Europe's old laggards will never balance US power

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?

Sparks

Yes Victor, they used their veto in the UN SC to prevent peacekeeping from continuing in retaliation for the ICC exemption for US troops being extended - even though the one year was all they wanted last year...

Xhen

Well we need the odd genocide to keep our firearms-related crime level high enough to compete with the US.

Here's the truth from Mark Steyn: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2003/01/05/do0502.xml

Since the Government's "total ban" five years ago, there are more and more guns being used by more and more criminals in more and more crimes. Now, in the wake of Birmingham's New Year bloodbath, there are calls for the total ban to be made even more total: if the gangs refuse to obey the existing laws, we'll just pass more laws for them not to obey. According to a UN survey from last month, England and Wales now have the highest crime rate of the world's 20 leading nations. One can query the methodology of the survey while still recognising the peculiar genius by which British crime policy has wound up with every indicator going haywire - draconian gun control plus vastly increased gun violence plus stratospheric property crime.

Meanwhile, America's traditionally high and England and Wales's traditionally low murder rates are remorselessly converging. In 1981, the US rate was nine times higher than the English. By 1995, it was six times. Last year, it was down to 3.5. Given that US statistics, unlike the British ones, include manslaughter and other lesser charges, the real rate is much closer. New York has just recorded the lowest murder rate since the 19th century. I'll bet that in the next two years London's murder rate overtakes it.

And this: http://www.thevanguard.org/thevanguard/other_writers/steyn.shtml

Old impressions die hard: Americans still think of Britain as a low-crime country. Conversely, the British think of America as a high-crime country. But neither impression is true. The overall crime rate in England and Wales is 60 percent higher than that in the United States. True, in America you're more likely to be shot to death. On the other hand, in England you're more likely to be strangled to death. But in both cases, the statistical likelihood of being murdered at all is remote, especially if you steer clear of the drug trade. When it comes to anything else, though -- burglary, auto theft, armed robbery, violent assault, rape -- the crime rate reaches deep into British society in ways most Americans would find virtually inconceivable.

Between the introduction of pistol permits in 1903 and the banning of handguns after the Dunblane massacre in 1996, Britain has had a century of incremental gun control -- "sensible measures that all reasonable people can agree on." And what's the result? Even when you factor in America's nutcake jurisdictions with the crackhead mayors, the overall crime rate in England and Wales is higher than in all 50 states, even though over there they have more policemen per capita than in the U.S., on vastly higher rates of pay installing more video surveillance cameras than anywhere else in the Western world. Robbery, sex crimes, and violence against the person are higher in England and Wales; property crime is twice as high; vehicle theft is higher still; the British are 2.3 times more likely than Americans to be assaulted, and three times more likely to be violently assaulted. Between 1973 and 1992, burglary rates in the U.S. fell by half. In Britain, not even the Home Office's disreputable reporting methods (if a burglar steals from 15 different apartments in one building, it counts as a single crime) can conceal the remorseless rise: Britons are now more than twice as likely as Americans to be mugged; two-thirds will have their property broken into at some time in their lives. Even more revealing is the divergent character between U.K. and U.S. property crime: In America, just over 10 percent of all burglaries are "hot burglaries" -- committed while the owners are present; in Britain, it's over half. Because of insurance-required alarm systems, the average thief increasingly concludes that it's easier to break in while you're on the premises. Your home-security system may conceivably make your home more safe, but it makes you less so.

Mark Steyn speaks the truth. Breaking into a home in the US while the owners are home is like playing Russian roulette. Needless to say, it happens a whole lot less than in the UK.

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?

The EU doesn't have the military power to invade anyone, even if it wanted to. The military in places like Germany and Belgium have become just an extension of the welfare state. Only the UK maintains an effective fighting force. It's not surprising that the EU wants to build its security out of walls of parchment because that's all it has the ability to do. The secret truth is that the EU believes that if there was a real threat to its security, well, the US would do something about it. That may not necessarily be true in the future, though, as Americans are beginning to question why we should continue to protect a wealthy continent that should be capable of providing its own defense.

Sparks

Xhen,
Firstly, the UK is not the EU.
Please look at some other EU countries where firearms laws permit civilians to own guns for a more realisitic comparison.

Secondly, if the germans have such a bad military, how come they were asked by the US to send troops to Afghanistan to take over from US troops so that the US troops could go to Iraq?

bonkey

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

Really? So you don't see a problem with the fact that your own country inflicts on others a "legal system" with all of the flaws that you list as reasons why Americans would never accept a foreign authority.

Fair enough.....nice to see that when American's say that they believe in Equality they only mean "Equality of Americans". And before you miss the point and rant on about your Constitution only covering American citizens again - I'm referring to your mindset about what you (as a nation) claim to believe, as opposed to what your constitution obliges you to do.

but amending the Constitution to align it with the ICC is not a remotely realistic possibility.

So perhaps you could point out the Constitutional Amendments for the Extradition Treaties the US has signed with other nations which permit the extradition of US citizens for trial by a foreign power?

After all - you keep remining us that we poor Europeans don't really understand your legal system and/or political structure, so I'm not gonna risk getting it wrong. I'd much rather if an American such as yourself could show me, seeing as you've been so helpful in digging out the various bits of the Constitution / Bill of Rights up to now.

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.

Of course it has the right, but that doesnt put it beyond criticism and scorn for exercising that right. YOu will find precious few people outside the US who are applauding yoru nation for refusing to ratify the International Convention for the Rights fo the Child, nor the Kyoto Agreements. Along a similar line, I doubt you will find many who think that the US withdrawing from the ABM Treaty was a praiuseworthy act.

You have the right to do these things, but it doesnt make doing these things right, nor does it remove our right to scorn you for it if we so choose.

Or does your belief in Freedom of Speech only extend as far as American citizenry as well?

the burden is on others to convince the US government and the American people why it should. That hasn't happened.

Well, yeah. When I hand you a link to a web-site showing that virtually all of the reasons you have presented are richly couched in Microsoftian FUD tactics, and you decide that its more important to ignore that, make a dismissive comment about the irrelevance of me pointing out that you inflict these wrongs on others, and then re-present the same FUD........its kinda easy to see why you can claim "that hasn't happened. If it had, you'd have found some reference that was irrelevant to the assurances, made a comment on it, ignored the rest and repeated that you had concerns and no-one had allayed them.

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.

Excuse me, but how could your president sign something which was clearly and irreconcilably (as you would have us believe) in violation of your Constitution and Bill of Rights????

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

When is the last time you actually went on a tour through these Eastern European nations and made that assessment?

Isn't what you really mean to say "we will be made move our troops out of Germany, so we are pre-empting that by finding a new base of operations on the European mainland - preferably a less developed nation who will be more inclined to let us do whaetever we want".

After all, those pesky krauts refused to join your latest war. My god...if only your bases were in nations who didnt have the guts to stand up for their own convictions in the face of US pressure...

"Don't trust Russia". Give me a break. You dont want them to trust Russia, perhaps, but thats completely different.

As per usual, I see that you have completely neglected to offer linkage for this. Again - for an individual who was demanding proof of any allegation that was even vaguely against your beliefs, its nice to see you apply the same rigour to your own accusations.

Hey, we'd love to get our troops out of Bosnia and Kosovo

Sure, but not out of somewhere like Iraq, where there's tons of oil, right?

Isn't it amazing how the places that US-supporters always list as the first places they want to leave are the really really poor nations, and the ones which have strategic and/or financial worth are the ones where they are more likely to be there "for the long run".

I'm sure that its just co-incidence though.

jc

Éomer of Rohan

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

That is rubbish and I know, I have been to Lvov, the centre of the Ukrainian nationalist movement - the people there I spoke to were not willing to be oppressed by a centralist bureaucratised government but were bloody terrified of the West - especially given the speed with which they embraced Germany. Speaking of Germany, I reckon Poland probably hasn't forgotten, no matter how many unterstricts are drawn. And the Ukraine and Belarus are part of the CIS as far as I remember (could be wrong on that one).

And I would imagine both the Slovak and Czech Republics are somewhat peeved with the US government if anyone remembers the various (and varying lol) lists of the coalition of the willing.

No nation in Eastern Europe even fears Russia anymore - they have no reason to; sure Poland and the Baltic Republics are looking for Nato membership - and it is not because they fear Russia (the Northern and Baltic fleets of which, remember, are rusting in Murmansk, Leningrad and Kaliningrad respectively), it is because they recognise the political realities of a unipolarised world.

Xhen

Really? So you don't see a problem with the fact that your own country inflicts on others a "legal system" with all of the flaws that you list as reasons why Americans would never accept a foreign authority.

The US hasn't "inflicted" its legal system on anyone. It's attempting to come to grips with a type of warfare in which combatants don't wear uniforms or belong to any single identifiable nation or government. Guantanamo is an attempt to find a way to hold and keep enemy combatants out of the action in an asymmetric war and the laws and procedures being developed to deal with this are going through intense legal scrutiny and challenges. The American legal system is not about instant utopian equality, but rather about finding a workable justice system in a decidedly non-utopian world where enemies are attempting to destroy Western society and values.

So perhaps you could point out the Constitutional Amendments for the Extradition Treaties the US has signed with other nations which permit the extradition of US citizens for trial by a foreign power?

There's a big difference between extradition treaties and the ICC. The Bill of Rights does not extend to Americans who break local laws in foreign countries and the US has voluntarily chosen to sign mutual extradition treaties which recognize the right of those sovereign nations to enforce laws broken within their borders. However in cases like the misguided Belgium war crimes statutes where a country attempts to claim universal jurisdiction (talk about unilateralism!) then American constitutional rights becomes an issue. The ICC claims universal jurisdiction over all signatories which means its authority can potentially supercede American constitutional rights. That makes it a constitutional issue.

Of course it has the right, but that doesnt put it beyond criticism and scorn for exercising that right. YOu will find precious few people outside the US who are applauding yoru nation for refusing to ratify the International Convention for the Rights fo the Child, nor the Kyoto Agreements. Along a similar line, I doubt you will find many who think that the US withdrawing from the ABM Treaty was a praiuseworthy act. Many countries have been attempting to pick a fight with the US. You have the right to do these things, but it doesnt make doing these things right, nor does it remove our right to scorn you for it if we so choose. Or does your belief in Freedom of Speech only extend as far as American citizenry as well?

Of course you have the right to criticize the US just as the US has the right to ignore those criticisms. Quite frankly, a lot of nations have been wanting to pick diplomatic fights with the US since the end of the Cold War which left the US as the only remaining superpower. Many of the current "multilateral" treaties are tilted specifically toward limiting or shackling American power. When the US declines to put on those shackles the results are predictable - lots of whining, stamping of feet, and hissy fits. Hectoring the United States into submission is not going to work so it's time to actually try to find common ground in reaching realistic treaty agreements.

Kyoto is a horrible treaty from an American perspective and it shouldn't be any surprise to anyone that it was rejected. The US Senate in 1997 passed the Byrd-Hagel Resolution which set the limits in which the US would enter into the Kyoto treaty. In case you think it was some kind of Republican/neo-conservative conspiracy, the resolution was passed 95-0. Since the Senate ultimately must ratify any treaty, it was an unmistakably clear guideline for negotiators on the minimum conditions for American ratification. These minimum guidelines were not met which means that Kyoto was dead regardless of who was in the White House.

Well, yeah. When I hand you a link to a web-site showing that virtually all of the reasons you have presented are richly couched in Microsoftian FUD tactics

I have no idea what "Microsoftian FUD tactics" means and, quite frankly, I've been inundated with links to websites in the short time I've been here. When someone like Sparks backs his argument up with half a dozen links to propaganda shops like Indymedia and the World Socialist Website, you'll have to forgive me if I don't bother putting on hipwaders to wade through that much ****. I don't know which link you're referring to but if you really think it's relevant then please repost it.

Excuse me, but how could your president sign something which was clearly and irreconcilably (as you would have us believe) in violation of your Constitution and Bill of Rights????

The President can sign onto a treaty which adopts Islamic Sharia law if he wants but it doesn't mean jack until the Senate ratifies it and then it can be struck down by the Supreme Court. That's part of the separation of powers wisely written into the Constitution.

When is the last time you actually went on a tour through these Eastern European nations and made that assessment?

I spent time in both the Czech Republic and Poland last year. Prague and Krakow were wonderful. Thanks for asking.

Isn't what you really mean to say "we will be made move our troops out of Germany, so we are pre-empting that by finding a new base of operations on the European mainland - preferably a less developed nation who will be more inclined to let us do whaetever we want".

You won't have to guess what I really mean. I'll tell you what I really mean. And don't you think your condescending attitude toward the "less developed nations" sounds a little bit like Jacques Chirac's attitude? Wouldn't you just love to tell these countries that "they missed a good opportunity to shut up" after they dared to back the US? I bet you would.

Sparks

The US hasn't "inflicted" its legal system on anyone.

Indeed? and what do you call Guantanamo Bay then? Or are those people just honorary US citizens? :rolleyes:
Besides which, the US has inflicted it's legal system on every person who has been adversly affected by US companies whose conduct was not held to be a crime in the US.

It's attempting to come to grips with a type of warfare in which combatants don't wear uniforms or belong to any single identifiable nation or government.

So why not ask those who have already come to grips with it then?

Guantanamo is an attempt to find a way to hold and keep enemy combatants out of the action in an asymmetric war and the laws and procedures being developed to deal with this are going through intense legal scrutiny and challenges.

In foreign and alternative press, perhaps. In reality, they most certainly are not being scrutinised.

The American legal system is not about instant utopian equality, but rather about finding a workable justice system in a decidedly non-utopian world where enemies are attempting to destroy Western society and values.

As I recall, the US legal system is based on utopian ideals. And frankly, it was a decent attempt. It's just that the implementation stinks to high heaven.

There's a big difference between extradition treaties and the ICC. The Bill of Rights does not extend to Americans who break local laws in foreign countries and the US has voluntarily chosen to sign mutual extradition treaties which recognize the right of those sovereign nations to enforce laws broken within their borders.

Xhen, the only americans to be charged under the ICC would be americans who break international laws in foreign countries. Which pretty much means that there is no big difference.

However in cases like the misguided Belgium war crimes statutes where a country attempts to claim universal jurisdiction (talk about unilateralism!)

Frankly, that struck me as a workable stand-in until the founding of the ICC.

then American constitutional rights becomes an issue. The ICC claims universal jurisdiction over all signatories which means its authority can potentially supercede American constitutional rights. That makes it a constitutional issue.

Indeed. Just like for every other signatory of the treaty of rome.
What, you wanted special treatment?

Of course you have the right to criticize the US just as the US has the right to ignore those criticisms.

Indeed. But a criticism and an action are two different levels.

Many of the current "multilateral" treaties are tilted specifically toward limiting or shackling American power.

And this is a problem how? What do you expect, that everyone would accept their soverignty being taken from them?

When the US declines to put on those shackles the results are predictable - lots of whining, stamping of feet, and hissy fits.

The protesting is not because the US refuses to put on shackles - it's because the US breaks treaties that it is signed up to, and it tries to undermine and override those treaties and bodies it decides not to sign up to. That's unacceptable behaviour from any nation.

Hectoring the United States into submission is not going to work so it's time to actually try to find common ground in reaching realistic treaty agreements.

And that is why the above is unacceptable behaviour. It's not possible to enter into realistic treaty agreements with the US given it's present foreign policy.

Kyoto is a horrible treaty from an American perspective and it shouldn't be any surprise to anyone that it was rejected.

Given that the US is the worst offender in the world for CO2 emmissions, I'm unsurprised. However, it's the hypocracy of the US administration in not simply admitting it's obvious problem with this and instead insisting that it's environmentally responsible - while trying to push through alaskan oil drilling, that causes some choking and spluttering.

I have no idea what "Microsoftian FUD tactics" means

Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt - in other words, propaganda.

and, quite frankly, I've been inundated with links to websites in the short time I've been here. When someone like Sparks backs his argument up with half a dozen links to propaganda shops like Indymedia and the World Socialist Website, you'll have to forgive me if I don't bother putting on hipwaders to wade through that much ****.

Then you'll have to forgive me if I consider your arguments to be unfounded opinion, worth slightly less than the paper they're printed on.
I posted one set of indymedia links, which contained the raw documentation submitted to the belgian court, and quoted one paragraph from the WSW that pointed out a point of law.
Now if you have a problem with the arguement, argue with it. If you have a problem with the source, you'd better have precedence to back it up.
And since the information in the WSW was independently sourced, you're SOL on this one, to be honest.

The President can sign onto a treaty which adopts Islamic Sharia law if he wants but it doesn't mean jack until the Senate ratifies it and then it can be struck down by the Supreme Court. That's part of the separation of powers wisely written into the Constitution.

And part of the problem in trying to enter into realistic treaty agreements with the US.

I spent time in both the Czech Republic and Poland last year. Prague and Krakow were wonderful. Thanks for asking.

Was that your tourist assessment or your socio-economic assessment? :rolleyes:

You won't have to guess what I really mean. I'll tell you what I really mean. And don't you think your condescending attitude toward the "less developed nations" sounds a little bit like Jacques Chirac's attitude? Wouldn't you just love to tell these countries that "they missed a good opportunity to shut up" after they dared to back the US? I bet you would.

Funny how an american can point out that the House and Senate and White House are all different people as though the rest of the world never experienced a democratic form of government with several bodies, but doesn't seem to understand himself that France is not the EU and Chirac isn't universally loved, even in France, or that Chirac is only in power because the alternative was a xenophobic right-wing idiot.

Originally posted by Sparks
Indeed? and what do you call Guantanamo Bay then? Or are those people just honorary US citizens? :rolleyes:

Guantanamo Bay is always mentioned as it is topical.
Funny though how short peoples memories are, as it's not a first, in term of dealing with terrorists,indeed innocent people were involved when not too long ago a short distance from where I'm typing this, a neighbouring government invoked a prototype while faced with a relatively smaller but brutal terrorist campaign-they were afraid, very afraid, and took extreme action.
mm

Sparks

Man, Guantanamo is often mentioned here because it is an ongoing violation of the Geneva Convention by a nation that claims to be the example for the western world (hence the title "leader of the free world" that gets applied by americans to the US president).
As to your link, you should have read it further:

The policy was shown to be a failure by the fact that it did nothing to stop the violence, and a new Labour government came to power in 1974 with a commitment to phase it out.

And it's not like everyone was in favour of it:
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/politicspast/story/0,9061,626387,00.html

Further, you can be certain that not only was it debated a lot when it happened, but that if it were to happen again that it would be mentioned a lot here as well.

ps.
I did a brief search but it seems we weren't talking much after Omagh. Garret Fitzgerald did write a piece for the Irish Times on restoring internment without trial, but he advocated against the idea.
We did have a discussion where it got mentioned on boards :
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=393851&highlight=omagh+internment+without+trial#post393851

Originally posted by Sparks
As to your link, you should have read it further:

Now..now! sparks, It's an example of what people do when under threat.
Thats not to say that such a policy is agreed by all citizens/politicians of a country that impliments it, or that it wouldn't be changed or ended by a different regime.
I'd have thought that was so obvious as not to need mentioning.

I'd do a wager that, if Paisley had the authority ( and he could soon have the largest unionist party in the north ) he'd bring internment back,regardsless of the need, not to mention where he'd banish Sinn Féin.
The bush administration regard those at Guantanamo as criminal/terrorist suspects or to use their American twang enemy combatants not representatives of a government or a people.

The same principal was in the heads of those that brought about internment in NI.

As I said we don't have to go too far away from home to find examples of politics and injustice as bad as any example in the U.S, all in times of panic and fear.
Consider what happened to the Birmingham Six, and the Guilford four amongst others and it could happen again anywhere if a country is suffeciently scared.
mm

Sparks

The bush administration regard those at Guantanamo as criminal/terrorist suspects or to use their American twang enemy combatants not representatives of a government or a people.

Fact remains however, Man, that Guantanamo is illegal under the Geneva convention.
And the convention classes some of those there as POWs, but that status is being withheld - and the others are classed as criminals, and that status is being withheld.

tall chapy

Zhen, it is nice to see a US point of view on the boards, it is not often that you get a US citizen willing to share there views here.
Having said that I disagree with a lot of what you did say, but what you said was very informative.
I do believe that a lot of people have/had a lot of respect for the US, with the majority believing that it was the main home of the 'gospel' on equality, freedom , free speech, free association..etc..(Bill of rights/Constitution). But now it may as well of ripped it up.
It has now stopped practising what it was previously teaching in relation to it's beliefs (Bill of rights/Constitution).
America has become even more intraverted & selfish that people are begining to worry. An analagy would be of a friend that something traumatic has happen to them, but instead of getting better which everybody hoped & wished for, they got worse!!.
I personally believe that the US will start on the road of an 'eye for an eye' & justice with a trial will soon go out the window. But the new justice will only be carried out, outside the borders of the USA. Which annoys even more people worldwide, because it is saying, we have one for us (US Citizens) & one law for the rest of the world.

bizmark

the usa is a evil country

I USED to have repect for that country now look at them lol their notting better than the old soviet union .

their bullys and break their own law,s when and how it suits them but get bitchy when some other country does it.They attack the weak and poor for their oil and clam its "self defence" ...... then turn on their allie,s when the lie is showen as it is proveing they have no backbone

now to be honest if anything happen,s to america (and i do mean anything) i will compleatly understand why and from talking to germans english scotish canidans etc on the net i know im not the only one who cant wait to see the bully nation fall flat on its bloated ugly face

Originally posted by Sparks
Fact remains however, Man, that Guantanamo is illegal under the Geneva convention.
And the convention classes some of those there as POWs, but that status is being withheld - and the others are classed as criminals, and that status is being withheld.

Tell me then, what is the difference between IRA prisoners and Al Q'ueda prisoners ?? Both were fighting for their "country" but in the case of the latter, the "country" in question was actually only an adopted safe haven for the export of terror.
I mean, someone here could walk into a cinema, blow themselves up and all around them, claiming to be fighting for Allah.
Should those that support them ( perhaps making the bomb ) be afforded protection under the Geneva convention or be sentencted to life in Dundrums central mental hospital?
I would think the latter.
There was no justification for Sept 11th to my mind, yet it was a situation created by what must have been very intelligent people, who knew that the U.S would fight back.
It is a very rare occurance, that a strong person , once struck in the street, won't throw a blow back.
That cuts both ways, as directly and indirectly both european countries and the U.S have supported and effected actions that have created a desire amongst madmen and women to become terrorists.

Now at no point here am I condoning potential mis carriages of justice. I'm just tossing the coin so to speak and asking you to look at the perspective of the one that has been attacked.
We here in Ireland are afforded the luxury of being on the outside looking in and from that perspective , in your case have made some very valid observations.
But at the same time it's perfectly understandable that, the U.S in this case puts it's own security first.
This happens in extreme circumstances all over the world and wouldn't have happened in Guantanamo, if someone hadn't decided to kill thousands of people in Manhattan, invoking the wrath of their country.

To drag this back on topic,given how divided Europe is, and recent childish tit for tat remarks, an effective balance from the E.U for the influence of the U.S will never happen imho.

mm

bonkey

Originally posted by Man
Tell me then, what is the difference between IRA prisoners and Al Q'ueda prisoners ??

Well, the most significant difference was that while detained terrorists in the North of Ireland could be held without trial, they were in all other respects that I am aware of treated by the same legal system as the rest of the citizenry. Similarly, while there were abuses of the system, they were - in all respects ôther than the detainment laws - classified as ordinary criminals, subject to the same rules and conditions as the ODC (ordinary decent criminal).

Not only that, but people said at the time that the UK government was wrong to hold people without trial, just as they said it about the South Africans, and just like theyre saying it about Myanmar today. So, in that respect, why should we treat the US any differently???

Oh - one other small point would be "scale". Not only have the US gone out of their way to remove as many rights from these people as possible, but the numbers that they are dealing with at any one time dwarf most situations that anyone could point out as being comparable, without diving into the bucket of what would generally be already classed as atrocities.

Many people seem to have this strange view that when discussing the US, and a failing of the US is mentioned, that whoever mentioned is obviously has a grudge against the US because other nations have done the same. I dont accept that.

Yes, you can argue that the US is doing no different to any others in remotely comparable positions, and therefore should not be held to blame for doing what everyone else does..

By the same token, however, we might as well argue that because terrorism (and comparable criminal acts) occurs the world over, that they too should not be held to blame individually, or organisationally, as they too are just doing what everyone else in their position does.

Somehow, I cant see anyone really supporting that second point, but its the same "but they did it too" rubbish.

jc

Originally posted by bonkey
Not only that, but people said at the time that the UK government was wrong to hold people without trial, just as they said it about the South Africans, and just like theyre saying it about Myanmar today. So, in that respect, why should we treat the US any differently???

I wouldn't argue with that, I'm just trying to tease out the psychic behind it and scale comes into it there.
I've said before, that I spoke to people in manhattan who 18 months after 9-11 could not go down to the twin towers site.
While, most go down there now, it's still very sore.
Their psychic is a microcosm of what drives the policy of what is going on in Guantanamo, just as Israels close relationship with the U.S drives the anti american psychic of Al Qu'eda.
Now the people behind the twin towers tragedy weren't stupid,they'd probably have got any other western country behaving the same way against Al Q'ueda detainee's if they performed a similar operation there.
The Scale of things in NI was much smaller, but the fear drove the Stormont Government to a similar decision to the Bush administration, to introduce internment, at the end of which most of the detainee's were not charged with anything, and during which the conditions of their detention drew much critisism from both the red cross and Amnesty International.
mm

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Man
To drag this back on topic,given how divided Europe is, and recent childish tit for tat remarks, an effective balance from the E.U for the influence of the U.S will never happen imho.

Never is a very long time Man.

Certainly the balkanised nature of the present European Union is hardly conducive towards anything that even vaguely resembles a united front, but circumstances have changed. Remember, the Soviet Union only took a handful of years to finally collapse in the end, something that you would have probably equally declared would never happen in such a spectacular fashion, either.

The EU has been happy to plod along as a glorified free trade zone for decades now, yet in the post 9/11 world circumstances appear to have shifted. For Europeans, it was not a realization that the World was a dangerous place full of terrorists who wished us harm - what Americans seem not to understand is that Europe has dealt with terrorism for a long time, it is nothing new to us; and ironically, the level of terrorism present on the continent post 9/11 is probably a fraction of that we faced in the 1970’s.

No, for Europeans the realization seems to have been that we were not American. We cannot vote for American representatives and we are not enfranchised to shape American policy, yet we are rather nakedly subject to it. A terrible realization that as a result of our military abdication (due to the horror war we have experienced in the past) we inadvertently also abdicated our right to self-determination in the World.

This sentiment is not a political blip, it is not something that is likely die down once the Iraqi dust settles, it is something that will take a long time to reverse, even if there is no further antagonism. And what further confounds the more traditional pro-American Europeans is that it’s no longer limited to a minority of left wing anti-globalisation activists, but has permeated throughout the entire political spectrum. European anti-Americanism is here to stay, I’m afraid - This is Europe’s legacy of 9/11.

It now remains to be seen how Europe will evolve, whether we will politely accept our perhaps inevitable fate as the wise and loyal Greeks to the new Rome, or whether we attempt to redress this imbalance in part or in full. Certainly the present US administration has created a highly seductive catalyst for pan-European integration and nationalism and how this will pan out is anyone’s guess (although if GWB failed to be re-elected, this would undoubtedly defuse tensions). However, given the recent historic shift in both attitudes and the political landscape it is too dismissive to assume that Europeans will ultimately go gently into the new Imperium.

Originally posted by The Corinthian
Never is a very long time Man.

Certainly the balkanised nature of the present European Union is hardly conducive towards anything that even vaguely resembles a united front, but circumstances have changed. Remember, the Soviet Union only took a handful of years to finally collapse in the end, something that you would have probably equally declared would never happen in such a spectacular fashion, either.

I'll have my hat with salt corinthian:D , if the U.K ever vote in a referendum for the final integration of itself into a United states of Europe.
I'll eat the feather first though if they vote for the Euro,they are just too nationalistic for that.
mm

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Man
I'll have my hat with salt corinthian:D , if the U.K ever vote in a referendum for the final integration of itself into a United states of Europe.
I'll eat the feather first though if they vote for the Euro,they are just too nationalistic for that.

Perhaps not now, but in ten or twenty years? How can you predict British public opinion any more than you could predict the 9/11 or the collapse of the Soviet Union? And that assumes that there is a Britain in ten or twenty years, or that it is even part of any future European Union. You may yet be eating your hat, unsalted

Cork

The idea of a United States of Europe is just an idea. It will never happen. EU enlargement has put an end to United States Of Europe.

The EU needs to get its act together on fundunding for Aids in Aificia and come up with the billion.

The recent Italian / German spat hightlights yet more devisions in Europe. The Irish atitude to the EU has also changed. If referendums were obligitory across Europe - I think that the EU would not have a United States Of Europe Pipe dream.

This idea is not been driven up the citizens of any EU country. Even Germans have become very lukewarm with regards to the EU.

This is the impression I get from meeting Germans.