Europe's old laggards will never balance US power

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?