Words sentences that are offensive

[Athens]

Torture and war crimes are legal actions in US army ?

[dexterm]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

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. 

>>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.
..well they would say that wouldn't they? A circular argument. The ICC may find evidence of war crimes in their country's activities, so they attempt to undermine the ICC by not accepting their authority, just as Bolton and Trump are doing now.

 

The only thing undermined is their own credibility.

 

Edited September 11, 2018 by dexterm

[dexterm]

53 minutes ago, Morch 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

 

And the point of your copy/paste is...?

Edited September 11, 2018 by dexterm

[farcanell]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

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.

Let’s work backwards on this one, to change things around a bit.

 

para five.... my take on investigations.... I don’t know the minutes of how that all works... I don’t claim too.... but there is a process. And what various bodies am I incorrectly mixing.

the “no veto” comment suggests that neither the US nor other UN veto members, exercised that right when formulating the ICC... the US even signed up for it, but backed out.

by exercising veto rights, the ICC may never have been.

 

para four...yes they can.... providing a court infrastructure exists and its both capable and willing. The US is raising this now to energize the republican support base, as it’s almost a non issue for the US, because US citizens have not been accused.... but trump sounds like a strongman yapping his gums about nothing

 

“nothing”... because he won’t be in power by the time the ICC looks at Afghanistan, if it looks.... and I would think that a real president would cooperate in punishing war criminals, even if its legitimately via US courts.... that’s all that’s needed... that’s all that’s wanted by the international community. The US can deliver that Justice... no contest ... anywhere.

 

Para three...  The prime directive of the ICC is war criminals... opposing a body whose purpose is to chase war criminals, is in effect, protecting them, in most cases.

 

the US only had to say that they would investigate war crime allegations per their military code or whatever, and that’s everyone happy... everyone... and they can do that, if they want. But no... it was rolled out as a middle finger to the world, sending a clear message that it would not allow prosecution of US citizens who might have tortured some good folk in the Stan or any other of a number of places.... ergo... protection of accused war criminals. 

 

Para two... yep... some speculation... some biased opinion... some demonstrable facts. Oh... some honesty in acknowledging this, not that it matters, as having covered so much ground, speculation, opinion and facts are all going to be thrown in... normal, no?

 

para one... covered already in this post... but again, trump is refusing to cooperate, in any way, with an international court dealing with war criminals, and wants it gone..... removing a system that investigates and prosecutes war criminals... you are herein enforcing trumps decision

 

 

 

[farcanell]

21 minutes ago, dexterm said:

And the point of your copy/paste is...?

I thought the point was that he was getting the point ???

[farcanell]

5 hours ago, Morch said:

 

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.

 

3 hours 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?”... per Morch.

 

there ya go... origional post added, plus my reply... plus your observation..... now... how am I out of context?

 

This topic has little to do with the average soldier... and everything to do with prosecuting hypothetical war criminals. Soldiers know what’s right and wrong.....,war criminals know when they commit war crimes... if you wish to perhaps insist that grey areas exist, which I would probably agree with, then these should be dealt with by counsel in a transparent manner, thereby standardizing expectations, perhaps.

 

[Chomper Higgot]

Throughout this thread the suggestion is made that the ICC investigation is a breach of US sovereignty.

 

However:

 

Afghanistan is a signatory to the ICC, the investigation being undertaken by the ICC relates to alleged war crimes committed in Afghanistan and/or against people who were captured in Afghanistan and removed to other national territories where they were allegedly subjected to treatment constituting war crimes.

 

Since the purpose of the investigation is to determine if these allegations are true in order to serve justice for the alleged victims how can this possibly be a breach of the sovereignty of the nation of the alleged perpetrators?

 

Justice serves the victim, not the criminal.

 

Will any or all of the members stating or supporting the argument that the ICC is breaching US sovereignty please explain why they believe this to be so.

 

 

Edited September 11, 2018 by Chomper Higgot

[metisdead]

Some off topic posts and the replies have been removed. 

[Morch]

 

@farcanell

 

What are you on about? I didn't bring up  "Asian choices", merely gave Thailand as a general example. You are the one who got into the "Asian choices" thing, and keep at it regardless of repeated explanation it doesn't have much to do with the point. I could just as well have chosen some other country with a dodgy reputation on this front. Change the narrative how? You're the one making up stuff about what I posted.

 

The point made was that judges come from different countries, different backgrounds and legal traditions. That could be either an asset or a drawback. But to assert all are top notch because they were selected, is a recursive argument. If you have reservations regarding how US Supreme Court judges are nominated and picked, what makes you think the process is better elsewhere? And to continue this line - why do you imagine the ICC nomination and selection process is superior to that?

 

I don't know that I asked for a list - kinda gets troublesome following this exchange and considering the previous creative imagination bit not inclined to think otherwise. At one point you complained that bringing up other countries was off-topic, and then promptly proceeded to post the countries not accepting the ICC's authority  - the comment was about that. Can't have it both ways. Not too complicated.

 

If the world is not run according to one nation, one vote - what is the value of repeating over and over again how many countries signed up for the ICC and how many did not? We have no argument as to the current administration's ways and conduct. I can certainly understand previous US administration being weary with regard to the ICC, Trump & Co. are, as usual, over the top and over the line.

 

Your are making the claim that, bottom line, even countries that aren't members need to conform with the agenda. As noted above by another poster, not all countries are signed up for all the same treaties, agreements and bodies. So the expectation that a non-signatory country will, nevertheless, comply is not necessarily well founded. Countries may have different takes on what constitutes (for example) war crimes, how severe relevant cases are and what course of legal actions is fitting. As far as I recall Saddam Hussein's trial was conducted by Iraqi judges (and as a side issue - it was criticized by quite a few international organizations).

 

Another difference between are takes on the ICC system seems to be that you think it's either viable or salvageable. IMO it is neither. And under the current political climate, it is unrealistic to imagine a "mending" could be applied in any constructive way. Saying that the "world's representative agree" it is needed, is again - not quite an accurate statement. Not all agree, and not all agree on the same format or substance. IMO, the ICC's status will continue to diminish in the years to come. Not just due to the Trump administration's actions, but because at the bottom line, if the superpowers aren't on-board, it's basically a hollow construct. And if African or other-third world countries feel it to be unbalanced, that ain't going to help as well. There doesn't seem to be enough backup and goodwill to "amend" the current system, or to create a new, more acceptable one.

 

As far as I'm aware, cases are referred to the ICC from the UN via the UNSC. The UNSC is comprised, among other's of China, Russia and the US - each able to exercise its veto power. So the situation you describe is unlikely to arise. Further, the likelihood of the ICC actually trying to exercise such authority are also rather low - the US doesn't lack in investigative agencies and judicial ones. If it really had to, it could simply conduct a legal process conforming with the lowest standard needed (and seriously, the bar isn't as high as some imagine) and make it a non-issue. I

 

Spin it all you like, you did assert that war crimes were committed and that there are war criminals being protected. Accusations need to be accepted as legit and be verified. There could be different takes on these these. If the US's interpretation of what counts as violations (war crimes etc) and as to the responsibility of soldiers involved - it may have issues with accepting a foreign legal views. I'm all for the US making its best efforts to address such instances, but I don't know that auto-adopting other legal point of view is part and parcel of this. People plead the Fifth for more than one reason, and people pleading the Fifth aren't automatically considered guilty. That would defeat the purpose of the amendment. Same goes for rejecting participation in international courts - more than one possible reason and not necessarily proof of guilt. If there's reason to believe the court is stacked against a position, biased or operates according to different legal rules and proceedings...well now.

 

Countries which are not signatories to treaties and agreements, are not obligated in the manner in which you infer. The participation in such is voluntary, and the UN membership is not conditional on signing each and every one of them. Furthermore, in the case of the US (or China, or Russia) - cases are forwarded through the UNSC, and could be vetoed.

 

That you fail to see issues against sovereignty is obvious, but doesn't mean they aren't there. Bogus examples notwithstanding. Were you seriously trying to compare ISIS members to US soldiers there? In more than one way, apples and oranges. And, of course, I didn't say the ICC is all-powerful, but that it has the potential to override national judicial systems. Some countries do not feel relinquishing their sovereignty - not even as a potential, conditional and temporary premise.

[Morch]

3 hours ago, dexterm said:

>>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.
..well they would say that wouldn't they? A circular argument. The ICC may find evidence of war crimes in their country's activities, so they attempt to undermine the ICC by not accepting their authority, just as Bolton and Trump are doing now.

 

The only thing undermined is their own credibility.

 

 

The Trump administration's position regarding the ICC is extreme and rightly criticized. But it is not as if the US did not have reservations about various issues relating to the ICC well before that. You claim that there is an international consensus - there is obviously no such thing what with three members of the UNSC not playing along, and a bunch of members not abiding by court's verdict for what they allege to be bias.

 

You can push them slogans as much as you like, they don't change anything, and they have little to do with reality.

[Morch]

3 hours ago, dexterm said:

And the point of your copy/paste is...?

 

To a give a more balanced insight as to the man's standing views.

[Chomper Higgot]

17 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

@farcanell

 

What are you on about? I didn't bring up  "Asian choices", merely gave Thailand as a general example. You are the one who got into the "Asian choices" thing, and keep at it regardless of repeated explanation it doesn't have much to do with the point. I could just as well have chosen some other country with a dodgy reputation on this front. Change the narrative how? You're the one making up stuff about what I posted.

 

The point made was that judges come from different countries, different backgrounds and legal traditions. That could be either an asset or a drawback. But to assert all are top notch because they were selected, is a recursive argument. If you have reservations regarding how US Supreme Court judges are nominated and picked, what makes you think the process is better elsewhere? And to continue this line - why do you imagine the ICC nomination and selection process is superior to that?

 

I don't know that I asked for a list - kinda gets troublesome following this exchange and considering the previous creative imagination bit not inclined to think otherwise. At one point you complained that bringing up other countries was off-topic, and then promptly proceeded to post the countries not accepting the ICC's authority  - the comment was about that. Can't have it both ways. Not too complicated.

 

If the world is not run according to one nation, one vote - what is the value of repeating over and over again how many countries signed up for the ICC and how many did not? We have no argument as to the current administration's ways and conduct. I can certainly understand previous US administration being weary with regard to the ICC, Trump & Co. are, as usual, over the top and over the line.

 

Your are making the claim that, bottom line, even countries that aren't members need to conform with the agenda. As noted above by another poster, not all countries are signed up for all the same treaties, agreements and bodies. So the expectation that a non-signatory country will, nevertheless, comply is not necessarily well founded. Countries may have different takes on what constitutes (for example) war crimes, how severe relevant cases are and what course of legal actions is fitting. As far as I recall Saddam Hussein's trial was conducted by Iraqi judges (and as a side issue - it was criticized by quite a few international organizations).

 

Another difference between are takes on the ICC system seems to be that you think it's either viable or salvageable. IMO it is neither. And under the current political climate, it is unrealistic to imagine a "mending" could be applied in any constructive way. Saying that the "world's representative agree" it is needed, is again - not quite an accurate statement. Not all agree, and not all agree on the same format or substance. IMO, the ICC's status will continue to diminish in the years to come. Not just due to the Trump administration's actions, but because at the bottom line, if the superpowers aren't on-board, it's basically a hollow construct. And if African or other-third world countries feel it to be unbalanced, that ain't going to help as well. There doesn't seem to be enough backup and goodwill to "amend" the current system, or to create a new, more acceptable one.

 

As far as I'm aware, cases are referred to the ICC from the UN via the UNSC. The UNSC is comprised, among other's of China, Russia and the US - each able to exercise its veto power. So the situation you describe is unlikely to arise. Further, the likelihood of the ICC actually trying to exercise such authority are also rather low - the US doesn't lack in investigative agencies and judicial ones. If it really had to, it could simply conduct a legal process conforming with the lowest standard needed (and seriously, the bar isn't as high as some imagine) and make it a non-issue. I

 

Spin it all you like, you did assert that war crimes were committed and that there are war criminals being protected. Accusations need to be accepted as legit and be verified. There could be different takes on these these. If the US's interpretation of what counts as violations (war crimes etc) and as to the responsibility of soldiers involved - it may have issues with accepting a foreign legal views. I'm all for the US making its best efforts to address such instances, but I don't know that auto-adopting other legal point of view is part and parcel of this. People plead the Fifth for more than one reason, and people pleading the Fifth aren't automatically considered guilty. That would defeat the purpose of the amendment. Same goes for rejecting participation in international courts - more than one possible reason and not necessarily proof of guilt. If there's reason to believe the court is stacked against a position, biased or operates according to different legal rules and proceedings...well now.

 

Countries which are not signatories to treaties and agreements, are not obligated in the manner in which you infer. The participation in such is voluntary, and the UN membership is not conditional on signing each and every one of them. Furthermore, in the case of the US (or China, or Russia) - cases are forwarded through the UNSC, and could be vetoed.

 

That you fail to see issues against sovereignty is obvious, but doesn't mean they aren't there. Bogus examples notwithstanding. Were you seriously trying to compare ISIS members to US soldiers there? In more than one way, apples and oranges. And, of course, I didn't say the ICC is all-powerful, but that it has the potential to override national judicial systems. Some countries do not feel relinquishing their sovereignty - not even as a potential, conditional and temporary premise.

How does an ICC investigation into alleged war crimes committed in Afghanistan (a signotory nation to the ICC) and/or against people captured in and then removed from Afghanistan impact US sovereignty.

 

The investigation is into events that are alleged to have taken place completely outwith the teritory of the US.

[Morch]

3 hours ago, farcanell said:

Let’s work backwards on this one, to change things around a bit.

 

para five.... my take on investigations.... I don’t know the minutes of how that all works... I don’t claim too.... but there is a process. And what various bodies am I incorrectly mixing.

the “no veto” comment suggests that neither the US nor other UN veto members, exercised that right when formulating the ICC... the US even signed up for it, but backed out.

by exercising veto rights, the ICC may never have been.

 

para four...yes they can.... providing a court infrastructure exists and its both capable and willing. The US is raising this now to energize the republican support base, as it’s almost a non issue for the US, because US citizens have not been accused.... but trump sounds like a strongman yapping his gums about nothing

 

“nothing”... because he won’t be in power by the time the ICC looks at Afghanistan, if it looks.... and I would think that a real president would cooperate in punishing war criminals, even if its legitimately via US courts.... that’s all that’s needed... that’s all that’s wanted by the international community. The US can deliver that Justice... no contest ... anywhere.

 

Para three...  The prime directive of the ICC is war criminals... opposing a body whose purpose is to chase war criminals, is in effect, protecting them, in most cases.

 

the US only had to say that they would investigate war crime allegations per their military code or whatever, and that’s everyone happy... everyone... and they can do that, if they want. But no... it was rolled out as a middle finger to the world, sending a clear message that it would not allow prosecution of US citizens who might have tortured some good folk in the Stan or any other of a number of places.... ergo... protection of accused war criminals. 

 

Para two... yep... some speculation... some biased opinion... some demonstrable facts. Oh... some honesty in acknowledging this, not that it matters, as having covered so much ground, speculation, opinion and facts are all going to be thrown in... normal, no?

 

para one... covered already in this post... but again, trump is refusing to cooperate, in any way, with an international court dealing with war criminals, and wants it gone..... removing a system that investigates and prosecutes war criminals... you are herein enforcing trumps decision

 

 

 

 

 

You accept that you do not know the relevant procedures, but that doesn't stop your from making a whole lot of assertions as to how things work or how they are supposed to work. That's pretty much standard on TVF, so no worries. What are you mixing? Well, the UNGA and the UNSC for one thing. Then there's the issue of UN membership being one thing, and signing up for various treaties and agreements another. They two do not fully correspond, and normally not signing up for something doesn't effect membership status. As to the extent to which non-signatory countries are obliged to comply with stuff they didn't sign up for - well generally speaking, they aren't. More a question of political pressure etc. Resolutions are accepted under different protocols - most being non-binding. With resolution accepted under binding protocoles, the potential of dissenters complying or not obstructing (whether voluntary or not), rises. Joining the ICC is a voluntary act. Not signing up doesn't effect membership. And evidently, not accepting the court's authority or even ignoring its verdicts doesn't cause that either.

 

The veto right, in this context, applies to cases forwarded to the ICC via the UNSC. Traditionally, non-signatory members (such as the US and China) abstained on such votes, or in a few cases (Darfur comes to mind) voted for. There was a spell in which the US threatened to use the veto power and/or to stop support for UN peace keeping missions unless participants were de-facto exempt from prosecution in regard to their service. That didn't go too well, and eventually (after a few years) fizzled down into a grumpy understanding of sorts. I'm not into looking it up right now, so could be some errors with regard to the last part.

 

As far as creating the US's role in the ICC's creation - you're welcome to have a look at the David Scheffer link provided above and continue from there. As the short bit quoted pointed - there were reservations and criticism from the start.

 

You wish to have a go at Trump, no problems. I think my views on him and his policies, in this issue and others are clear. That said, I do not agree that any other US administration would necessarily accept the ICC's position or even initiate an investigation based on such. The US tends to be rather protective of its sovereignty and armed forces. Other presidents would have definitely been more subtle about it, but that's not saying much, given Trump.

 

Rejecting the ICC's authority does not equate with "protection of war criminals" unless one is into hyperbole and sensationalism. There are valid reasons to reject the ICC's authority which have nothing to do with your assertion. Some were detailed on this topic. Accepting either the ICC's authority over national judicial systems or the ICC's take on war crimes are neither mandatory nor indicative of holding directly opposing views. The US auto-accepting the ICC's position (as in initiating an investigation) can be construed as de-facto acceptance of authority. That it would have been smarter to give  some "we're on that" and make it a non-issue is an acceptable point of view as well. Once again, I don't know that Trump's actions and ways are indicative of general attitudes and positions in the US. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall the issue being framed as a general immunity from possible prosecution, but being tried by the ICC. Not exactly the same there, unless you think that the US will not persecute US soldiers who broke US laws (and yes, there's obviously US laws pertaining to war crimes etc). How Trump and Bolton frame it is one thing (which I agree is in part a deflection and a support rallying move), reality is another.

[farcanell]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

@farcanell

 

What are you on about? I didn't bring up  "Asian choices", merely gave Thailand as a general example. You are the one who got into the "Asian choices" thing, and keep at it regardless of repeated explanation it doesn't have much to do with the point. I could just as well have chosen some other country with a dodgy reputation on this front. Change the narrative how? You're the one making up stuff about what I posted.

 

The point made was that judges come from different countries, different backgrounds and legal traditions. That could be either an asset or a drawback. But to assert all are top notch because they were selected, is a recursive argument. If you have reservations regarding how US Supreme Court judges are nominated and picked, what makes you think the process is better elsewhere? And to continue this line - why do you imagine the ICC nomination and selection process is superior to that?

 

I don't know that I asked for a list - kinda gets troublesome following this exchange and considering the previous creative imagination bit not inclined to think otherwise. At one point you complained that bringing up other countries was off-topic, and then promptly proceeded to post the countries not accepting the ICC's authority  - the comment was about that. Can't have it both ways. Not too complicated.

 

If the world is not run according to one nation, one vote - what is the value of repeating over and over again how many countries signed up for the ICC and how many did not? We have no argument as to the current administration's ways and conduct. I can certainly understand previous US administration being weary with regard to the ICC, Trump & Co. are, as usual, over the top and over the line.

 

Your are making the claim that, bottom line, even countries that aren't members need to conform with the agenda. As noted above by another poster, not all countries are signed up for all the same treaties, agreements and bodies. So the expectation that a non-signatory country will, nevertheless, comply is not necessarily well founded. Countries may have different takes on what constitutes (for example) war crimes, how severe relevant cases are and what course of legal actions is fitting. As far as I recall Saddam Hussein's trial was conducted by Iraqi judges (and as a side issue - it was criticized by quite a few international organizations).

 

Another difference between are takes on the ICC system seems to be that you think it's either viable or salvageable. IMO it is neither. And under the current political climate, it is unrealistic to imagine a "mending" could be applied in any constructive way. Saying that the "world's representative agree" it is needed, is again - not quite an accurate statement. Not all agree, and not all agree on the same format or substance. IMO, the ICC's status will continue to diminish in the years to come. Not just due to the Trump administration's actions, but because at the bottom line, if the superpowers aren't on-board, it's basically a hollow construct. And if African or other-third world countries feel it to be unbalanced, that ain't going to help as well. There doesn't seem to be enough backup and goodwill to "amend" the current system, or to create a new, more acceptable one.

 

As far as I'm aware, cases are referred to the ICC from the UN via the UNSC. The UNSC is comprised, among other's of China, Russia and the US - each able to exercise its veto power. So the situation you describe is unlikely to arise. Further, the likelihood of the ICC actually trying to exercise such authority are also rather low - the US doesn't lack in investigative agencies and judicial ones. If it really had to, it could simply conduct a legal process conforming with the lowest standard needed (and seriously, the bar isn't as high as some imagine) and make it a non-issue. I

 

Spin it all you like, you did assert that war crimes were committed and that there are war criminals being protected. Accusations need to be accepted as legit and be verified. There could be different takes on these these. If the US's interpretation of what counts as violations (war crimes etc) and as to the responsibility of soldiers involved - it may have issues with accepting a foreign legal views. I'm all for the US making its best efforts to address such instances, but I don't know that auto-adopting other legal point of view is part and parcel of this. People plead the Fifth for more than one reason, and people pleading the Fifth aren't automatically considered guilty. That would defeat the purpose of the amendment. Same goes for rejecting participation in international courts - more than one possible reason and not necessarily proof of guilt. If there's reason to believe the court is stacked against a position, biased or operates according to different legal rules and proceedings...well now.

 

Countries which are not signatories to treaties and agreements, are not obligated in the manner in which you infer. The participation in such is voluntary, and the UN membership is not conditional on signing each and every one of them. Furthermore, in the case of the US (or China, or Russia) - cases are forwarded through the UNSC, and could be vetoed.

 

That you fail to see issues against sovereignty is obvious, but doesn't mean they aren't there. Bogus examples notwithstanding. Were you seriously trying to compare ISIS members to US soldiers there? In more than one way, apples and oranges. And, of course, I didn't say the ICC is all-powerful, but that it has the potential to override national judicial systems. Some countries do not feel relinquishing their sovereignty - not even as a potential, conditional and temporary premise.

Wow hey... I’m nt even sure your talking about me... comments your attributing to me don’t sound all together right

 

where did I compare isis fighters to us forces?... slap me harder if I did!

 

you brought up Asian  countries as an example of poor choices of judges, not me... I just pointed out that the two Asian judges come from the only viable Asian countries. Judges from other countries is your issue

 

i have acknowledged several times that the US is capable of investigating and prosecuting their own, meaning no ICC involvement,  because of ther judicial system.... I don’t care how you choose your judges... not my issue... choice of judges is your issue. 

 

And yes... you specifically asked for a list of non members, which s why I gave it ( and wasted my time finding it for you, seemingly)

 

sounds like you have a handle on how the system works though, what with the unsc etc ...sorry... I have simply been writing UN... but your on it, which suggests by continually questioning how it works, you may have been trolling a bit, but that’s ok

 

and I don’t need to spin anything about war crimes... I can’t remember being specific ( please do point me to that if your so convinced), but as I sad earlier... damn straight war crimes have been committed (think Bosnia, perhaps).... but...,I have no idea if any persons are being protected. The point is that they can be protected (oh... maybe the Russian novochok poisoners... maybe not..???)

 

your all for the us addressing any issues that may arise... great... so am I... so is the UN... and the US doesn’t have to adopt anything to address it... I have consistently asserted that the US is capable of dealing with its own... by using its own laws with absolutely no input from an international body

 

that said, despite what someone else said way back when, the UNsc initiated a case through the ICC, UN members are obliged to co operate as the decisions are binding on all members.

 

and again... ICC members have agreed to cooperate with the ICC, so no relinquishing sovereignty, as it’s already agreed. Countries that don’t want to “relinquish sovereignty” aren’t member states, so banging on about that is pointless

 

anyway... today we have trump threatening international judges... wonderful leader... wonderful example... I hope the kids aren’t watching.

 

[melvinmelvin]

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

How does an ICC investigation into alleged war crimes committed in Afghanistan (a signotory nation to the ICC) and/or against people captured in and then removed from Afghanistan impact US sovereignty.

 

The investigation is into events that are alleged to have taken place completely outwith the teritory of the US.

 

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

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

it is the US stance

 

[bristolboy]

5 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

 

You accept that you do not know the relevant procedures, but that doesn't stop your from making a whole lot of assertions as to how things work or how they are supposed to work. That's pretty much standard on TVF, so no worries. What are you mixing? Well, the UNGA and the UNSC for one thing. Then there's the issue of UN membership being one thing, and signing up for various treaties and agreements another. They two do not fully correspond, and normally not signing up for something doesn't effect membership status. As to the extent to which non-signatory countries are obliged to comply with stuff they didn't sign up for - well generally speaking, they aren't. More a question of political pressure etc. Resolutions are accepted under different protocols - most being non-binding. With resolution accepted under binding protocoles, the potential of dissenters complying or not obstructing (whether voluntary or not), rises. Joining the ICC is a voluntary act. Not signing up doesn't effect membership. And evidently, not accepting the court's authority or even ignoring its verdicts doesn't cause that either.

 

The veto right, in this context, applies to cases forwarded to the ICC via the UNSC. Traditionally, non-signatory members (such as the US and China) abstained on such votes, or in a few cases (Darfur comes to mind) voted for. There was a spell in which the US threatened to use the veto power and/or to stop support for UN peace keeping missions unless participants were de-facto exempt from prosecution in regard to their service. That didn't go too well, and eventually (after a few years) fizzled down into a grumpy understanding of sorts. I'm not into looking it up right now, so could be some errors with regard to the last part.

 

As far as creating the US's role in the ICC's creation - you're welcome to have a look at the David Scheffer link provided above and continue from there. As the short bit quoted pointed - there were reservations and criticism from the start.

 

You wish to have a go at Trump, no problems. I think my views on him and his policies, in this issue and others are clear. That said, I do not agree that any other US administration would necessarily accept the ICC's position or even initiate an investigation based on such. The US tends to be rather protective of its sovereignty and armed forces. Other presidents would have definitely been more subtle about it, but that's not saying much, given Trump.

 

Rejecting the ICC's authority does not equate with "protection of war criminals" unless one is into hyperbole and sensationalism. There are valid reasons to reject the ICC's authority which have nothing to do with your assertion. Some were detailed on this topic. Accepting either the ICC's authority over national judicial systems or the ICC's take on war crimes are neither mandatory nor indicative of holding directly opposing views. The US auto-accepting the ICC's position (as in initiating an investigation) can be construed as de-facto acceptance of authority. That it would have been smarter to give  some "we're on that" and make it a non-issue is an acceptable point of view as well. Once again, I don't know that Trump's actions and ways are indicative of general attitudes and positions in the US. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall the issue being framed as a general immunity from possible prosecution, but being tried by the ICC. Not exactly the same there, unless you think that the US will not persecute US soldiers who broke US laws (and yes, there's obviously US laws pertaining to war crimes etc). How Trump and Bolton frame it is one thing (which I agree is in part a deflection and a support rallying move), reality is another.

No signatory nation is obliged to refer cases to the ICC for alleged war crimes or any other crimes against humanity that take place within its borders. It can choose to do so or it can prosecute the alleged offenders itself on whatever grounds its laws prescribe. If that nation's legal system allows for it to refer crimes to the ICC, in accordance with its laws, the ICC then being the lawful agent of said nation, then the US has no more grounds to object to that venue than it would to the alleged offenders being prosecuted in that nation. 

[Morch]

4 hours ago, farcanell said:

 

“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?”... per Morch.

 

there ya go... origional post added, plus my reply... plus your observation..... now... how am I out of context?

 

This topic has little to do with the average soldier... and everything to do with prosecuting hypothetical war criminals. Soldiers know what’s right and wrong.....,war criminals know when they commit war crimes... if you wish to perhaps insist that grey areas exist, which I would probably agree with, then these should be dealt with by counsel in a transparent manner, thereby standardizing expectations, perhaps.

 

Your quoted a bit of my post, and built an argument around that. The whole post makes a somewhat different point than you originally presented. Hence out of context comment.

 

How did you come to the conclusion that the topic has little to do with the average soldier? In some cases this holds, in others it doesn't. Soldiers in a fighting zone, especially so in urban areas, are exposed to persecution based on actions taken. I don't get your distinction between soldiers and war criminals. And there could certainly be instances in which a soldier would take an action which at the time would seem legit, but would later on be deemed a war crime.

 

What constitutes a war crime is a matter of legal definitions, and having a wee bit of mileage on such topics I can safely say that a whole lot of the opinions expressed on them regarding this often conflate between perceptions (or beliefs) and reality. This is further complicated by posters pushing political agendas airing misleading views.

 

So when you repeatedly assert that war crimes were committed, and that war criminals are protected, that's not necessarily the legal reality. Granted, there could be different legal takes on these things - something which was addressed on previous posts.

[farcanell]

You accept that you do not know the relevant procedures, but that doesn't stop your from making a whole lot of assertions as to how things work or how they are supposed to work. That's pretty much standard on TVF,.... Morch at 135

 

yep... I accept I don’t know the relevant procedures... I have the same issue with computer protocols, but hey, I manage to get by, I even employ professionals in need

 

not knowing the exact procedure, doesn’t equate to not having an understanding of the apparatus in general... that’s silly talk

 

silly silly talk.... next it will be only qualified mechanics who can drive cars... following your logic

[Morch]

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

How does an ICC investigation into alleged war crimes committed in Afghanistan (a signotory nation to the ICC) and/or against people captured in and then removed from Afghanistan impact US sovereignty.

 

The investigation is into events that are alleged to have taken place completely outwith the teritory of the US.

 

I believe you have raised the question in various forms three or four times in this topic. It was addressed earlier and other versions of the reply appear on other posts:

 

https://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/1056672-trump-administration-to-take-tough-stance-against-international-criminal-court/?page=7&tab=comments#comment-13355095

 

As  for stressing this is an investigation - that was also previously addressed. To repeat, there are several procedural stages involved when it comes to ICC cases. The investigation itself is therefore already a form of legal action, if on a lower rung then full proceedings (trial etc.). On this front, relevant countries may wish to block such investigations as they have a potential to evolve, and as their existence provides the opposition with "ammunition" (even if its mostly of the propaganda/PR variety).

 

IMO, many (if not most) large scale military operations involve incidents that while not amounting to war crimes, are nevertheless embarrassing or sufficient to cause further legal hardship for involved parties. An investigation into supposed war crimes can certainly turn over some unrelated rocks. Somewhat like Mueller's investigation (if lacking the similar authority to prosecute).  

[farcanell]

7 minutes ago, Morch said:

Your quoted a bit of my post, and built an argument around that. The whole post makes a somewhat different point than you originally presented. Hence out of context comment.

 

How did you come to the conclusion that the topic has little to do with the average soldier? In some cases this holds, in others it doesn't. Soldiers in a fighting zone, especially so in urban areas, are exposed to persecution based on actions taken. I don't get your distinction between soldiers and war criminals. And there could certainly be instances in which a soldier would take an action which at the time would seem legit, but would later on be deemed a war crime.

 

What constitutes a war crime is a matter of legal definitions, and having a wee bit of mileage on such topics I can safely say that a whole lot of the opinions expressed on them regarding this often conflate between perceptions (or beliefs) and reality. This is further complicated by posters pushing political agendas airing misleading views.

 

So when you repeatedly assert that war crimes were committed, and that war criminals are protected, that's not necessarily the legal reality. Granted, there could be different legal takes on these things - something which was addressed on previous posts.

There you go... I quoted the whole lot to keep you happy.

 

little to do with your average soldier.... I come to that because the ICC charter is about addressing the most heinous of crimes. Yes the average joe may accidental shoot a couple of non combatants... yes this is not nessesarily a war crime. Investigations might clear these.... just like in every courtroom anywhere

 

however, a mass shooting of unarmed civilians whilst on patrol, would be a war crime, I would think... so I wouldn’t do that myself, and I’m average... so... an average soldier would know this too

 

its not about the average soldier.... confirm this by looking at the very short list of cases already prosecuted, don’t take my word on it

 

that said, an average soldier can commit a war crime, but again, these cases are not what prompted the idea of the ICC.

 

anyway... rather than me repeatedly asserting that war crimes have been committed, why don’t you deny that... I want to see you deny that.

 

and... whilst I have not specified that war criminals have been protected ( but rather that they can be)... I will now. War criminals have been protected by foreign governments... there ya go... now be a nice chap and deny that... I want to see you deny that.

[Morch]

28 minutes ago, farcanell said:

Wow hey... I’m nt even sure your talking about me... comments your attributing to me don’t sound all together right

 

where did I compare isis fighters to us forces?... slap me harder if I did!

 

you brought up Asian  countries as an example of poor choices of judges, not me... I just pointed out that the two Asian judges come from the only viable Asian countries. Judges from other countries is your issue

 

i have acknowledged several times that the US is capable of investigating and prosecuting their own, meaning no ICC involvement,  because of ther judicial system.... I don’t care how you choose your judges... not my issue... choice of judges is your issue. 

 

And yes... you specifically asked for a list of non members, which s why I gave it ( and wasted my time finding it for you, seemingly)

 

sounds like you have a handle on how the system works though, what with the unsc etc ...sorry... I have simply been writing UN... but your on it, which suggests by continually questioning how it works, you may have been trolling a bit, but that’s ok

 

and I don’t need to spin anything about war crimes... I can’t remember being specific ( please do point me to that if your so convinced), but as I sad earlier... damn straight war crimes have been committed (think Bosnia, perhaps).... but...,I have no idea if any persons are being protected. The point is that they can be protected (oh... maybe the Russian novochok poisoners... maybe not..???)

 

your all for the us addressing any issues that may arise... great... so am I... so is the UN... and the US doesn’t have to adopt anything to address it... I have consistently asserted that the US is capable of dealing with its own... by using its own laws with absolutely no input from an international body

 

that said, despite what someone else said way back when, the UNsc initiated a case through the ICC, UN members are obliged to co operate as the decisions are binding on all members.

 

and again... ICC members have agreed to cooperate with the ICC, so no relinquishing sovereignty, as it’s already agreed. Countries that don’t want to “relinquish sovereignty” aren’t member states, so banging on about that is pointless

 

anyway... today we have trump threatening international judges... wonderful leader... wonderful example... I hope the kids aren’t watching.

 

 

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

 

Quote

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

 

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

 

I did not bring up "Asian countries". I referenced Thailand (LOS) as a general example for a country with less than stellar judicial and law enforcement systems. The comment wasn't intended as Asia specific, Thai bashing or anything of the sort. Just an example of countries having different qualities of relevant systems. You proceeded to make it into something about "Asian countries" (naming Japan, Korea and Cambodia - which weren't referenced and had nothing to do with my comment), and the rest of whatever it is you're arguing about.

 

 

I doubt I have specifically asked for any such list, its not a particularly long one and this not being a new issue on TVF.

 

UNSC = United Nations Security Council. UNGA = United Nations General Assembly. I don't know that I have a handle on how things work. What I described is a simplified version, the inner workings and procedural going-ons are rather on Sir Humphrey's level. I'm not an expert on this, and therefore when someone comments strongly on such matters I may assume he knows something I don't. 

 

That war crimes, in general, were committed is obvious. No one disputes that. But I was under the impression we're discussing the OP, and hence US forces in Afghanistan. Were there war crimes committed? I don't know, but I wouldn't be shocked if that was the case. The difference is that I do not assert it as fact, without support. Kinda failed to understand what was your point, though (Bosnia? Novichok?).

 

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

 

Cooperation with the ICC is, de facto, a conditioned and temporary relinquishment of sovereignty. That countries agree to this doesn't change the fact. It isn't permanent, it isn't forced (to the extent that the country in question agrees to go through with it) - but it is what it is, a small legal area which for a short duration does not fall under the country's sovereignty.

 

[Morch]

1 hour ago, bristolboy said:

No signatory nation is obliged to refer cases to the ICC for alleged war crimes or any other crimes against humanity that take place within its borders. It can choose to do so or it can prosecute the alleged offenders itself on whatever grounds its laws prescribe. If that nation's legal system allows for it to refer crimes to the ICC, in accordance with its laws, the ICC then being the lawful agent of said nation, then the US has no more grounds to object to that venue than it would to the alleged offenders being prosecuted in that nation. 

 

Assuming the above is correct - then other than the US not recognizing the ICC's authority it's a all very nice. I would imagine that the rejection of authority would include not recognizing the ICC as a replacement "agent" of another country as well. And, as far as I'm aware, ICC proceedings are not carried out in the nation initiating the case.

[Morch]

46 minutes ago, farcanell said:

There you go... I quoted the whole lot to keep you happy.

 

little to do with your average soldier.... I come to that because the ICC charter is about addressing the most heinous of crimes. Yes the average joe may accidental shoot a couple of non combatants... yes this is not nessesarily a war crime. Investigations might clear these.... just like in every courtroom anywhere

 

however, a mass shooting of unarmed civilians whilst on patrol, would be a war crime, I would think... so I wouldn’t do that myself, and I’m average... so... an average soldier would know this too

 

its not about the average soldier.... confirm this by looking at the very short list of cases already prosecuted, don’t take my word on it

 

that said, an average soldier can commit a war crime, but again, these cases are not what prompted the idea of the ICC.

 

anyway... rather than me repeatedly asserting that war crimes have been committed, why don’t you deny that... I want to see you deny that.

 

and... whilst I have not specified that war criminals have been protected ( but rather that they can be)... I will now. War criminals have been protected by foreign governments... there ya go... now be a nice chap and deny that... I want to see you deny that.

 

Your "average joe" can be a pilot dropping a few tons of explosives, a drone operator mistaking the target, or a tank crew targeting a building full of civilians. That more responsibility falls on commanders and decision makers doesn't make those lower ranked completely safe from prosecution.

 

Assuming that all soldiers know better is a fine notion, just one that isn't based on anything whatsoever. Most probably do, some don't. Generalizations are cool, though.

 

Why would I deny war crimes were committed? I'm not the one making concrete claims on this front - you are. And further, it is by now not exactly clear whether you refer to war crimes in general or specifically addressing the OP. Same thing applies with regard to your second, equally absurd "denial" suggestion. You're off on tangent, or otherwise your posts have been seriously unclear. I was under the impression we're discussing things in the context of the OP.

[bristolboy]

35 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Assuming the above is correct - then other than the US not recognizing the ICC's authority it's a all very nice. I would imagine that the rejection of authority would include not recognizing the ICC as a replacement "agent" of another country as well. And, as far as I'm aware, ICC proceedings are not carried out in the nation initiating the case.

That objection would be on very dodgy legal grounds. It's one thing not to be a member of a court, quite another to tell a sovereign nation that its legal processes are subject to a US veto. As for where the legal proceedings are held, I don't see the relevance.

[farcanell]

2 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Your "average joe" can be a pilot dropping a few tons of explosives, a drone operator mistaking the target, or a tank crew targeting a building full of civilians. That more responsibility falls on commanders and decision makers doesn't make those lower ranked completely safe from prosecution.

 

Assuming that all soldiers know better is a fine notion, just one that isn't based on anything whatsoever. Most probably do, some don't. Generalizations are cool, though.

 

Why would I deny war crimes were committed? I'm not the one making concrete claims on this front - you are. And further, it is by now not exactly clear whether you refer to war crimes in general or specifically addressing the OP. Same thing applies with regard to your second, equally absurd "denial" suggestion. You're off on tangent, or otherwise your posts have been seriously unclear. I was under the impression we're discussing things in the context of the OP.

If your first paragraph refers deliberate action... war crime

if these are accidental... not a war crime

sure, no one is immune... except perhaps people who have not committed war crimes ( war crimes are also a Geneva convention thing... us is a signatory)

 

if all soldiers dont know the the difference between a crime and normal conduct,mthen they should be taught this, much like children are taught not to torture rabbits or stick their fingers in power sockets... the basics are pretty simple..

 you don’t need to complicate it.

 

also... the ICC is a court of last resort... not first, so again, the US should be able to deal with its own miscreants, if any exist.

 

and twist away... I never said the US committed war crimes, just that these had been committed, and in prosecuting them, the UN decided the ICC was needed. ( any previous examples have deliberately not included the US because I don’t like people crying)

 

Context... the context is that trump is refusing to co operate with the ICC, and we are discussing the good the bad and the ugly of that. 

 

The why of it is because the ICC want to look into CIA operations that may have involved torture or other crimes against humanity or war crimes, in countries that are signatories to the Rome deal.... specifically Afghanistan, Poland, Lithuania and Romania ( I don’t know, but I’m thinking they might be cia black sites... maybe... where torture might have occurred... maybe)

 

your continual attack at any mention of war crimes is suggestive of a denial.... sorry if I misread that... but you know... he does protest too much, and all that.

 

and.... really... your calling me out for tangent errors.... your math sucks, dude ???

[farcanell]

6 hours ago, Morch said:

Were you seriously trying to compare ISIS members to US soldiers there? 

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

 

3 hours ago, Morch said:

Quote

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

From post 143...

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

From post 143.

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

 

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

 

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

 

More from 143

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

so what... so maybe invest in bananas.

 

[Morch]

7 hours ago, bristolboy said:

That objection would be on very dodgy legal grounds. It's one thing not to be a member of a court, quite another to tell a sovereign nation that its legal processes are subject to a US veto. As for where the legal proceedings are held, I don't see the relevance.

 

I don't think countries are actually automatically obligated to accept other countries' legal proceedings. That sort of things required either both countries signed up to general (as in international) agreement and treaties regulating such issues, and/or have a bilateral agreement in place. This specific issue has nothing to do with "US veto" (if that was meant as a reference to the UNSC). The same holds true the other way around, by the way. Some countries do not recognize US verdicts pertaining to them, rejecting them outright or simply ignoring them.

 

The relevance regarding where proceedings take place is when it comes to investigation of accused and witnesses. Even if the US was to cooperate with the ICC, it would not accept (and rightly so) its citizens being effectively handed over to the country initiating the case.

[Chomper Higgot]

8 hours ago, Morch said:

 

I believe you have raised the question in various forms three or four times in this topic. It was addressed earlier and other versions of the reply appear on other posts:

 

https://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/1056672-trump-administration-to-take-tough-stance-against-international-criminal-court/?page=7&tab=comments#comment-13355095

 

As  for stressing this is an investigation - that was also previously addressed. To repeat, there are several procedural stages involved when it comes to ICC cases. The investigation itself is therefore already a form of legal action, if on a lower rung then full proceedings (trial etc.). On this front, relevant countries may wish to block such investigations as they have a potential to evolve, and as their existence provides the opposition with "ammunition" (even if its mostly of the propaganda/PR variety).

 

IMO, many (Some countries do not feel relinquishing their sovereignty - not even as a potential, conditional and temporary premise. not most) large scale military operations involve incidents that while not amounting to war crimes, are nevertheless embarrassing or sufficient to cause further legal hardship for involved parties. An investigation into supposed war crimes can certainly turn over some unrelated rocks. Somewhat like Mueller's investigation (if lacking the similar authority to prosecute).  

Thank you for taking the time to respond.

 

I’ve asked this specific question three times because it has not yet been answered, nobody including yourself has explained how the investigstion(under the conditions so described) breaches US sovereignty. 

 

The he claim that it does continues to be made.

 

I wholly accept the US may not be pleased with the investigation and I wholly accept that the investigation findings may be politically useful to adversaries or as political fodder, but those arguments are on matters of ‘preference’ not ‘sovereignty’.

 

The idea of an extra-territorial sovereignty overriding the persuit of judicial inquiry within the territory

of another nation in which the alleged crimes are alleged to have taken place and where that nation is a signatory to the ICC is groundless.

 

The arguments made for that sovereignty are not supported with any legal references but are replete with opinion.

—

I wholly agree with your statements regarding 

 

“many (Some countries do not feel relinquishing their sovereignty - not even as a potential, conditional and temporary premise. not most) large scale military operations involve incidents that while not amounting to war crimes, are nevertheless embarrassing or sufficient to cause further legal hardship for involved parties.”

 

However, this inquiry is investigating, among other things, the alleged systematic use of torture by the US. The torture may not have been undertaken by the military.

 

Again thank you for responding but the specific point on sovereignty has not been addressed.

[Morch]

5 hours ago, farcanell said:

If your first paragraph refers deliberate action... war crime

if these are accidental... not a war crime

sure, no one is immune... except perhaps people who have not committed war crimes ( war crimes are also a Geneva convention thing... us is a signatory)

 

if all soldiers dont know the the difference between a crime and normal conduct,mthen they should be taught this, much like children are taught not to torture rabbits or stick their fingers in power sockets... the basics are pretty simple..

 you don’t need to complicate it.

 

also... the ICC is a court of last resort... not first, so again, the US should be able to deal with its own miscreants, if any exist.

 

and twist away... I never said the US committed war crimes, just that these had been committed, and in prosecuting them, the UN decided the ICC was needed. ( any previous examples have deliberately not included the US because I don’t like people crying)

 

Context... the context is that trump is refusing to co operate with the ICC, and we are discussing the good the bad and the ugly of that. 

 

The why of it is because the ICC want to look into CIA operations that may have involved torture or other crimes against humanity or war crimes, in countries that are signatories to the Rome deal.... specifically Afghanistan, Poland, Lithuania and Romania ( I don’t know, but I’m thinking they might be cia black sites... maybe... where torture might have occurred... maybe)

 

your continual attack at any mention of war crimes is suggestive of a denial.... sorry if I misread that... but you know... he does protest too much, and all that.

 

and.... really... your calling me out for tangent errors.... your math sucks, dude ???

 

Determining whether an action was deliberate, careless or whatever is a legal matter. As such, there could be different interpretations as to circumstances and actions taken. Hence, legal implications and results are not necessarily a clear cut thing. The notion that there's always, or even usually, an agreed upon account of events when it comes to such instances is not necessarily correct.

 

I didn't "twist" anything, but pointed out that we seem to have had a misunderstanding as to what we were discussing. You seem to have engaged in a general statements, whereas I was under the impression we are discussing things in the context of the OP. The so-called "continual attack" regarding your mention of war crimes as a concrete fact stemmed from this misunderstanding. So you could say we both misread each other's posts on this score.

 

[Morch]

7 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Thank you for taking the time to respond.

 

I’ve asked this specific question three times because it has not yet been answered, nobody including yourself has explained how the investigstion(under the conditions so described) breaches US sovereignty. 

 

The he claim that it does continues to be made.

 

I wholly accept the US may not be pleased with the investigation and I wholly accept that the investigation findings may be politically useful to adversaries or as political fodder, but those arguments are on matters of ‘preference’ not ‘sovereignty’.

 

The idea of an extra-territorial sovereignty overriding the persuit of judicial inquiry within the territory

of another nation in which the alleged crimes are alleged to have taken place and where that nation is a signatory to the ICC is groundless.

 

The arguments made for that sovereignty are not supported with any legal references but are replete with opinion.

—

I wholly agree with your statements regarding 

 

“many (Some countries do not feel relinquishing their sovereignty - not even as a potential, conditional and temporary premise. not most) large scale military operations involve incidents that while not amounting to war crimes, are nevertheless embarrassing or sufficient to cause further legal hardship for involved parties.”

 

However, this inquiry is investigating, among other things, the alleged systematic use of torture by the US. The torture may not have been undertaken by the military.

 

Again thank you for responding but the specific point on sovereignty has not been addressed.

 

I think you misrepresent the argument some.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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