S/E Asian Thai Consulates going to eVisa online system effective Tuesday Oct 8th

[Morch]

11 hours ago, farcanell said:

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)

 

 

 

No, that would be you making a contrived misrepresentation. Show a single comment of mine which endorsed "protection of war criminals".

 

There could definitely be disagreements, though, on whether certain actions amount or constitute war crimes. I'd venture that most posters tossing such terms about are less than experts on the actual legal issues, and are more concentrated on expressing their political convictions.

 

Take, for example, your insistence on the "fact" that there were war crimes committed (or that protection for "war criminals" is sought). Neither is supported - and to be clear, initiating a case with the ICC is not quite the same thing, nor is an ICC investigation. Some may go even further, and assert that even ICC verdicts are not cast in stone - but we're not quite there yet, even.

[Morch]

3 hours ago, robblok said:

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.

 

It isn't "wrong" for foreign judges to "look at it". The issue (disregarding the Trump-Bolton hyper-version) is more to do with conducting such proceedings in countries which are not party to the ICC.

[dexterm]

33 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

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.

>>The ICC may be designated as related to the "heavy duty" cases, yes
...so who decides which are heavy duty cases. Doesn't the ICC do a preliminary investigation to judge the seriousness of the allegations and whether the initial findings warrant a full prosecution, if the accused government has not conducted a satisfactory investigation of its own?

 

Without the ICC who will be the umpire?

Edited September 11, 2018 by dexterm

[Morch]

 

@Chomper Higgot

 

With regard to sovereignty - as far as the such proceedings are carried out within signatory countries and with their approval, not (or not supposed to be, Trump-Bolton nonsense aside) an issue for non-signatory countries. Conducting such proceedings in non-signatory country, though, is a different matter.

[melvinmelvin]

I like this one;

 

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.

 

cut from an entry above

 

so true,

and that statement applies to almost all such constructions,

good thinking behind, less than good realization.

 

can't be helped as long as you must satisfy the whims of 100-umpteen sovereign states.

must live with this

 

interesting thread this, I've spent close to all my professional life in international orgs working with treaty stuff,

interesting but Sisyfos style work

 

re convictions - sanctions - etc

 

French colleague of my advocates the following:

 

icc my there icc my here, ecj my here ecj my there etc / conviction / sanction / forget it, the only sanction of any value is that you dont drink coffee with the offenders during breaks

 

 

 

 

Edited September 11, 2018 by melvinmelvin

[Morch]

3 hours ago, dexterm said:

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/
 

 

Nope, that would be you banging the same drum while disregarding facts and previous topics where this was discussed in length.

 

What you fail to mention is that opening the Palestinian mission in Washington was conditioned by certain terms. Among them, was the Palestinian side agreeing to refrain from initiating actions against Israel in the ICC and such. This term, along with others are part of he law which allowed the opening of the Palestinian mission. You may choose to ignore such terms, or assert that they are "unfair", or advocate that the US ignore its laws to fit your agenda, but it doesn't alter the reality of their existence. Over the years, the Palestinian made attempts to check the boundaries with regard to this condition, finally resulting in a warning by Tillerson earlier in Trump's term. So actually, not much of a surprise there.

 

Your posts exemplifies the issues inherent with the ICC and politics - your announce "war crimes", "ethnic cleansing" and whatnot as if they were facts rather than your interpretation of events, and of course, no context provided (or at least, not one which does not promote your one-sided view. Treating the ICC as just another propaganda tool is one good reason to be weary on this front.

[Morch]

1 hour ago, mikebike said:

So just like every other judiciary in every other jurisdiction.

 

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

 

 

The poster I replied to advocated the supposed impartiality of ICC judges. My comment was to the effect that this is not necessarily the case.

 

You may say that this issue is present in any judicial system, but the point is that it is of that system. What would be the point or the value of importing such from the outside? All the more so when international relations are the issue at hand?

 

My argument isn't what you imagine it to be.

[Morch]

1 hour 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.

 

It is not a stretch for soldiers to expect legal protection with regard to actions taken during their service. Granted, not a wholesale exemption from all wrongdoing. But then there's a whole range of actions, decisions and orders which do not always fall neatly under labels, or are open to interpretation. Soldiers need to be aware of the basics do-and-do-not's, but expecting them to be legal experts or carry out missions while accompanied by legal representatives is absurd.

 

I think we can dispense with the all or nothing formulations, but maybe that's just me.

[dexterm]

16 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Nope, that would be you banging the same drum while disregarding facts and previous topics where this was discussed in length.

 

What you fail to mention is that opening the Palestinian mission in Washington was conditioned by certain terms. Among them, was the Palestinian side agreeing to refrain from initiating actions against Israel in the ICC and such. This term, along with others are part of he law which allowed the opening of the Palestinian mission. You may choose to ignore such terms, or assert that they are "unfair", or advocate that the US ignore its laws to fit your agenda, but it doesn't alter the reality of their existence. Over the years, the Palestinian made attempts to check the boundaries with regard to this condition, finally resulting in a warning by Tillerson earlier in Trump's term. So actually, not much of a surprise there.

 

Your posts exemplifies the issues inherent with the ICC and politics - your announce "war crimes", "ethnic cleansing" and whatnot as if they were facts rather than your interpretation of events, and of course, no context provided (or at least, not one which does not promote your one-sided view. Treating the ICC as just another propaganda tool is one good reason to be weary on this front.

>>What you fail to mention is that opening the Palestinian mission in Washington was conditioned by certain terms. Among them, was the Palestinian side agreeing to refrain from initiating actions against Israel in the ICC and such.

 

Well, that's mighty strange.

Because the PLO office in Washington was opened in 1994, and the Rome Statute wasn't adopted till 1998, and the ICC didn't start functioning till 2002.

 

If anyone has since moved the goalposts it's the USA.

[Morch]

1 hour ago, dexterm said:

>>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?

 

Them loaded questions. There will have to be an agreement that war crimes were indeed committed. That's somewhat different than your rants asserting as much. The same goes for investigations - countries may investigate and decide not to prosecute, which in your book seems to automatically disqualify the investigation. So essentially, "won't investigate" translates as "won't take actions conforming to my views".

 

In today's world (as if you weren't aware of it) such things boil down to how superpowers see things (or which interests are served), and are often played out in the UNSC. Granted, the UNSC is a flawed instrument, but it is what it is. The ICC's authority does not (to the best of my understanding) supersede that of the UNSC.

[Morch]

44 minutes ago, dexterm said:

>>The ICC may be designated as related to the "heavy duty" cases, yes
...so who decides which are heavy duty cases. Doesn't the ICC do a preliminary investigation to judge the seriousness of the allegations and whether the initial findings warrant a full prosecution, if the accused government has not conducted a satisfactory investigation of its own?

 

Without the ICC who will be the umpire?

 

You seem to feel qualified yourself. Sort of what the rest of the paragraph addressed.

 

As posted several times, non-signatory countries may view the ICC as open to bias, representing hostile interests or likely to ignore what they perceive as relevant context. So there is no universal consensus (yes, I'm aware of all them countries into it, but three superpowers plus a few others do make a chunk) on this score. You're postulating that there's an agreement about the ICC being an "umpire", whereas there is no such universal agreement.

 

You may resent the world not being a perfect place, or not being run according to your expectations, but it is what it is. The current level of international cooperation is not absolute. There is not world government. There is no agreed upon "umpire".

[simple1]

Trump attack on ICC is the unacceptable face of US exceptionalism

 

Trump says he is fighting for US sovereignty. But to the rest of the world, it looks like the unacceptable face of American exceptionalism.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/sep/10/trump-attack-on-icc-is-the-unacceptable-face-of-us-exceptionalism

[dexterm]

14 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Them loaded questions. There will have to be an agreement that war crimes were indeed committed. That's somewhat different than your rants asserting as much. The same goes for investigations - countries may investigate and decide not to prosecute, which in your book seems to automatically disqualify the investigation. So essentially, "won't investigate" translates as "won't take actions conforming to my views".

 

In today's world (as if you weren't aware of it) such things boil down to how superpowers see things (or which interests are served), and are often played out in the UNSC. Granted, the UNSC is a flawed instrument, but it is what it is. The ICC's authority does not (to the best of my understanding) supersede that of the UNSC.

What an amazing strawman fantasy.

 

It's not my definitive job nor yours nor Trump nor Bolton's to prejudge what is and what is not a war crime. We can all have opinions.

 

Why not leave that job to the experts... the initial ICC investigators.

[Morch]

31 minutes ago, dexterm said:

>>What you fail to mention is that opening the Palestinian mission in Washington was conditioned by certain terms. Among them, was the Palestinian side agreeing to refrain from initiating actions against Israel in the ICC and such.

 

Well, that's mighty strange.

Because the PLO office in Washington was opened in 1994, and the Rome Statute wasn't adopted till 1998, and the ICC didn't start functioning till 2002.

 

If anyone has since moved the goalposts it's the USA.

 

Yawn. Seriously...nitpicking is all you've got? Back when you refer to, there were similar provisions included, obviously worded differently, but amounting to the same - the Palestinian side agreeing to refrain from taking up certain diplomatic and legal actions on various international venues. If you wish to ignore these things being incorporated into US law, go right ahead.

 

As for the "moved the goal posts" bit - other than being counterfactual, it doesn't even apply. The US is not obligated to keep laws, policies and international relations unchanged, not even if your political views demand it.

 

 

[mikebike]

2 hours ago, from the home of CC said:

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.

If the premise that enlistees will not sign up because they are not fully indemnified from wrongdoing is baloney, it logically follows that concern over that baloney is baloney as well. 

[Morch]

24 minutes ago, simple1 said:

Trump attack on ICC is the unacceptable face of US exceptionalism

 

Trump says he is fighting for US sovereignty. But to the rest of the world, it looks like the unacceptable face of American exceptionalism.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/sep/10/trump-attack-on-icc-is-the-unacceptable-face-of-us-exceptionalism

 

I'm not supportive of Trump-Bolton's threats and manner. Nor do I think they have much of a case when it comes to the ICC conducting proceedings outside of the US. The default "solution" of resorting to economic sanctions, slowly erodes both the US's diplomatic stature and, in the long term, may result in some sort of coalesced response, undermining their effectiveness.

 

That said - "unacceptable" by whom? As the author himself acknowledges, the US isn't alone in rejecting the ICC's authority. China, Russia, India and a few smaller states accounts for a fair chunk of the world's population, never mind economic and military might. It doesn't, to head off expected comments make their position "right". It's just not quite the minority POV often touted. Add to this a bunch of African countries (mentioned in the article) already either tittering or in violation of  terms.

 

As said earlier, people put way too much stock in labels. The ICC is a label, and not a particularly strong, popular of even effective one. Yes, it would have been better if all countries would have done their best etc., but back in the real world, things rarely pan this way.

[farcanell]

2 hours 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.

 

 

Para one... sorry.... I was trying to address individual points in a long post, and in hindsight, it was a mess. I believed I already addressed that, but again, my bad..... so let’s try this

 

para two.... cherry picking japan and Korea as examples of Asian judges.... Sorry... but... japan, Korea and Cambodia are your choices in nominees.... ergo Cambodia is your proper example... but... the ICC needs to approve nominees, so Cambodian nominees would probably fail the step... so... your choices just dropped back to Korea and Japan.

Demonstrably not cherry picking

 

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

here you go.... add Iraq, Yemen, USA, isreal, China, Libya and Qatar..... all good company

 

para four... when I drop in a blah blah, or two, it’s because the point is irrelevant, repetitive or misleading.... this comment below is what I blah blahed ... (if I did it more often, point that out too).... but... what’s this got to do with anything...  no it’s not run by one vote principles, which isn’t unusual ( look at trump, for example... lost the one vote election)... anyway.... who said it was?... and how is it relevant.... anyway... you say I did it (blah blah) to avoided addressing a point... please clarify what point/ argument I avoided

 

17 hours ago, Morch said:

the world is still not being run according to a one nation, one vote principal.

Further, I don’t think I have suggested that non member states should act like member states... if I did, I was wrong in saying that because it’s stupid to suggest that Yemen, for example, will act like ... say... Norway

 

and yep... my interpretation is that there is an acceptable higher authority.... definitely not universally accepted. So.. acceptable by most of the world, because they ratified the Rome deal, with 31 countries agreeing to not interfer in ICC matters.... I’m pretty sure that the negotiators were smarter than me, so I accept my countries acceptance of ICC law and procedures

 

now... fun facts to rail against... if the UN identify a person to investigate, member states have to allow the investigation under UN law... so to give the ICC the finger is to give the UN the finger

 

oh... jurisdiction.... see attached.

.

Para five... you are correct in that an accusation does not mean guilty... courts all over the world see not guilty verdicts... that’s proper... but to not address an accusation, is not proper, such as church covered up pedo abuse.

 

the demand isn’t for prosecution, it’s for investigation, which may or may not result in charges.. that’s proper, no?

 

and... that accused war criminals are actual war criminals because the government protects them by refusing to play with the ICC is not my assumption... it’s speculation... much like taking / pleading the fifth suggests something to hide... speculation

 

if the UN identifies US citizens as war criminals, then according to UN law, it should comply with ICC investigation so the US, in refusing to co operate, is going against its existing treaties and international agreements... but that’s an aside, because nobody is investigating US personel (yet)

 

para six.. I think... ICC vs sovereignty.... well... again... member states have accepted this invasion on their sovereignty to investigate and prosecute (if deemed nessesarily) those accused of the most heinous of crimes, such as genocide and war crimes.... so not an argument because they wants it baby, as shown by ratification of the ICC deal... if they change their mind, they can withdraw, such as with the Philippines, not so long ago ( because Duarte doesn’t want to be prosecuted for the mass killings going on in his name.) so not an argument

 

your arguing about the wants and not of non members... they don’t have to comply unless bound by another treaty ( oh dear... look at me talking treaties)... in which case they can withdraw from that, too. Easy work around.

 

another aside... with the laws as is in the USA, I can’t see the ICC saying that US military trials would fail to be legitimate ( the line for interference)

 

para seven... of course I understand the politics involved, but if you wish to believe otherwise... ok

 

para eight.... I don’t agree with your statement.

 

i believe member states should cooperate with the ICC, per their commitment... make a commitment and stick with it (or publicly withdraw if the commitment is not to be honored).... and its not nessesarily at the ICCs discretion.... in the case of the US, it would be down to the UNs discretion... maybe the US can nullify investigations in the UN.... don’t know... but it can withdraw from the UN.

 

too mutt... probably not easier to read

[Morch]

33 minutes ago, dexterm said:

What an amazing strawman fantasy.

 

It's not my definitive job nor yours nor Trump nor Bolton's to prejudge what is and what is not a war crime. We can all have opinions.

 

Why not leave that job to the experts... the initial ICC investigators.

 

As usual, you dodge the actual comment and reply to some imaginary point serving your agenda. But do go on about "strawmen", by all means....

 

No, it isn't your job, and yet you habitually present your opinions as facts. Moreover, haranguing other posters when they qualify their own. In the same manner, "leaving the job for experts" is hardly something which you practice in your rants - there cases are pronounced upon on the spot.

 

There is no universal agreement regarding the ICC's role or impartiality.

[farcanell]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

. Soldiers need to be aware of the basics do-and-do-not's, but expecting them to be legal experts or carry out missions while accompanied by legal representatives is absurd.

 

 

Here we go.... you are 100% accurate here... soldiers need to be aware of basic dos and donts

 

for example ..... don’t commit acts of genocide.... don’t indiscriminately kill multiples of people posing no threat.... .... oh come on, the ICC is about the most heinous of crimes... ones not worth trivializing.

 

 

[farcanell]

2 hours ago, Morch said:

 

No, that would be you making a contrived misrepresentation. Show a single comment of mine which endorsed "protection of war criminals".

 

Quote

 

Take, for example, your insistence on the "fact" that there were war crimes committed (or that protection for "war criminals" is sought). Neither is supported - and to be clear, initiating a case with the ICC is not quite the same thing, nor is an ICC investigation. Some may go even further, and assert that even ICC verdicts are not cast in stone - but we're not quite there yet, even.

Umm... you endorse protection of war criminals by supporting the US position to not cooperate with ICC investigations, even when said investigations can be initiated by the UN, which then requires its member states to co operate, which, assumedly, the US will not do, even though the US agreed to this within the UN. (No veto)

 

now... as to my insistence that it’s fact that war crimes were committed.... what? Where? Which ones?

 

But hey, if you want to throw my facts at me.... to clarify, war crimes have been committed previously, and in handling some of those cases, the UN concluded a specific court was required for war crimes... hence the ICC.

Edited September 11, 2018 by farcanell

[dexterm]

14 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

As usual, you dodge the actual comment and reply to some imaginary point serving your agenda. But do go on about "strawmen", by all means....

 

No, it isn't your job, and yet you habitually present your opinions as facts. Moreover, haranguing other posters when they qualify their own. In the same manner, "leaving the job for experts" is hardly something which you practice in your rants - there cases are pronounced upon on the spot.

 

There is no universal agreement regarding the ICC's role or impartiality.

You didn't make any points, just rambled on imagining what my thoughts on the subject were then attacking them as a strawman.

 

We are all entitled to our opinions. That's what a public forum is about.

 

"There is no universal agreement regarding the ICC's role or impartiality."
..says who?

"and yet you habitually present your opinions as facts." ?

 

[Morch]

 

@farcanell

 

I've no idea why you're fixated on Japan and Korea etc. The point made was illustrative, to the effect that different countries have judicial and law enforcement of different caliber and credibility. Not all of them stellar. To follow your take on how judges are appointed - two obvious issues: one, the pool of candidates would not be as internationally comprehensive as advertised, and two, "ICC needs to approve" is a bit of recursive argument.

 

As for bringing up other countries - You're all for that in the context of criticizing the US, but reject the same on other instances as "off-topic". Do make up your mind. That you repeat the same copy-paste list is neither here nor there.

 

When you "drop blah blah" doesn't actually mean that the comments referred to are "irrelevant, repetitive or misleading", that's just your opinion - and one which you failed to support in any meaningful way. Going on about how many countries signed up for the ICC thing vs. how many did not, and using this comparison to assert the ICC's status or authority is, in itself, "irrelevant" and "misleading". It seems to imply that such matters are decided by virtue of a majority, whereas in the real world, things do not always work out this way. In terms of population, economy, military might and diplomatic influence - it isn't quite as straightforward as implied. Hence the comment about the world not being run according to one nation, one vote.

 

The point made with regard to expecting non member states to act like member states is in that you do seem to expect non member states to conform. As in asserting that if they wish to avoid the ICC intervening, they ought to go ahead and follow the procedures prescribed. What's the difference in expectations, then, relative to member states?

 

Your interpretation of the ICC being accepted as a higher authority notwithstanding, the fact stands that there are countries seeing things otherwise. These countries may be fewer in number, but that's kinda misleading when looking at what these countries represent. This goes back to how one defines "most of the world", and to whether "most of the world" is a construct/proposition which carries any authority. That you accept the ICC on a personal level is immaterial, if that was a point.

 

Legal systems all over the world also neglect to take legal procedures on a host of accusation, for various reasons (not all illegitimate). Deciding on conducting a formal investigation is, by itself, a legal procedure - so I can see how some parties would object to that, as it automatically raises the stakes or implies substance. I think another issue is as to how national systems' investigations are assessed. If there is an investigation by local authorities and the case is dismissed, or comes to naught - what is the scope of the ICC's mandate regarding intervention.

 

To be clear (and I've said so on other posts) non-signatory countries may object or refrain from cooperating with investigation within their own jurisdiction or as far as their sovereignty goes. That doesn't relate to investigations of non-signatory country's actions carried out in a signatory country's turf.

 

And we'll have to disagree as to your "speculation". Someone accused of being a war criminal isn't an actual war criminal. It isn't like taking/pleading the Fifth, and even if it was - still doesn't convey guilt.

 

I don't know that there's such a thing as "UN law" or that the US ever accepted such to have a superseding status with regard to its own laws. That you think it should be like that is another matter. Considering the US isn't necessarily a signatory for all related "UN laws", agreements and treaties (case in point, the ICC) - it would not be "going against" such. That seems to be, again, a case of expecting non-signatory country to conform with the obligations of signatories.

 

Countries signing up for such things as the ICC, and thereby voluntarily (conditionally and temporarily) relinquishing their sovereignty is a choice. That some countries go for it doesn't make the potential loss of sovereignty any less real or weakens the argument. At the bottom line, the ICC can, technically, decide as it sees fit and as it wishes. Yes, countries may opt out (and quite a few are tittering) but that sort of defeats the purpose of the ICC. Same goes for any other instance of international treaty and convention. If the default is simply to withdraw, then the framework is flawed. Sort of like the "if you don't like it here then leave" comments on TVF .

[dexterm]

Interesting comment from David Scheffer, the man who established the ICC on behalf of the US and served as the country’s ambassador-at-large for war crimes issues. He sees Trump's move as a sign of weakness not strength, further isolating US influence on the world stage. 

 

“The Bolton speech today isolates the United States from international criminal justice and severely undermines our leadership in bringing perpetrators of atrocity crimes to justice elsewhere in the world.

 

“The double standard set forth in his speech will likely play well with authoritarian regimes, which will resist accountability for atrocity crimes and ignore international efforts to advance the rule of law. This was a speech soaked in fear and Bolton sounded the message, once again, that the United States is intimidated by international law and multilateral organizations."

 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/sep/10/john-bolton-castigate-icc-washington-speech

[Morch]

1 hour ago, farcanell said:

Here we go.... you are 100% accurate here... soldiers need to be aware of basic dos and donts

 

for example ..... don’t commit acts of genocide.... don’t indiscriminately kill multiples of people posing no threat.... .... oh come on, the ICC is about the most heinous of crimes... ones not worth trivializing.

 

 

 

Here we go, indeed. Yet another post you quote partially and out of context. Guess the other parts didn't fit the rant. How about trying some of the "dispense with the all or nothing formulations" offered in the original post?

[from the home of CC]

2 hours ago, mikebike said:

If the premise that enlistees will not sign up because they are not fully indemnified from wrongdoing is baloney, it logically follows that concern over that baloney is baloney as well. 

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?

[Morch]

1 hour ago, farcanell said:

 

Umm... you endorse protection of war criminals by supporting the US position to not cooperate with ICC investigations, even when said investigations can be initiated by the UN, which then requires its member states to co operate, which, assumedly, the US will not do, even though the US agreed to this within the UN. (No veto)

 

now... as to my insistence that it’s fact that war crimes were committed.... what? Where? Which ones?

 

But hey, if you want to throw my facts at me.... to clarify, war crimes have been committed previously, and in handling some of those cases, the UN concluded a specific court was required for war crimes... hence the ICC.

 

You either have comprehension issues or plain trolling. There is nothing whatsoever in my posts that amounts to endorsement of protection of war criminals. That's your wild imagination at work, or your inability to admit you've made a false statement.

 

To refer back to your own posts, you conceded that you are speculating, and that accusation does not amount to guilt. That you assert similarities with taking/pleading the Fifth, doesn't make it so - nor would even that imply guilt.

 

And there was nothing whatsoever said against war criminals facing justice. Nowhere in my posts. That I can understand how accepting ICC's authority on these matters can be an issue is irrelevant to your faux argument.

 

War criminals can be prosecuted by national judicial systems. No objections to that raised anywhere.

 

Your take on how investigations are initiated is flawed, and you keep mixing various bodies in various capacities. I doubt that there's actually such a line of argument as you present, or that it is generally accepted to be meaningful. The "no veto" bit is unclear.

[Morch]

1 hour ago, dexterm said:

You didn't make any points, just rambled on imagining what my thoughts on the subject were then attacking them as a strawman.

 

We are all entitled to our opinions. That's what a public forum is about.

 

"There is no universal agreement regarding the ICC's role or impartiality."
..says who?

"and yet you habitually present your opinions as facts." ?

 

 

That would be you trolling. Again. Here's my original post, feel free to revisit your nonsense:

 

https://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/1056672-trump-administration-to-take-tough-stance-against-international-criminal-court/?page=8&tab=comments#comment-13355232

 

As expected, you deflect by replying and referencing only bits of the post - while pretending them parts you have no answer for do not exist. Your views on this and related issues have been aired in numerous topics - if you wish to call your own posts imaginary, that's fine. And yes, we are all entitled to our opinions, the point made was that you tend to present them as facts, regardless of whether that's the case or not. In the context of the current exchange, that's a rather succinct point, even if an uncomfortable one as far as you are concerned.

 

There is no universal agreement regarding the ICC's role or impartiality. Says who? Says them countries who did not subscribe to the concept or accept its authority. Says them African countries who effectively neglected to act on the ICC's ruling regarding persons involved in the Darfur case. 

[Morch]

40 minutes ago, dexterm said:

Interesting comment from David Scheffer, the man who established the ICC on behalf of the US and served as the country’s ambassador-at-large for war crimes issues. He sees Trump's move as a sign of weakness not strength, further isolating US influence on the world stage. 

 

“The Bolton speech today isolates the United States from international criminal justice and severely undermines our leadership in bringing perpetrators of atrocity crimes to justice elsewhere in the world.

 

“The double standard set forth in his speech will likely play well with authoritarian regimes, which will resist accountability for atrocity crimes and ignore international efforts to advance the rule of law. This was a speech soaked in fear and Bolton sounded the message, once again, that the United States is intimidated by international law and multilateral organizations."

 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/sep/10/john-bolton-castigate-icc-washington-speech

 

 

Quote

Though Scheffer signed the Rome Statute that established the ICC on behalf of the U.S. in 2000, he was a highly vocal critic of many aspects of the court and the negotiation process. He particularly opposed the prohibition on any party making reservations to the Rome Statute and the manner in which the Statute structured the court's jurisdiction.

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

[simple1]

Perhaps blindingly obvious, but think it is worth reminding...

 

Being a member nation of the UN does not equate to compliance with all UN Treaties / Conventions etc. Each member nation must individually ratify UN law to demonstrate compliance / agreement. In the case of the ICC, indeed other UN legislation, the US and other countries have specifically declined to ratify or have formally lodge exceptions to compliance to aspects of UN legislation a nation has ratified e.g. Convention for Refugees; some detail below.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_Relating_to_the_Status_of_Refugees#Noncompliance

 

IMO the OP is yet another example of the Trump Administration's ideological driven efforts to destroy all forms of liberalism, which more likely than not, US citizens will come to regret.

[farcanell]

@Morch

para one... I’m not fixated on japan and Korea.... they are your two Asian choices.... Asian choices was brought up by you, suggesting some aren’t worthy of providing judges.... whatever... your choices only really include japan and Korea.... 

Change the narrative if you like, and we can look at judges from Europe, and their suitability... I don’t care, because I’m not fixated

 

not sure about your comments on judge suitability... to be nominated, they must be of the highest court of the land... contextually, if the US played, they would nominate Supreme Court judges, so I’m sure that 18 appropriately qualified judges could be found from 120 countries, and I’m not sure why you disagree

 

para two... I supplied a copy of a page showing non member states specifically because you asked for a list on this. I have not seen it supplied earlier, so not repetitive, per your claim ( really? Ask for a list then complain when it’s supplied??)

 

as to me critising the US herein.... dude... that’s the topic.

i will critise Iraq for the same thing... no worries... but it’s OT... so if you would like, I will send you a pm on it

 

para three...  correct... blah blah is an expression of my opinion that the point you were illustrating was irrelevant etc etc... and not worth discussing in this context... but hey... if you like... yep, the world is not one nation one vote principle... it’s more arguable that “might is right”

 

herein we see the US exercising it’s “might”.... or rather, signaling it’s intent to use strong arm bully boy tactics... or rather, the trump administrations tactics.

 

para four... I’m am not making those claims. Again ( for the umpteenth time) I expect member states to uphold their commitment to the body... or to remove itself from the body.

i make no claims about non members having to also comply, other than as a moral issue, should a citizen of said state be proven guilty of a war crime... an example here might be sadam Hussein, had he lived, as Iraq is not a member nation

herein is perhaps an example of a nation being unable or unwilling to prosecute one of its citizens.

whats your opinion on him... prosecute or live and let live?

 

para five... I’ve already supplied you the link outlining your question... no one said it was easy...,it sent domestically, it only stands to reason that it will be more complicated internationally... who here disputes that?

 

but... surely mending a faulty system that the worlds representative agree is needed (the UN), rather than trashing it sans replacement model.... that’s opinion too.

 

para six... not very clear... but to be clear... non signatory countries don’t have to participate, unless it’s a UN initiated investigation/ prosecution. Not complying then puts the country in an adversarial position with the UN... my opinion... if something went that far, the US should comply with UN dictates or remove itself from that body. ( but it won’t go that far, because the US will clean up its own mess , if one exists, in its own courts... under another president)

and... non signatory country citizens can indeed be done for crimes committed on signatory soil

 

regards most of the world... I’m looking at sovereign countries vs population.... I think that’s a fair way of addressing international issues vs “might is right”, if you espouse population dictating issues.

 

as to me personally, the representative leaders of my nation made a choice for me, as is their job...,this decision is acceptable to the entire country... if it were not, we would have it as a voting issue and in need, withdraw per Duarte withdrawing

 

para seven... if it’s a legitimate investigation etc... the ICC scope is nil.

now query what is and isn’t legitimate, if you like, but for brevity, do you think the US would cover over investigations of international war crimes or acts of genocide committed by its citizens... my opinion... I think not

 

para eight.... again... correct.. accused does not mean guilty... never said so... dude... our laws say innocent till proven guilty. I hold to that.... but also, accusations should be addressed, as is common in our societies, so why complain about it internationally? 

 

My analogy regards the fifth stands. You plead the fifth to avoid self incrimination and resultant prosecution.... and...  you refuse to participate in international courts to avoid  prosecution.

 

im sure there are better analogies, but that one is near enough to make the point

 

para nine.... see attachment... the link was supplied a couple of posts ago, but is clear to see on the attachment.... draw your own opinion on it.... mine is that UN members are obliged to cooperate with UN initiated investigations. The US is a UN member... so....

 

para nine... ??? I agree.... sort of

if a country is a UN member and the UN initiated an investigation through the ICC, then as a UN member, it should co operate... it agreed to cooperate, as a member of the UN, so ante up

 

i fail to see issues against sovereignty.... we are talking persecution of war criminals... 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

 

oh...and..., ergo the ICC is not the all powerful institute that you portray, deciding what it likes... checks and balances... that’s the way to do it