Europe's old laggards will never balance US power

bonkey

Originally posted by Xhen
Americans believe that our own founding documents and institutions have proven themselves for over 200 years and have little faith in newly established international organizations that have proven nothing.

I'm curious Xhen - at what point did Americans stop believing that their own founding documents and institutions were too young to be trustworthy, and rather old enough to be proven?

What age was the American nation when its people stopped thinking "we've got a completely unproven shaky system here" and start thinking "our system is great cause its been proven over time" ???

I'm just wondering if you could put a timeframe on it for me, because otherwise your entire argument about "we trust our stuff cause its old, but that new stuff is dodgy cause it aint old." sounds nothing more than selective elitism - belief in your own superiority and justiofication of same based on nothing more than convenience.

jc

bonkey

Originally posted by Moriarty
The US has no biological weapons stockpile. All US biological weapons were destroyed between May 1971 and February 1973. All offensive biological research was ceased and USAMRIID was established to take over the defensive biological research program. USAMRIID is an open research institution; no research is classified.

OK - but how does this gel with the concept that the anthrax used post 9/11 was considered to be US in origin, and they went tracing it to the lab in question.

Are the US saying that Anthrax isn't a biological weapon, or just that its ok to produce and store it as long as you say "but it isnt a weapon, its for research" or something?

After all - the last time I got into an argument about WMDs, many people were vociferously opposing the notion that the quantity was not important. Indeed, US law doesn't have any requirement on quantity - just that the material be classifiable as a biological agent.

jc

jc

The Corinthian

Originally posted by bonkey
I'm curious Xhen - at what point did Americans stop believing that their own founding documents and institutions were too young to be trustworthy, and rather old enough to be proven?

"America - the only empire to go from barbarism to decadence without going through civilisation." - Gore Vidal.

Von

Check out the The New Europe Looks a Little Like `1984' article on the corporate funded but completely independent and credible Cato site. Digging up Orwell and trying to make out he'd be on your side is lame to the point of mental retardation, but still, what would he make of things like the patriot act, homeland security, TWAT and the general perversion of language by the US and British governments?

re US war crimes. One of the oddest incidents was the attack on the hotel that killed a Ukrainian journalist. It was said repeatedly that shots had come from the hotel lobby. But the tank fired at the 15th floor. How any hotels have their lobby on the 15th floor?

Xhen

Originally posted by bonkey
I'm curious Xhen - at what point did Americans stop believing that their own founding documents and institutions were too young to be trustworthy, and rather old enough to be proven?

It's been a long process and those documents are so engrained in American thought and philosophy that discarding them in favor of European constructs would be anathema to most Americans. We fought one war to win our independence from Europe so why would we throw that away to become a subject of the EU? We don't believe much in what you're doing, but believe in your right to do it. If you want to surrender your sovereignty and place all of your faith in bad treaties and impotent and corrupt organizations like the UN, we won't stop you. Just don't expect us to do the same.

The US is a sovereign nation and has a right to enter into treaties or refuse to enter into them as it sees fit. Few people trust the ICC and it would be unconstitutional anyway so the US has opted out. It's not a George W Bush thing...there's significant opposition to it in both parties. It wouldn't matter if Al Gore (or Ralph Nader for that matter) had been elected President because it's the Senate that ratifies treaties, not the President. That's part of our separation of powers. Things like the ICC and Kyoto are far too flawed for the US to agree to, but if EU countries want them, then knock yourselves out. That's your right, just as its our right to reject them.

Europe's strategy to regain what it believes is its proper place on the world stage seems to be to hector the rest of the world into submission. That's not going to work with the US, so I hope you have a Plan B.

bonkey

Originally posted by Xhen
It's been a long process and those documents are so engrained in American thought and philosophy that discarding them in favor of European constructs would be anathema to most Americans. We fought one war to win our independence from Europe so why would we throw that away to become a subject of the EU? We don't believe much in what you're doing, but believe in your right to do it. If you want to surrender your sovereignty and place all of your faith in bad treaties and impotent and corrupt organizations like the UN, we won't stop you. Just don't expect us to do the same.

Err - that has absolutely nothing to do with what I asked you.

Your basic indictment against much of the rule-systems in place in Europe seemed to be that they are from "fledgling nations" - that the system's haven't been around long enough to have faith in them, whereas the US one has.

I'm simply asking at what point did Americans using this type of evaluation criteria stop thinking of their own system as "too young to be proven", and instead as "established and worthwhile". Was it 50 years after the inception of the Union? 100? 200?

The US is a sovereign nation and has a right to enter into treaties or refuse to enter into them as it sees fit.

I never questioned that.

Again, you seem to be misunderstanding what I was discussing. I didn't suggest even once that the US does not have these rights of refusal, not that is right or wrong in its choice of decisions in this regard.

What I am questioning is your initial reasoning as to why the US made these decisions, which seemed to be "your systems are too young, and ours is better vause its older and more proven".

From an earlier point though :

In fact, the American government doesn't even have the power to enter into treaties which supercede the authority of the US Constitution. That's a fundamental principle that is poorly understood in Europe and leads to a lot of frustration in trying to understand why the ICC must be rejected if it comes into conflict with the Bill of Rights.

I'm curious - how does the US constitution regard the World Trade Organisation - membership of which requires acceptance that WTO decisions will be legally binding within the member nations.

By joining the WTO, the US government would appear to either have disregarded this limitation you say is imposed upon them, found a legitimate way around it, or has simply no intention of ever honouring the agreements it has signed at the point where a WTO decision infringes on the authority of the US constitution.

I'd like to know which of these three options is what has happened.

If it is one of the former two, perhaps you can explain why the same logic doesn't apply to the ICC. If it is the third option - well - its hard to defend the righteousness of a nation who's entering international agreements it has no intention of keeping.

Or, if its just my poor European understanding of US law and how one international treaty is different under your constitution to another, then maybe you could clarify why this would appear to be different?

jc

Xhen

Your basic indictment against much of the rule-systems in place in Europe seemed to be that they are from "fledgling nations" - that the system's haven't been around long enough to have faith in them, whereas the US one has.

My statement was an attempt at an explanation of the different political philosophies that Americans and Europeans have and how that shapes how international organizations and treaties are seen. European nations have constitutions that are relatively new and easily modified in order to align with international laws and treaties. The US does not have a constitution that can be easily put aside or modified and because of the strong belief in that constitution there is little political will to do so. In other words, Americans don't believe that we need to modify our constitution in order to reach international agreements, we believe those attempting to make international agreements with the US need to make sure that they are aligned with our constitution. The premise of the UN's International Law Commission that an American citizen's constitutionally protected rights are not absolute rights but tentative or conditional rights that can be put aside immediately placed the ICC in a position where its ultimate rejection by the US became likely.

I'm curious - how does the US constitution regard the World Trade Organisation - membership of which requires acceptance that WTO decisions will be legally binding within the member nations.

The US Constitution doesn't prohibit entering into treaties as long as they don't supercede rights granted within the Constitution or Bill of Rights. I'm not aware of any provisions in the WTO that do this. If that were the case then provisions of the WTO could be challenged in the US Supreme Court. Since this hasn't been done it's apparently not an issue.

It is an issue when a legal system is established that has the power to supercede the American legal system and remove protections guaranteed to American citizens under the Bill of Rights. That would almost certainly be challenged in the US Supreme Court if it was ever ratified. There's little chance that the ICC will ever be ratified by the Senate, however, in its current form. There's a strong belief in the US that the ICC would be used as a political tool rather than as a legitimate court of justice. Unless appropriate checks and balances are placed into the framework of the ICC to alleviate this concern and changes are made to protect the constitutional rights of American citizens, the ICC is a dead issue.

Lemming

Originally posted by Xhen

There's a strong belief in the US that the ICC would be used as a political tool rather than as a legitimate court of justice. Unless appropriate checks and balances are placed into the framework of the ICC to alleviate this concern and changes are made to protect the constitutional rights of American citizens, the ICC is a dead issue.

Used as a political tool like the US Government is using it right now against other countries?

Do as we say, not as we do ...

Moriarty

Originally posted by bonkey
OK - but how does this gel with the concept that the anthrax used post 9/11 was considered to be US in origin, and they went tracing it to the lab in question.

Are the US saying that Anthrax isn't a biological weapon, or just that its ok to produce and store it as long as you say "but it isnt a weapon, its for research" or something?

They never denied its a weapon. They have anthrax (and i presume many other bio weapons) at secure facilitys for defensive purposes. What defensive purposes, you might ask.. development of vaccines, knowledge of organisim growth, knowledge of how it reacts in different environments, the list goes on and on. All perfectly legal and allowed under the ban treatys. Many other western countrys have similar programs with similar agents in secure labs.

Originally posted by bonkey
After all - the last time I got into an argument about WMDs, many people were vociferously opposing the notion that the quantity was not important. Indeed, US law doesn't have any requirement on quantity - just that the material be classifiable as a biological agent.

I refer you back to the ban treatys. Defensive research is specifically allowed.

bonkey

Originally posted by Moriarty
They never denied its a weapon. T

No - but you did by implication. Allow me to refresh your memory :

All US biological weapons were destroyed between May 1971 and February 1973.

So what you're now saying is that this is not in fact strictly correct - they have biological weapons - they did not destroy them all - they just insist that they're only for defensive use.

I'm not picking a fight - just clarifying the point.

Of course, when you hear the US talking about how easy it would be for a foreign government or terrorist org to mass-produce a bio-weapon from a small sample, and how delivery systems are not that hard to come by once a certain technical level is achieved.....its nice to know that they (the US) keep their stocks nice and small. Fills me with comfort.

jc

bonkey

Originally posted by Xhen
There's a strong belief in the US that the ICC would be used as a political tool rather than as a legitimate court of justice.

So while you defend Bush in one thread on the basis that in the absence of proof, suspicion and the generalisation of arguments is completley insufficient, here it seems that generalisation and suspicion makes your stance perfectly ok?

To take your own line of argument : where's the proof that the ICC will be used as a political tool rather than a legitimate court of justice?

jc

Moriarty

Originally posted by bonkey
No - but you did by implication. Allow me to refresh your memory :

So what you're now saying is that this is not in fact strictly correct - they have biological weapons - they did not destroy them all - they just insist that they're only for defensive use.

Perhaps i should have said all offensive biological weapons were destroyed, but i wasnt expecting people to be so nit-picky If you mistrust the US so much that you dont believe their statement that they havent been developing bio weapons for the past 30 years there is little i can do to convince you otherwise. Its widely acknowledged by many organisations and countrys that the US ceased all offensive research, no more can be said.

Are you willing to take other countrys that hold the same samples in secure labs at their word that it is for defensive research, or do you presume that there is a large scale behind-the-scenes rearming of biological weapons by the major powers? If so, for what purpose?

Originally posted by bonkey
Of course, when you hear the US talking about how easy it would be for a foreign government or terrorist org to mass-produce a bio-weapon from a small sample, and how delivery systems are not that hard to come by once a certain technical level is achieved.....its nice to know that they (the US) keep their stocks nice and small. Fills me with comfort.

Yes, it would be much smarter for them to destroy all samples - and with it, any possible hope of defending the country from attack by said weapons - so they can placate your troubled mind.

The pandoras box has been opened, the knowledge on how to create these organisims is relativly open and free for people to read. Complete destruction of all samples is simply not an option, as these same samples are the only defence a state has against these same weapons destroying them.

Xhen

So while you defend Bush in one thread on the basis that in the absence of proof, suspicion and the generalisation of arguments is completley insufficient, here it seems that generalisation and suspicion makes your stance perfectly ok?

To take your own line of argument : where's the proof that the ICC will be used as a political tool rather than a legitimate court of justice?

This is where we get into different political philosophies between Europe and the US. Americans DON'T trust the government to do the right thing which is why checks and balances are built into the system to limit power and provide accountability in order to correct inevitable abuses.

Now why in the hell should Americans place blind faith in the ICC when our entire system of government was established by men who placed limits precisely because they knew there would be abuses? Are we just supposed to accept assurances that say, "Trust us, it won't be abused?" Sorry, but that just doesn't cut it. We aren't going to allow our own legal system to be superceded by a legal system that does not provide the same level of accountability or checks and balances. We don't have to prove that the ICC won't be abused - the ICC needs to prove to us that there is sufficient accountability built into the system to correct and limit abuse.

Moriarty

Originally posted by bonkey
So what you're now saying is that this is not in fact strictly correct - they have biological weapons - they did not destroy them all - they just insist that they're only for defensive use.

Its important to remember that this is in full compliance with the ban treatys and the US is not alone in having weapons grade biological weapons in labs for defensive purposes.

Sparks

Moriarty,

I refer you back to the ban treatys. Defensive research is specifically allowed.

If you mistrust the US so much that you dont believe their statement that they havent been developing bio weapons for the past 30 years there is little i can do to convince you otherwise.

And I refer you back to my posted article regarding the development by the US of a new grenade for dispersal of chemical and biological agents - which the treaty specifically prohibits.

Xhen,

This is where we get into different political philosophies between Europe and the US.

No, this is where you produce proof that there are agencies whose goal is to subvert the ICC and use it as a political tool instead of a court of justice.

Americans DON'T trust the government to do the right thing which is why checks and balances are built into the system to limit power and provide accountability in order to correct inevitable abuses.

Such as Guantanamo?

We don't have to prove that the ICC won't be abused - the ICC needs to prove to us that there is sufficient accountability built into the system to correct and limit abuse.

This is a magnificant example of double standards on your part Xhev. Paranoia is not an adaquate reason for the course of action you are proposing.

Moriarty

Originally posted by Sparks
Moriarty,


And I refer you back to my posted article regarding the development by the US of a new grenade for dispersal of chemical and biological agents - which the treaty specifically prohibits.

Which, the same article that i asked a link for a few posts back? heh..

<edit: oops, found it hidden in the middle of a reply to Xhen, ill go have a read >

Moriarty

Right then, before i start, this is the article sparks is refering to incase anyone gets lost on the way to this post.

The claim that "biological agents, chemical agents" was put into the patent by an over-zealous patent lawyer seems credible. That along side these was also placed..

In the same manner, there is also a need for delivering non-aerosol payloads or articles, including, but not limited to, flash grenades, concussion grenades, nets, noise generators, stun balls, tire puncturing elements, electromagnetic pulse generators, mines or bomblets, listening devices, signal emitting objects, unmanned aerial vehicles, biological/chemical agents, and the like for efficient, rapid dispersal and delivery.

.. (which seems to cover just about anything that it could possibly be used for) lays credence to the claim.

I find it rather unlikely that the US would deploy such weapons in such necessarly close quarters to its own troops. Such rifle-fired weapons have a range of a few hundred meters at most, a little too close for comfort to deploy chemical or biological weapons. The general reading of the patent also seems to have it aimed at riot-control and similar circumstances, aswell as electronic warfare. The US signed the chemical weapons convention on the proviso that it would continue to develop riot-control and defolliant chemicals, this seems to fit with that fine.

bonkey

Originally posted by Xhen
We aren't going to allow our own legal system to be superceded by a legal system that does not provide the same level of accountability or checks and balances

But only for our own people, you forgot to add. Lets not start comparing the "checks and balances" for those in Gitmo against those of the ICC or the regular US courts. Apparently these checks and balances are only sacrosanct when its being applied to Americans.

Are we just supposed to accept assurances that say, "Trust us, it won't be abused?" Sorry, but that just doesn't cut it. [/QUOTE]

Yeah, but "trust us, he's got WMDs" did seem to - as you say - cut it for you.

Again, apparently the "umbrella" cast by your beloved checks and balances seems to stop at your own border.

Is it any wonder that the rest of the world is disappointed that the US will not join the ICC, when all the defendants of such a policy are effectively saying that their system is already far superior, and then showing how biased the application of that system can be once it starts reaching across borders.

jc

Sparks

Moriarty,
The treaty says you can't develop biological weapons or the means to deliver biological agents:

ARTICLE I
Each State Party to this Convention undertakes never in any circumstance to develop, produce, stockpile or otherwise acquire or retain:
(1) Microbial or other biological agents, or toxins whatever their origin or method of production, of types and in quantities that have no justification for prophylactic, protective or other peaceful purposes;
(2) Weapons, equipment or means of delivery designed to use such agents or toxins for hostile purposes or in armed conflict.

The patent for the grenade says :

1. A rifle-muzzle launched payload delivering projectile, comprising:
[...] 4. The projectile of claim 1, wherein the payload is selected from the group consisting of an aerosol composition, electronic devices, unmanned aerial vehicles, flash-bang munitions, sting balls, concussion grenades, and explosive devices.
5. The projectile of claim 4, wherein the aerosol composition is further selected from the group consisting of smoke, crowd control agents, biological agents, chemical agents, obscurants, marking agents, dyes and inks, chaffs and flakes.

In other words, the offical patent application (which was GRANTED) states that the device is in contravention of the 1972 treaty.
The fact that the grenade patent says it can do other things as well is wholly irrelevant. It's still a violation.

Moriarty

Im going on the assumption here that were only talking about this launcher system and not the legality of holding samples for defensive research that i was discussing with bonkey.

Originally posted by Sparks
Moriarty,
The treaty says you can't develop biological weapons or the means to deliver biological agents.

In other words, the offical patent application (which was GRANTED) states that the device is in contravention of the 1972 treaty.
The fact that the grenade patent says it can do other things as well is wholly irrelevant. It's still a violation.

Youve missed the point. The only reason "biological or chemical" appeared in the patent is because of an over-zealous patent lawyer, as said by the army themselves. They have also said that they will be ammending the patent to remove any reference to chemical or biological weapons delivery.

There are many, many weapon systems that could be modified to deliver chemical or biological weapons. The only reason this system stands out is because of a bureaucratic error which said the system was designed for something its not.

This is hardly a 'smoking gun' revealing US secret development of chemical or biological weapons, its a simple error. As usual, too much is read into it by certain people.

Sparks

Youve missed the point.

On the contrary. You've driven right by the two significant points.

The only reason "biological or chemical" appeared in the patent is because of an over-zealous patent lawyer, as said by the army themselves.

"The army themselves" are the ones charged with violating the treaty here. Their word isn't quite enough to meet the standard of proof needed.

They have also said that they will be ammending the patent to remove any reference to chemical or biological weapons delivery.

They may amend the patent, but that won't change the fact that the weapon's capabilities violate the treaty.

There are many, many weapon systems that could be modified to deliver chemical or biological weapons.

And those modifications would also violate the treaty, both in developing the modifications and in applying them.

The only reason this system stands out is because of a bureaucratic error which said the system was designed for something its not.

You have no proof that the patent itself is invalid.
You also have overlooked the fact that the US government, specifically the patent office, granted a patent that violates the treaty.

This is hardly a 'smoking gun' revealing US secret development of chemical or biological weapons, its a simple error. As usual, too much is read into it by certain people.

You'll have to prove that. The patent and the treaty are sufficent to require an inquiry and you have not given any proof sufficent to counter them.

Moriarty

Originally posted by Sparks
"The army themselves" are the ones charged with violating the treaty here. Their word isn't quite enough to meet the standard of proof needed.

So the people who designed the weapon are, infact, not qualified to say what the weapon is designed for? Riiiight....

Originally posted by Sparks
They may amend the patent, but that won't change the fact that the weapon's capabilities violate the treaty.

Unless specific grenades have already been developed to transport chemical or biological agents via this launcher, theres preciesly nothing that has violated the treaty. The army says that it was never designed for this use, so i find it rather unlikely that said munitions were created for it.

Originally posted by Sparks
And those modifications would also violate the treaty, both in developing the modifications and in applying them.

(Maybe if i repeat myself enough, itll get through..) The weapon was never designed for this. It was a lawyer that got in over his head. The weapon was not researched to carry chem/bio weapons. The weapon was not built to carry chem/bio weapons (if it has, in fact, even been properly built yet).

Originally posted by Sparks
You have no proof that the patent itself is invalid.
You also have overlooked the fact that the US government, specifically the patent office, granted a patent that violates the treaty.

The patent doesnt need to be invalid. The people who submitted the patent (the US army through a patent lawyer/firm) acknowledged there was an error in their submission and have said they will be having it amended. The fact that the patent office granted the patent is irrelevant, their remit is to grant new ideas a patent, not to ensure it doesnt conflict with any international treatys.

Originally posted by Sparks
You'll have to prove that. The patent and the treaty are sufficent to require an inquiry and you have not given any proof sufficent to counter them.

No, i really wont If they acknowledged that the patent was acurate, then there would be an infringement of the treaty. What happened is a crapout in the bureaucracy. The weapon was not designed to carry out the function that was stated on the patent. That is all that matters.

Mountains out of molehills and all that..

Sparks

Moriarty,

So the people who designed the weapon are, infact, not qualified to say what the weapon is designed for? Riiiight....

We're not talking about their qualifications Moriarty, but their motivations.

Unless specific grenades have already been developed to transport chemical or biological agents via this launcher, theres preciesly nothing that has violated the treaty.

The patent is for the grenade. It's a rifle-launched grenade, meaning that there is no launcher - this isn't like the M70. The launcher and grenade are an integral unit.

The army says that it was never designed for this use, so i find it rather unlikely that said munitions were created for it.

This is the same army that tested atomic weapons and nerve gas on it's own troops and US civilians without telling them and that dropped more chemical agents in vietnam than in the history of chemical warfare prior to that. Which, in case you think those are random, go to demonstrate the army's willingness to not disclose facts to the public and to demonstrate it's prior record with chemical agents.

(Maybe if i repeat myself enough, itll get through..) The weapon was never designed for this.

You don't have to repeat yourself, you just have to prove it.
Your word, the army's word - these are insufficent as proof.

No, i really wont If they acknowledged that the patent was acurate, then there would be an infringement of the treaty.

So if I develop a biological weapon and then file a patent for it as a new means to brew tea, it wouldn't violate the treaty? :rolleyes:
Crap.
If what you say is true, then it should be easy enough to prove.
But you do have to prove it.

Moriarty

Theres little point continuing with this, you seem to be firmly deployed under your tinfoil hat.

You wont accept what the army offically says now, but you will accept what the army offically said before it retracted it due to apparently being innacurate. If your so stedfast in your view of the world, theres little i can (or, more specifically, want to) do to change it.

Sparks

Moriarty,
Shall I take that as a forfiet then? :rolleyes:
"What, you won't take the word of an organisation that has filed offical documents stateing that it's violated an international treaty when it says it's not really after doing that?"
Oddly enough, no. And neither would, or did, the US army.
(Recalls how Iraq stated time and again that they had no WMDs, but their word wasn't good enough).

Victor

Originally posted by Xhen
It depends on what you mean by societies and infrastructures. Only the UK has legal and governmental institutions that can match the strength and longevity of those in the US. Most of Europe has gone through a variety of monarchs, dictatorships, occupations, and constitutions during the same period that the US has operated under the same Constitution. The governments and institutions on Continental Europe are all very young by comparison. Most don't pre-date WWII.

Perhaps the national governments or constitutions don't. However, various forms of reformed, democratic mature and / or delegated authority has existed in these places for a very long time.

Victor

Originally posted by Xhen
Actually Steven den Beste is one of the best known bloggers on the internet and his work has appeared in, among other places, The Wall Street Journal.

Well the WSJ can be full of biased propaganda when it wants to be. I understand Britany Spears is also well "known", but hardly an authority on much.

Originally posted by Xhen
Your Indymedia links give your game away, Sparks. Flat-earth Marxism and Chomsky boilerplate isn't going to earn you a place at the adult table in the US.

Attack teh posting not the poster.

Victor

Originally posted by Xhen
Since the ICC draft statute would "give effect" to international laws and provisions contrary to the Bill of Rights--namely, forfeiting wholesale the Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights of Americans brought before it--any ICC judgment against an American is not likely to withstand a constitutional challenge.

Which part of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments in particular? - they are quite broad. And what is wrong with changing the constitution again (it's been done 27 times) to accept the ICC? It only needs state approval.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html#amendmentv

Of course the ICC cannot cover anything that has been the subject of a trial in the USA, so there is no risk of double jeopardy.

Victor

http://www.cato.org/dailys/07-09-03.html
"Upholding Liberty in America" - and doing what in the rest of the world

Victor

Originally posted by Moriarty
(Maybe if i repeat myself enough, itll get through..) The weapon was never designed for this. It was a lawyer that got in over his head. The weapon was not researched to carry chem/bio weapons. The weapon was not built to carry chem/bio weapons (if it has, in fact, even been properly built yet).

So the lawyer came up with the wording and details all by himself?

Moriarty

Originally posted by Victor
So the lawyer came up with the wording and details all by himself?

It would have helped if you read the link at the top of my first post about this

From sparks' link

According to a June 9, 2003 San Francisco Chronicle article:

A spokesman for the Edgewood Chemical Biological Center in Aberdeen, Md., which oversaw development of the gas projectile, characterized the affair as a misunderstanding caused by an overly aggressive patent attorney who added a few poorly chosen words.
"There was never any intent to use this for chemical or biological warfare agents," wrote public affairs officer Miguel Morales.

"The attorney and the inventors were simply trying to claim their invention as broadly as legally entitled," Morales wrote, adding, "It is clear now, in hindsight, that inserting the term chemical or biological 'agents' was unfortunate."

He said the Army is planning to change the patent language to delete any reference to chemical and biological material.

Sparks

Moriarty,
That implies one of two scenarios:
1) The weapon was developed for use with biological and chemical agents in violation of the treaty and this whole mess is a serious embarressment to the US army who are scrambling for cover;
2) The weapon was not developed for use with biological and chemical agents and the patent application was fraudulent and the fact that it was granted says that the patent office doesn't verify claims in which case every patent it grants is suspect.

The implications from the second scenario are extreme for the patent office because even a cursory examination of the patent claim reveals the phrase "biological agent" which should have set off alarm bells, and a fuller examination would have revealed a direct and specific violation of the treaty.

Of course, you realise that both scenarios imply that the US government / US army place no weight on the treaty at all.


By the way, had you read the very next paragraph in my link, you'd have seen it read:

But Edward Hammond, a bioweapons watchdog with the nonprofit Sunshine Project in Austin, Texas, said the wording of the patent represents more than a semantic error.
Hammond said the Sunshine Project Web site lists a series of government- sponsored inventions that outline ways to solve the technical challenges of delivering a gas or aerosol payload in such a way that detonation of the warhead doesn't disperse the active ingredient.

Moriarty

Originally posted by Sparks
By the way, had you read the very next paragraph in my link, you'd have seen it read:

I read the article, along with most of the patent itself. I didnt include the above in the quote because it wasnt relavant to the point i was making.

The army could develop many delivery methods for gas/aerosol payloads without breaching the CWC. Of course, the page conveniently doesnt mention that fact. Implication, implication, implication..

Sparks

I read the article, along with most of the patent itself. I didnt include the above in the quote because it wasnt relavant to the point i was making.

Since when has "wasn't relevant" meant "specifically contradicted" ?

The army could develop many delivery methods for gas/aerosol payloads without breaching the CWC. Of course, the page conveniently doesnt mention that fact. Implication, implication, implication..

Actually, it does point out that it takes effort and testing to develop a grenade that delivers a gas or aerosol agent without dispersing it all over the gaff or just plain destroying it.
Which, again, supports my assertions and specifically contradicts yours.

Moriarty

Originally posted by Sparks
Since when has "wasn't relevant" meant "specifically contradicted" ?

Do you know the difference between opinion and fact? Apparently not. Do you even understand that the part i didnt quote does not infact contradict the earlier part? The most you could possibly say is that the opinion tries to place an air of uncertainty over it. Sheeesh...

Originally posted by Sparks
Actually, it does point out that it takes effort and testing to develop a grenade that delivers a gas or aerosol agent without dispersing it all over the gaff or just plain destroying it.
Which, again, supports my assertions and specifically contradicts yours.

How in the world does saying that something requires effort and testing to develop mean that its legal for them to develop? Are crystal balls provided to the other readers of this article!? You realise you just reproduced - equally vaguely - what was stated in the article... right?

Hang on, didnt i say i wasnt going to go on with this? Blast.

Moriarty

Oooh, i missed a part aswell.

Originally posted by Sparks
Which, again, supports my assertions and specifically contradicts yours.

So tell me, how does this reinforce your assertions or contradict mine. Lay it out plainly for me. Go on.

bonkey

Originally posted by Moriarty
How in the world does saying that something requires effort and testing to develop mean that its legal for them to develop?

WEll, I would have thought that was obvious.

If someone told you the following :

1) It is virtually impossible to accidentally design a system which does Task X. If Task X is required, then it must be designed specifically.

2) We have a system which can perform Task X.

What is the conclusion? The conclusion is that it is virtually impossibnle that this system performs Task X by accident.

Now, to state on a patent that something has been designed for Task X, means that either :

a) You lied, and it wasnt.
or
b) It is virtually definite that you designed it specifically to carry out Task X.

Yes, this leaves a small possibility that the system can do Task X by chance. To check that, one would have to review the design process and/or the design goals and/or the design itself to see whether or not the ability to perform Task X has arisen as a result of a combination of factors needed for other purposes, or if there is tech included which is clearly for Task X.

This is the line Sparks has taken from the start. The conclusions are that either this is a massive co-incidence, or a deliberate breach of patenting process, or a deliberate breaking of an international agreement.

In such a case, the only impartial way to resolve it would be to allow independant experts to verify that neither the patent system, nor the international agreement have been contravened.

What has the US military done? Gotten its own experts to issue a statement saying "no, we didnt break the law.

Moriarty - if you still believe that is sufficient, ask yourself whether or not it would work as a defence in a court of law "I know I look guilty, your Honour, but trust me, I amn't".

jc

Sparks

So tell me, how does this reinforce your assertions or contradict mine. Lay it out plainly for me. Go on.

As you wish.

ARTICLE I
Each State Party to this Convention undertakes never in any circumstance to develop, produce, stockpile or otherwise acquire or retain:
(1) Microbial or other biological agents, or toxins whatever their origin or method of production, of types and in quantities that have no justification for prophylactic, protective or other peaceful purposes;
(2) Weapons, equipment or means of delivery designed to use such agents or toxins for hostile purposes or in armed conflict.

The granted patent means two things - that the device in the patent exists and works, and that it is under consideration for further production. The treaty specifically prohibits development of such a device - the patent says that such development was carried out.

The other alternative is that the patent application is fraudulent - because it claims that the device can do things that it cannot.

There isn't a third solution I can think of.

Do you know the difference between opinion and fact?

The facts are that the US army filed for and was granted that patent.
The opinions on that page are given by A spokesman for the Edgewood Chemical Biological Center in Aberdeen, Md., which oversaw development of the gas projectile (your quote) and from Edward Hammond, a bioweapons watchdog with the nonprofit Sunshine Project in Austin, Texas.
Now you can argue that one man's opinion is more correct than the others - but neither is documented fact. Which isn't to say that both are incorrect, you understand.
You do understand, don't you? Because you did quote an opinion as a fact only a post or two ago.

How in the world does saying that something requires effort and testing to develop mean that its legal for them to develop?

It doesn't. It means that it's illegal. Which was my point.
If they filed a non-fraudulent patent application, then they had to do the development, which is illegal under the treaty.
If they filed a fraudulent patent application, then the patent is invalid, and the incredibly obvious nature of the error in the application throws all other patent applications filed by that office into question.

Of course, they could have done the development and filed a fraudulent patent application, but that hardly seems likely, and is doubly illegal anyway.

So basicly, the fact say that they broke the law - the opinions simply differ on which set of laws they broke.
And since the people that broke the law are the ones saying it was the lesser law (with the lesser associated punsihment and embarressment) that was broken, I'm rather skeptical of their opinion.

Now, was that clear enough?

Xhen

Originally posted by Victor
Which part of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments in particular?

-No right to trial by a jury of peers. Guilt or innocence would be determined by five judges - some of whom may come from countries openly hostile to the United States.
-No guarantee of a speedy trial.
-The right of defendants to confront their accusers is highly conditional. The court would have the authority to conceal the identity of witnesses.
-There is NOT a protection against double jeopardy. There is nothing to prevent a person acquited in American courts from being retried in the ICC for the same crime.

And what is wrong with changing the constitution again (it's been done 27 times) to accept the ICC? It only needs state approval.

Well, it's a little more complicated than that. The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. None of the 27 amendments to the Constitution have been proposed by constitutional convention. It then must be ratified by 3/4 (38 of 50) states.

There is no chance whatsoever that either Congress or American voters would amend the Constitution in order to surrender rights guaranteed under the Bill of Rights. All but one of the previous amendments have INCREASED rights, not restricted them. The only exception was the Eighteenth Amendment - the Prohibition of alcohol. Not coincidentally, it's also the only amendment that has been repealed.

There is significant opposition to the ICC within both parties in Congress so the chances of a two-thirds majority voting for an amendment are nil. They are less than nil that voters in 38 states would approve of such of an amendment. The vast majority of Americans would be openly hostile to the idea of surrendering rights in order to join the ICC.

Moriarty

Originally posted by bonkey
<snip>

Youve missed an important point. Let me continue your example.. task X is illegal as we know, but there is also a task Y that is legal - but very similar to task X.

Now what happens when you design something for task Y, that could also be used for task X - but it wont be, because thats illegal and theyre only intrested in developing this thing for task Y in the first place anyway.

Task X is development of aerosol release weapons for chemical/biological agents, Task Y is development of riot-control chemical release weapons - which the US is entitled to continue research and development on. Very similar if not identical tasks, i think youll agree.

Now do you see where im coming from?

Victor

Originally posted by Xhen
-No right to trial by a jury of peers.

And who would Milosevic have as peers?

Originally posted by Xhen
Guilt or innocence would be determined by five judges

As opposed to perhaps one judge (and no appeal) in a military tribunal? Often it is better to sit in front of 5 judges than 12 angry men. Many places have professional juries and multi-judge courts for special cases, as judges tend to be more impartial that juries. Would you have a jury sit for 5 years?

Not all trials are held in front of juries - especially in special circumstances, such as paramilitary activity, organised crime and the like. Even Amnesty International and the US State Department, while concerned at non-jury trials, will accept them if they can be justified on such grounds.

Originally posted by Xhen
some of whom may come from countries openly hostile to the United States

However judges tend to be rather impartial (even in Zimbabwe!) and I'm sure ICC judges will be especially so.

Originally posted by Xhen
-No guarantee of a speedy trial.

Does this exist in reality in the USA now? Perhaps not, I haven't studied it that indepth, however most court systems provide checks and balances in the event of potential delays. Given that the crimes are likely to be extreme in nature, the court is likely to take this fact into account.

Originally posted by Xhen
-The right of defendants to confront their accusers is highly conditional. The court would have the authority to conceal the identity of witnesses.

Just as many courts do today to protect witnesses (often victims). Victims should not be blamed for being victims. And have those in Guantanamo Bay been given the chance to confront their accusers?

Originally posted by Xhen
-There is NOT a protection against double jeopardy. There is nothing to prevent a person acquited in American courts from being retried in the ICC for the same crime.

As I understand it the remit is only for cases that national courts are unwilling or unable to prosecute - surely this means no double jeopardy.

Moriarty

Originally posted by Sparks
The granted patent means two things - that the device in the patent exists and works, and that it is under consideration for further production. The treaty specifically prohibits development of such a device - the patent says that such development was carried out.

The other alternative is that the patent application is fraudulent - because it claims that the device can do things that it cannot.

There isn't a third solution I can think of.

Solution three: this system is under development for riot-control chemical release (which is allowed) or any other number of reasons that arent covered under the CWC. In which case precisely zip has been breached in the CWC.

Sparks

Solution three: this system is under development for riot-control chemical release (which is allowed) or any other number of reasons that arent covered under the CWC. In which case precisely zip has been breached in the CWC.

Biological agents and chemical agents are different things requiring different means of dispersal and storage Moriarty.
So that third option doesn't hold water.


Xhen,
A lot is made of the lack of a jury of peers in the ICC - but the ICC is designed to prosecute war crimes. Who the hell would you put in the jury box?
Besides that obvious point, there is the point that the US has seen a large number of people released from death row - where a jury of their peers had put them, despite their being innocent of the crime.
As to the judges, here are the judges you claim are hostile to the US. What countries do they come from?
Bolivia, Ireland, Mali, United Kingdom, Trinidad and Tobago, France, Germany, Canada, Finland, Ghana, Costa Rica, Cyprus, South Africa, Italy, Samoa, Republic of Korea, Brazil, Latvia
Half those are offical US allies, aren't they?

Victor

Originally posted by Sparks
France, Germany, South Africa

...O_o bogey countries :rolleyes:

bonkey

Originally posted by Xhen
-No right to trial by a jury of peers.

Just like Gitmo.
Also, from the site I provide a link to fuirther down :

The United States has signed extradition treaties with many countries that explicitly permit Americans to be tried without a jury

Strange that....you say its an inviolate right to be tried by Jury, and your government clearly disagrees.

Guilt or innocence would be determined by five judges - some of whom may come from countries openly hostile to the United States.

Just like Gitmo, replacing the term "United States" with relevant nations.

Indeed, any such comment is an immediate implication that the problem is that the judges wouldn't be impartial. I'm curious as to how the US avoids this problem itself - or is this objection just based on a belief in the superior honesty of Americans when compared to the rest of the world.

Incidentaly, I'm pretty sure that neither the US Constitution nor the Bill of Rights covers that one.

-No guarantee of a speedy trial.

Just like Gitmo.

-The right of defendants to confront their accusers is highly conditional. The court would have the authority to conceal the identity of witnesses.

Almost like Gitmo, where the defendants may not be given access to evidence, and where civilian (i.e. non-US-military) personnel - including any civilian defense personnel - would have to leave.

-There is NOT a protection against double jeopardy. There is nothing to prevent a person acquited in American courts from being retried in the ICC for the same crime.

http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/icc/facts.htm

Here's the relevant bit :

The Rome Statute contains a comprehensive list of rights enjoyed by any accused person, including: presumption of innocence; right to counsel; right to present evidence and to confront witnesses; right to remain silent; right to be present at trial; right to have charges proved beyond a reasonable doubt; and protection against double jeopardy.

Reading slightly furher down, we see bits such as :

The U.S. can avoid prosecution of its citizens by the ICC by using its own courts to prosecute genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes

And just in case you wish to dismiss Human Rights Watch as being as suspect an organisation as some you have already felt the need to have a go at, there are no shortage of other refernces.

What I can't find is one claiming that double jeopardy still exists with an explanation as to why.

Indeed, looking at the next paragraph on that page, we also see :

Former U.S. State Department Legal Advisor Monroe Leigh has said: "The list of due process rights guaranteed by the Rome Statute are, if anything, more detailed and comprehensive than those in the American Bill of Rights. . . . I can think of no right guaranteed to military personnel by the U.S. Constitution that is not also guaranteed in the Treaty of Rome."

Would Mr. Leigh be a liar then, or just clueless?

There is no chance whatsoever that either Congress or American voters would amend the Constitution in order to surrender rights guaranteed under the Bill of Rights.

Don't you really mean that there is no chance whatsoever of the US ever putting itself in any position where it is not the sole lord and master of its own fate. regardless of whether ot not it impacted on your Constitution or Bill of Rights.?

jc

Xhen

References to Gitmo are irrelevant because the US Constitution covers only American citizens, not foreign enemy combatants.

Ultimately the constitutionality of the ICC would be determined by the US Supreme Court if the US ever did ratify the treaty, but amending the Constitution to align it with the ICC is not a remotely realistic possibility. Regardless of matters of constitutionality, there is significant opposition to the ICC within the US. Both politicians and the American people believe that the court will be hijacked by anti-American groups for political purposes and insufficient safeguards and accountability are in place to prevent this from happening. Whether you agree or disagree with this belief, you can't argue that the US, as a sovereign nation, doesn't have the right to reject entering into an international treaty for any reason it sees fit.

The burden is not on the US to convince others why it should not agree to the treaty, the burden is on others to convince the US government and the American people why it should. That hasn't happened. Even Clinton, when he signed the ICC, said it had "significant flaws" and stated he would not send it for ratification to the Senate until those flaws were corrected. He also recommended to the Bush administration, when it took over, that the ICC treaty not be sent to the Senate for ratification without major changes. The treaty would have been rejected by the Senate anyway because of significant opposition to the ICC treaty in its present form.

Sparks

References to Gitmo are irrelevant because the US Constitution covers only American citizens, not foreign enemy combatants.

*fumes*
[fume]
Foreign Enemy Combatants?
Then why are they being RELEASED for being INNOCENT???
Not to even mention the blatent and specific violation of the Geneva Convention that Gitmo is.

Ultimately the constitutionality of the ICC would be determined by the US Supreme Court if the US ever did ratify the treaty, but amending the Constitution to align it with the ICC is not a remotely realistic possibility.

Which does imply that you totally missed the point regarding extradition treaties with other countries that Bonkey made in the last post.

The burden is not on the US to convince others why it should not agree to the treaty, the burden is on others to convince the US government and the American people why it should.

Indeed. And not one reasonable person in the world has even a small slight problem with that.
It's the deliberate undermining of the ICC by the US through bullying, propaganda, and outright threats that we have a problem with.
So how about this - if you don't want in, don't sign.
And then keep your troops out of other countries that do sign up.
Or even better, don't commit war crimes and actually stick to things you ratify, like the Geneva Conventions and the UN Charter!
[/fume]

Xhen

So how about this - if you don't want in, don't sign.
And then keep your troops out of other countries that do sign up.

Hey, we'd love to get our troops out of Bosnia and Kosovo if the EU ever gets its act together enough to stop genocide on its own continent. Hopefully we'll soon be pulling our troops out of Germany as well and moving them to Eastern Europe where they still don't trust Russia and know which country they can count on to defend them and which countries they cannot.

Sparks

Xhen,

Hey, we'd love to get our troops out of Bosnia and Kosovo if the EU ever gets its act together enough to stop genocide on its own continent.

Well we need the odd genocide to keep our firearms-related crime level high enough to compete with the US :rolleyes:
Seriously, do you honestly think that the EU could function if we had a law saying that we could just invade any country we wanted?
*sheesh*

Hopefully we'll soon be pulling our troops out of Germany as well and moving them to Eastern Europe where they still don't trust Russia and know which country they can count on to defend them and which countries they cannot.

Perhaps you misread me. I said "keep your troops out of other countries that do sign up."
They would be :
Afghanistan
Albania
Algeria
Andorra
Angola
Antigua and Barbuda
Argentina
Armenia
Australia
Austria
Bahamas
Bahrain
Bangladesh
Barbados
Belgium
Belize
Benin
Bolivia
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Botswana
Brazil
Bulgaria
Burkina Faso
Burundi
Cambodia
Cameroon
Canada
Cape Verde
Central African Republic
Chad
Chile
Colombia
Comoros
Congo
Costa Rica
Côte d'Ivoire
Croatia
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Democratic Republic of the Congo
Denmark
Djibouti
Dominica
Dominican Republic
Ecuador
Egypt
Eritrea
Estonia
Fiji
Finland
France
Gabon
Gambia
Georgia
Germany
Ghana
Greece
Guinea
Guinea-Bissau
Guyana
Haiti
Honduras
Hungary
Iceland
Iran (Islamic Republic of)
Ireland
Italy
Jamaica
Jordan
Kenya
Kuwait
Kyrgyzstan
Latvia
Lesotho
Liberia
Liechtenstein
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Madagascar
Malawi
Mali
Malta
Marshall Islands
Mauritius
Mexico
Monaco
Mongolia
Morocco
Mozambique
Namibia
Nauru
Netherlands
New Zealand
Niger
Nigeria
Norway
Oman
Panama
Paraguay
Peru
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Republic of Korea
Republic of Moldova
Romania
Russian Federation
Saint Lucia
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
Samoa
San Marino
Sao Tome and Principe
Senegal
Serbia and Montenegro
Seychelles
Sierra Leone
Slovakia
Slovenia
Solomon Islands
South Africa
Spain
Sudan
Sweden
Switzerland
Syrian Arab Republic
Tajikistan
Thailand
The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
Timor-Leste
Trinidad and Tobago
Uganda
Ukraine
United Arab Emirates
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
United Republic of Tanzania
Uruguay
Uzbekistan
Venezuela
Yemen
Zambia
Zimbabwe

Victor

Originally posted by Xhen
Hey, we'd love to get our troops out of Bosnia and Kosovo

Aren't they leaving Kosovo already?