on such matter, does the ICC have a "right" to intercede? As in cancel the verdict etc. - I think you can see how well this will go down. And, again, this will have to rely on the ICC being impartial and a-political. Considering the reference to the UN - doesn't seem like a winning proposition.

 

Given that there is an issue is an assumption, which sort of exemplifies the problem. There's an investigation. Such usually pertain to the question of whether a case conform to ICC charter and as to whether the county in question is able to sort it out. Another consideration involves weighing the magnitude of the case etc. So not quite what you implied.

 

Seems like you didn't get the point about international law, treaties and conventions and how they relate to politics and interests. Despite appearances, these are products of international relations and politics. They aren't written in stone and handed down from above. Once again, the notion that the world is run as a larger version of national democracies is false. The illusion that the UN (or the ICC) authority nullifies countries' sovereignty by virtue of majority is common, but not quite correct. As an added issue, the US is not even necessarily party to all relevant international treaties and conventions, which is bound to complicate things further.

 

The US legal system is what it is - but it is an American system. It is up to US citizens to change it, if they felt the need. Not quite the same thing as letting a foreign judge, who's legal background and training may rely on different principals take the reins.

[radiochaser]

I am curious if any muslims have been brought before the ICC for the crimes of killing of non-combatants, the killing of hostages, the killing of refugees, the killing of minors, rape, and torture?

I did not find any mention of that during my search on the internet.  

 

[Morch]

29 minutes ago, radiochaser said:

I am curious if any muslims have been brought before the ICC for the crimes of killing of non-combatants, the killing of hostages, the killing of refugees, the killing of minors, rape, and torture?

I did not find any mention of that during my search on the internet.  

 

 

Subjects of ICC cases, even if found guilty, aren't always handed over etc. so actual prosecution and enforcement is not always on. Cases are usually investigated and tried along lines pertaining to nationality, rather than religion. However, at least three cases in countries and conflicts predominantly involving Muslims come to mind - Sudan, Libya and Mali.

 

As with other posts coming from the other side, this one too is a fine example of how ICC related issue are easily utilized in the service of political agendas.

[farcanell]

2 hours ago, Morch said:

The ICC investigation, is essentially a breach of a country's sovereignty, in that it effectively replaces national agencies. Countries who signed up for this, no problems. Countries who didn't, well now...

Really?

how so?

 

Afghanistan is an ICC country.... this has come about because the ICC wants to look at war crimes committed in Afghanistan... so any investigation is in line with that sovereign countries commitments.... similarly, investigations in 119 other countries can be done legally

 

and.... there is no replacement of any national agency... if a country wants to prosecute its own, it can. The ICC will prosecute if that country can not, or will not.

 

countries that have not signed up for this (nor bother prosecuting their own) appear to be the ones that we associate with war crimes... what a coincidence.

[farcanell]

27 minutes ago, Morch said:

However, at least three cases in countries and conflicts predominantly involving Muslims come to mind - Sudan, Libya and Mali.

 

As with other posts coming from the other side, this one too is a fine example of how ICC related issue are easily utilized in the service of political agendas.

Once again... if they prosecute their own, any United Nations foreign policy agenda is null and void ( beyond the agenda of prosecuting war criminals)

 

your insistance on this being political is spurious, at best.... surely you would be better off arguing that the ICC has been largely ineffectual, so should be replaced, vs arguing for the protection of war criminals.... unless your into protecting war criminals

 

 

[farcanell]

2 minutes ago, melvinmelvin said:

well,

you are certainly entitled to firmly believe whatever

 

I'd just like to mention the dungeons that the US has in Cuba, in my view that is way way beyond anything close to civil

very dangerous breed the US is, very

 

An fine example of ICC law breakage that US citizens might be guilty of, even if the US protects them. Wonderful what... protecting war criminals.

 

meanwhile, everyone is up in arms about the Russians poisioning folk in England.

so sad... too bad... Russia, like the USA, appear to favor protecting criminals

[Slip]

37 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Subjects of ICC cases, even if found guilty, aren't always handed over etc. so actual prosecution and enforcement is not always on. Cases are usually investigated and tried along lines pertaining to nationality, rather than religion. However, at least three cases in countries and conflicts predominantly involving Muslims come to mind - Sudan, Libya and Mali.

 

As with other posts coming from the other side, this one too is a fine example of how ICC related issue are easily utilized in the service of political agendas.

 

11 minutes ago, farcanell said:

Really?

how so?

 

Afghanistan is an ICC country.... this has come about because the ICC wants to look at war crimes committed in Afghanistan... so any investigation is in line with that sovereign countries commitments.... similarly, investigations in 119 other countries can be done legally

 

and.... there is no replacement of any national agency... if a country wants to prosecute its own, it can. The ICC will prosecute if that country can not, or will not.

 

countries that have not signed up for this (nor bother prosecuting their own) appear to be the ones that we associate with war crimes... what a coincidence.

Enjoying your debate here gents.  Carry on, as they say.

[Morch]

31 minutes ago, farcanell said:

Really?

how so?

 

Afghanistan is an ICC country.... this has come about because the ICC wants to look at war crimes committed in Afghanistan... so any investigation is in line with that sovereign countries commitments.... similarly, investigations in 119 other countries can be done legally

 

and.... there is no replacement of any national agency... if a country wants to prosecute its own, it can. The ICC will prosecute if that country can not, or will not.

 

countries that have not signed up for this (nor bother prosecuting their own) appear to be the ones that we associate with war crimes... what a coincidence.

 

Signing up to the ICC thing is in essence ceding up sovereignty in certain situations. That's pretty much what you described above. That this is signed up for and therefore voluntary, is hardly the point. Some countries are up for that, some aren't.

 

There is most definitely a replacement of national agencies - if the ICC deems the country's agencies are not up to the task of preforming their obligations, it may intervene. The decision is not the country's, hence a sovereignty issue. Once again, that countries sign up for this is irrelevant to the point.

 

As for your last bit - signing the ICC deal doesn't turn signatories saintly. Moreover, even countries who are supposed signatories to the ICC do not always carry assist it in applying verdicts.

Edited September 10, 2018 by Morch

[Morch]

23 minutes ago, farcanell said:

Once again... if they prosecute their own, any United Nations foreign policy agenda is null and void ( beyond the agenda of prosecuting war criminals)

 

your insistance on this being political is spurious, at best.... surely you would be better off arguing that the ICC has been largely ineffectual, so should be replaced, vs arguing for the protection of war criminals.... unless your into protecting war criminals

 

 

 

The decision as to whether the country's legal and law-enforcement agencies preform their tasks lies with the ICC. So, if the system in question finds someone not guilty, the door is open for an argument regarding performance. Essentially, this is giving an international agency a measure of oversight on national agencies. It can be argued that there are cases where this is merited, and it would probably be right - but the question remains, who gets to decide?

 

My view is that international organizations, their goals and actions, tend to be politicized - or used to promote agendas. You can say "spurious", but have a look at the UN and many of its related bodies - bloc voting, obstructionism, petty tit-for-tat, and a whole lot of competing national interests. Even the OP itself is an example of how the issue is politicized. So "spurious" how, exactly?

 

The ICC has been largely ineffectual. It cannot be otherwise. There is no international uniformity of functioning legal systems, moral standards and law enforcement. Add to this both the political angle (which you seem bent on denying, for some odd reason), and the lack of any way to enforce cooperation or support of proceedings and rulings. As said in one of my first posts - a fine notion with questionable implementation. IMO, it's not so much an issue of replacing it, but of lowering expectations and mission goals to a more realistic levels.

 

And there was no argument for the protection of war criminals. Somehow thought you are above such comments, guess I was wrong.

Edited September 10, 2018 by Morch

[farcanell]

 “That does sound impressive. Until one recalls that not all of them 120 countries are well-known for being paragons of rule of law, freedom and other related issues. Case in point, LOS. ICC judges can be removed and their performance is evaluated by...? As for the section process being "fairer than the US Supreme Court nominations" - if you say so. No need to actually support the assertion, as it is irrelevant. They are still foreign judges as far as the sovereignty argument goes.” By Morch.

 

what? LOS isn’t a member, so not much of a case in point.... the two judges elected from Asia, are from japan and Korea.... they should do, right? Allies of the US that don’t need US help with ICC matters

 

 

“That the most most powerful nations are not party to this may be worrisome, but bashing the US alone is kinda lame. And while the number of nations supporting the notion of the ICC vs. those who do not is impressive, the world is still not being run according to a one nation, one vote principal.”... more Morch

 

lets bash everyone who wants to defend its war criminals.... I’m all for that... most here probably are... but that’s off topic because, again, let me refer you to the OP header...... it’s all about trumps trumpeting

 

and whilst the world is not being blah blah... more irrelevance... prosecute your own and save the world the trouble of dealing with your own war criminals... but I suppose you have to be a wee bit transparent... but hey... then trump can pardon them anyway

 

 

“Being on the other side of the fence doesn't necessarily say a whole lot about the relevant country's own legal landscape.” Morch.

 

yep... so better to stack the courts from within (although reading the lists of sitting judges might educate)... if it was relevant, which it really isn’t, unless again, you want war criminals protected by your governments courts

 

2 hours ago, Morch said:

As to your description of ICC considerations, a bit more complex than that, but to address the point made - if a US court (or equivalent military body) rules on such matter, does the ICC have a "right" to intercede? As in cancel the verdict etc. - I think you can see how well this will go down.

If a US court rules on this matter, then it’s dealt with... again, the ICC will only interfere if a country can not or will not prosecute their own.... so again... irrelevant... that’s how it will go down

 

2 hours ago, Morch said:

Seems like you didn't get the point about international law, treaties and conventions and how they relate to politics and interests.

Of course I got the point... which is why I pointed out that treaties and conventions are taken into consideration.

 

for example, the US is hoping that CIA operatives who tortured taliban members, will be exempt from war crimes because the US and Afghanistan had an assistance agreement of some kind in place... see... got it and even understand it

 

2 hours ago, Morch said:

Given that there is an issue is an assumption, which sort of exemplifies the problem. There's an investigation. Such usually pertain to the question of whether a case conform to ICC charter and as to whether the county in question is able to sort it out. Another consideration involves weighing the magnitude of the case etc. So not quite what you implied.

What? And the color spectrum is red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo and violet.... how much explanation do you need?

 

the ICC will step in if a country is unable or unwilling to prosecute its criminals... yes it’s a simplification.... I didn’t consider supplying the unsimplified encyclopedic sized clarification of how it all works... sorry

 

 

“and politics. They aren't written in stone and handed down from above. Once again, the notion that the world is run as a larger version of national democracies is false. The illusion that the UN (or the ICC) authority nullifies countries' sovereignty by virtue of majority is common, but not quite correct. As an added issue, the US is not even necessarily party to all relevant international treaties and conventions, which is bound to complicate things further”. More by Morch... my iPad is screwed!

 

i didn’t realize that there was a notion that the world was run as a version of a democracy... so I’m happy with you claiming that it’s false... but it is another irrelevant point to make, which has no regards to this topic..... prosecute your own and this is all a non issue

 

 

“The US legal system is what it is - but it is an American system. It is up to US citizens to change it, if they felt the need. Not quite the same thing as letting a foreign judge, who's legal background and training may rely on different principals take the reins.” Last paragraph by Morch.

 

and? ???? the ICC encourages you to use this (the US legal system) to prosecute war criminals and the likes...,so no need to deflect with foreign judge blah blah... unless of course, the US refuses to prosecute their own and thereby green light all war crimes/ criminals.

 

is that what we want in this world... war criminals wandering about with impunity?

 

Lol... of course it’s not, that’s why 124 countries support the ICC, some having to change their constitutions to do so (as would the US).... but again, why is trump talking this up? Lol... quick... look over there... nothing to see here.

[farcanell]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

Signing up to the ICC thing is in essence ceding up sovereignty in certain situations. That's pretty much what you described above. That this is signed up for and therefore voluntary, is hardly the point. Some countries are up for that, some aren't.

 

There is most definitely a replacement of national agencies - if the ICC deems the country's agencies are not up to the task of preforming their obligations, it may intervene. The decision is not the country's, hence a sovereignty issue. Once again, that countries sign up for this is irrelevant to the point.

 

As for your last bit - signing the ICC deal doesn't turn signatories saintly. Moreover, even countries who are supposed signatories to the ICC do not always carry assist it in applying verdicts.

Para one (splitting them up earlier,mconfused the hell outta me, in the end)

irrelevant... 123 countries signed up for the full meat and veggie package

 

31 countries are undecided.... but... they can’t act against the ICC intent, until they make their intentions known, and they agreed to comply with this, until they decide

 

other countries are not effected

 

citizens of those other countries who commit war crimes, might be effected, if those crimes are committed in a signatory state....,but hey, these laws were based on common laws.... and commonly, if someone commits an atrocity in another country, extradition attempts are made, as should be the case for war criminals

 

why did you make the comment about saintly? More irrelevances. 

[farcanell]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

The decision as to whether the country's legal and law-enforcement agencies preform their tasks lies with the ICC. So, if the system in question finds someone not guilty, the door is open for an argument regarding performance. Essentially, this is giving an international agency a measure of oversight on national agencies. It can be argued that there are cases where this is merited, and it would probably be right - but the question remains, who gets to decide?

 

the effected nations have already agreed to managing this... deal done... decision made... over and out.

 

remember... ICC is for war crimes and genocidal stuff ( not pick pocketing or kidnapping, etc etc)... kind of an international hot potatoe at the best of times, and why an international body should deal with it.

 

but again... not a member... not obliged to act like a member...

 

that said, if a US citizen is tried in absentia, (for crimes in another country) and convicted, they will be labeled with harboring a war criminal, if that criminal is protected by the country... and in that case, one can only hope that the rest of the international community puts sanctions on the US, similar to what the US has done in Turkey.... that would be proper.

Edited September 10, 2018 by farcanell

[farcanell]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

And there was no argument for the protection of war criminals. Somehow thought you are above such comments, guess I was wrong.

Lol... so sorry to disappoint... but when the topic is about obstructing or removing a court that deals in war crimes and crimes against humanity and genocide, then I’m afraid that the opposite view is that someone needs protection from these types of crimes... or why complain?

 

what is the US exposure in this...( that might answer my question above.) if none ( as in, we don’t have war criminals) then this is an irrelevant thing to bring up.... except it’s a vet friendly strongman approach, which might make his (trumps) base sit up and howl. (And forget the last few days of embarrassments)

 

 

[candide]

6 hours ago, radiochaser said:

I am curious if any muslims have been brought before the ICC for the crimes of killing of non-combatants, the killing of hostages, the killing of refugees, the killing of minors, rape, and torture?

I did not find any mention of that during my search on the internet.  

 

You'd better search directly on the ICC website. You want Muslims, here there are! As many as you want: Abu Garda, Al Bashir, Al Hassan, Al Mahdi, Al Wefalli, Abdallah Banda, etc.. 

https://www.icc-cpi.int/Pages/cases.aspx

Edited September 10, 2018 by candide

[Scott]

Troll post and reply removed.

 

[robblok]

15 hours ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

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.

 

I would agree, but who sets those limits, and why is it so wrong for an other judge  then an US (who has a big chance to be bias) to look at it.

 

Its not as if US law is applicable on foreign soil.

[Chomper Higgot]

I’m not at all sure on what basis an Investigation by the ICC into alleged war crimes committed within the territory of or against the citizens of a signatory nation is a breach of the sovereignty of the nation who’s citizens are alleged to have committed the crimes.

 

The inquiry serves to determine for the purposes of justice what happened to the victims and if they were subjects of a war crime, who are the alleged war criminals.

 

The inquiry and trial (if there is a trial) serves justice for the victims.

 

Justice is owed to the victims.

 

Let’s hear the arguments why that breaches the sovereignty of the nation who’s citizens are alleged to have committed the crimes?!

 

And I’ve read Candid, Voltaire’s Candide, not he of TVF.

 

That we must accept this is the best of possible worlds has not been an argument for longer than there has been a USA.

Edited September 11, 2018 by Chomper Higgot

[dexterm]

OP...
"Bolton will also say that the State Department will announce the closure of the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) office in Washington out of concern about Palestinian attempts to prompt an ICC investigation of Israel.

...The United States will always stand with our friend and ally, Israel," says Bolton's draft text."

 

This is of course what Trump and Bolton's recent outburst is all about. The tail wagging the dog yet again.

If Israel or its friends won't do anything to stop the war crimes of ethnic cleansing, settlement expansion, illegal occupation and killing unarmed protesters, then perhaps the ICC will. At the very least the facts will be exposed, and perhaps  the politicians who issue these orders will be uncomfortably liable to arrest under an ICC warrant when they travel. Not much, but at least repressive regimes will know that the world is watching and ultimately the truth will out.

 

"In May, a spokesperson for the National Security Council said the White House was weighing closing the PLO mission after the PA’s foreign minister submitted a “referral” to the ICC calling for an investigation of Israeli settlement policies in the West Bank and the violent clashes on the Gaza border."
https://www.timesofisrael.com/us-officially-announces-closure-of-plo-mission-in-washington/
 

[mikebike]

17 hours ago, Morch said:

 

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

So just like every other judiciary in every other jurisdiction.

 

Your argument holds no water, unless your opinion is that no judiciary is legitimate. 

 

[mikebike]

16 hours ago, from the home of CC said:

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. 

So your theory is that people enlist with the expectation that anything they do while in the military is consequence free? That enlistees have no concept of courts martial, international law, or of personal responsibility? Quite a stretch.

[Morch]

 

@farcanell

 

Thanks for taking the time to butcher my post with your editing. I don't think it was intentional but a great success as far as making it difficult to reply to.

 

To try and address your mess of  a response -

 

Thailand was used as an easily accessible example for a country with less then stellar judicial and law enforcement systems. You may replace it with another, if that helps your understanding. Asserting that all countries involved have top notch, reliable and trustworthy judicial and law enforcement systems is not, I think, a factual or realistic take. Citing Japan and Korea is cherry-picking, and deflecting the point made.

 

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. So referencing this seems to be more related to whether it supports the point of view pushed, rather than being a "real" issue. Either you wish it referenced or your don't - make up your mind.

 

What you label "blah blah" is actually an argument which you seem unable to properly address, never mind coherently counter. Basically, your "argument" seems to be that non-member countries need to act in a manner which conforms to ICC membership, regardless. You keep dodging the original question - who gets to decide what's worthy of persecution and which cases are defined as crimes. Your interpretation seems to be that these matters are absolute, or that there is a universally  acceptable, higher authority governing such matters.

 

An accusation that war crimes were committed is not, by itself, proof of such. Demanding prosecution and trials based on the force of such claims is not necessarily reasonable. Same goes for asserting all such accusations are straightforward, and have nothing to do with politics etc. Your nonsense "point" about "want war criminals protected" automatically assumes that such accusations hold merit. No particular reason is given as to why.

 

You seem to have the misguided impression that countries are obliged to open legal proceedings whenever an accusation is leveled. That is not the case. To repeat again - a country may decide that there is no grounds for such proceedings, and dismiss investigation/case. Under your paradigm, this by itself may constitute reason enough for the ICC to intervene. So the only way to avoid ICC intervention would be to actually go forward with all such cases, regardless if the relevant national systems consider them lacking merit. This boils down to ICC effecting the country's sovereignty.

 

And no, you didn't get the point about politics. Or you pretend not to. Can't tell which. Treaties and conventions are a product of international negotiations. These negotiations, spin it one way or another, are political and incorporate interests of involved parties. Same goes for amendments, interpretations and pretty much anything that goes with it. Asserting impartiality, neutrality and balance is nice - but not necessarily realistic.

 

Basically what you support is the notion that the ICC's authority supersedes national sovereignty, and at the ICC's discretion.

 

 

[mikebike]

16 hours ago, Grouse said:

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???

International justice is of no benefit to powerful nations in fact they will all see it as an external imposition on their sovereign power.

 

International justice is of great benefit to nations with little or no hard or soft power.

[mikebike]

16 hours ago, janclaes47 said:

 

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

Which, of course, is not the same as threatening the bank accounts of international judges.

 

45 has taken a big step backward from 43's position.

[dexterm]

2 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

@farcanell

 

Thanks for taking the time to butcher my post with your editing. I don't think it was intentional but a great success as far as making it difficult to reply to.

 

To try and address your mess of  a response -

 

Thailand was used as an easily accessible example for a country with less then stellar judicial and law enforcement systems. You may replace it with another, if that helps your understanding. Asserting that all countries involved have top notch, reliable and trustworthy judicial and law enforcement systems is not, I think, a factual or realistic take. Citing Japan and Korea is cherry-picking, and deflecting the point made.

 

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. So referencing this seems to be more related to whether it supports the point of view pushed, rather than being a "real" issue. Either you wish it referenced or your don't - make up your mind.

 

What you label "blah blah" is actually an argument which you seem unable to properly address, never mind coherently counter. Basically, your "argument" seems to be that non-member countries need to act in a manner which conforms to ICC membership, regardless. You keep dodging the original question - who gets to decide what's worthy of persecution and which cases are defined as crimes. Your interpretation seems to be that these matters are absolute, or that there is a universally  acceptable, higher authority governing such matters.

 

An accusation that war crimes were committed is not, by itself, proof of such. Demanding prosecution and trials based on the force of such claims is not necessarily reasonable. Same goes for asserting all such accusations are straightforward, and have nothing to do with politics etc. Your nonsense "point" about "want war criminals protected" automatically assumes that such accusations hold merit. No particular reason is given as to why.

 

You seem to have the misguided impression that countries are obliged to open legal proceedings whenever an accusation is leveled. That is not the case. To repeat again - a country may decide that there is no grounds for such proceedings, and dismiss investigation/case. Under your paradigm, this by itself may constitute reason enough for the ICC to intervene. So the only way to avoid ICC intervention would be to actually go forward with all such cases, regardless if the relevant national systems consider them lacking merit. This boils down to ICC effecting the country's sovereignty.

 

And no, you didn't get the point about politics. Or you pretend not to. Can't tell which. Treaties and conventions are a product of international negotiations. These negotiations, spin it one way or another, are political and incorporate interests of involved parties. Same goes for amendments, interpretations and pretty much anything that goes with it. Asserting impartiality, neutrality and balance is nice - but not necessarily realistic.

 

Basically what you support is the notion that the ICC's authority supersedes national sovereignty, and at the ICC's discretion.

 

 

>>Basically what you support is the notion that the ICC's authority supersedes national sovereignty, and at the ICC's discretion.

 

So if a sovereign nation is committing war crimes and won't investigate and address the issues, then who will?

[from the home of CC]

16 minutes ago, mikebike said:

So your theory is that people enlist with the expectation that anything they do while in the military is consequence free? That enlistees have no concept of courts martial, international law, or of personal responsibility? Quite a stretch.

What's a stretch is you saying I am commenting on the enlisted expectations. I was commenting on the possible reasons why the US is pushing back on the ICC. That perhaps there is a concern over enlistment numbers going forward.

[Morch]

11 hours ago, farcanell said:

Para one (splitting them up earlier,mconfused the hell outta me, in the end)

irrelevant... 123 countries signed up for the full meat and veggie package

 

31 countries are undecided.... but... they can’t act against the ICC intent, until they make their intentions known, and they agreed to comply with this, until they decide

 

other countries are not effected

 

citizens of those other countries who commit war crimes, might be effected, if those crimes are committed in a signatory state....,but hey, these laws were based on common laws.... and commonly, if someone commits an atrocity in another country, extradition attempts are made, as should be the case for war criminals

 

why did you make the comment about saintly? More irrelevances. 

 

The ICC may carry investigations and whatever other legal proceedings in countries which are signatories. It gets more complicated when it comes to these investigations and proceedings carried out in non-signatory countries.

 

In the first case, the country in question essentially accepts that the ICC (temporarily) superseding/complementing/augmenting/whatever its own agencies and systems. Non-signatories did not take upon themselves to allow such with regard to their own agencies and systems.

 

The notion that foreign (or if it helps, international) bodies possess an authority to conduct such investigations and proceedings in countries which are not signatories and that these countries are compelled to accept such is....interesting.

 

Extradition agreements are normally signed between individual countries, and may stipulate different terms. They do not, on the whole, apply with regard to independent foreign action and proceedings being carried out.

 

The "saintly" comment came to counter your repeated characterizations of rejecting ICC authority as indicating something nefarious. Countries which signed up for the ICC thing have engaged in some horrible actions, others ignored ICC verdicts, and many of them do not possess judicial and law enforcement systems that are a source of pride. Sure, many of the countries rejecting the ICC's authority got a bunch of skeletons in the closet - but that by itself neither makes the arguments presented less succinct, or implies that countries who signed up for this are inherently "better".

 

[Morch]

11 hours ago, farcanell said:

 

the effected nations have already agreed to managing this... deal done... decision made... over and out.

 

remember... ICC is for war crimes and genocidal stuff ( not pick pocketing or kidnapping, etc etc)... kind of an international hot potatoe at the best of times, and why an international body should deal with it.

 

but again... not a member... not obliged to act like a member...

 

that said, if a US citizen is tried in absentia, (for crimes in another country) and convicted, they will be labeled with harboring a war criminal, if that criminal is protected by the country... and in that case, one can only hope that the rest of the international community puts sanctions on the US, similar to what the US has done in Turkey.... that would be proper.

 

The "effected" nations may accept this or that, it doesn't follow that all countries see things in the same way or accept the same things. Your "argument" doesn't even relate to what I posted in this regard.

 

The ICC may be designated as related to the "heavy duty" cases, yes. But take, for example, the frequency in which terms like "war crimes", "crimes against humanity", "ethnic cleansing", "genocide" and whatnot are tossed about in this forum - regardless of whether these conform to facts, legal definitions or the gravity of events. The same applies with regard to motions forwarded to the ICC. Whether or not the ICC decides to take action, these instances are often politically exploited. You seem to approve of each and every allegation meriting advanced legal proceedings, while ignoring the issue of political motivation.

 

I've said it before - the ICC is a fine idea with a less than stellar implementation. And it cannot be otherwise under prevailing circumstances.

 

As for the scenario described - no need to imagine. Many a signatory countries ignore the ICC's verdict with regard to Sudan (for example), and avoid arrest and extradition of those charged. As far as I know, there weren't any sanctions applied as a result etc. What the US sanctions on Turkey got to do with it is a mystery.