US "bullies" countries into giving immunity to US forces - Page 3 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Mojo_PeiPei · 12-14-2004, 05:02 PM

RB, this is ridiculous that you say that the ICC some how has legal authority. On what grounds? They exert no power except where it's conceded. What makes there actions so righteous and legal? If anything it is illegal because it circumvents the legal constants of our country.

sob · 12-14-2004, 06:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

Better then blinding hatred for a country that despite it's flaws, is still one of the most giving and self sacrificing nations. Can you name another country that has done half as much as America to help out others? To free oppressed people? That gives aid at such high amounts?

Didn't think so.

Ummm, Australia? New Zealand?

No, wait, that's not right.....

Mojo_PeiPei · 12-14-2004, 06:09 PM

They are part of the axis of evil, so they don't count.

sob · 12-14-2004, 06:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KMA-628

I never said condone, I said give them a little latitude,

You seem to show absolutely no appreciation for all the gifts, rights and blessings that you do have. People have died trying to get their message out that is similar to yours. You have no fear of retribution, you can spout whatever doctrine you like and no one will stop you, and in fact, in many cases they will support your beliefs. Jesus man, have at least a small morsel of gratitude. What trials and tribulations did you have to go through to get your freedoms? None, they were given to you. And, why where they given to you? Because of where you live.

I don't really understand constant complaining while completely ignoring the good things that you have been given.

And many of the things you take for granted, are because of the sacrifice of others.

Do you have no compassion for the people that at lease somewhat contributed and did something so that you can complain about them?

I never give you a hard time about your beliefs, but in this matter, I think your overwhelming negativity clouds some of the things you could actually appreciate that are right in front of your face.

Whether you like or don't like what the troops do or how they do it, at least they are fighting for what they believe. You have to at least give them credit for standing up and fighting for something, regardless of what you think of the cause.

THANK YOU for a very eloquent post.

On a related point, because of all the anti-American, anti-Bush rhetoric, I think it would be interesting to do a couple of searches.

I'd like to see if our supporters of the ICC have EVER posted anything

a) Good about the US
b) Bad about terrorists (I don't call them "insurgents")

We could certainly narrow the number of posts to search if we eliminated any that used the word "neocon."

Aborted · 12-14-2004, 06:41 PM

I swear we're going round in circles now.

Mojo_PeiPei · 12-14-2004, 06:53 PM

Welcome to Tilted politics!

roachboy · 12-15-2004, 07:25 AM

well that's too bad, the circle-spinning...

before this thread dies altogether--and to clear up misapprehension of my positions--what bothered me here was intially was what i saw as a replacement of the question of the icc with reference to the prosecution of war crimes with either:

what i took to be an irrelevant issue of sovereignty (that i find it irrelevant does not mean that it is not persuasive to folk, including those in power, so legally the question is moot, even if politically it is not) or:

more curiously a series of general statements about american troops, which seemed to come down to whether you could at once claim affection for the american military as a huge collection of people on the one hand, as an idea more generally, and entertain the matter of prosecution for war crimes at the international level. one seems to preclude the other. i wonder, reading through the thread, whether i underestimated the extent to which my own position was caught up in a reversed version of what i criticized others for. i find that curious.

so i adopted the tack of trying to force debate back onto the question of war crimes.
which put me in the place of talking about fairly inflammatory matters. whence the appearance, i guess, of "negativity".

so there were really two matters: that at hand and another, of what either prevents of enables someone to look at the military as potentially capable of the commission of crimes against humanity. on the first, the debate was fairly straightforward: on the second it was (predictably i think) less so.

one strange side-effect of working as a historian (which is what i do) is that you end up finding out a mountain of ugly things about what the united states has done in the world politically, militarily, etc... initially it puts you in a difficult position vis-a-vis your own committments---later it puts you in a strange position relative to some kinds of conversation because you find it difficult to understand how others do not find themselves placed in a strange position vis-a-vis their committments by this information as well...inside of this is i guess an unspoken assumption that everyone knows the history of american foreign policy since, say world war 2 (the history of the american empire) and that arguments that remain uncritical of american actions are built around a repressing of that information.
because this assumption creeps in, arguments take on a particular kind of edge: the "you cant be serious" tone comes from here.

i still maintain that thinking about this issue by emphasizing the question of war crimes in themselves, and pushing the possible linkage between opposing the icc and the condoning of war crimes if and when they are committed by american troops (who have no monopoly either on their commission of their avoidance--but this was a particular argument, so american troops were the focus) is interesting, maybe important.

but there we are.

KMA-628 · 12-15-2004, 07:43 AM

O.K. roach, I can understand that.

The only problem I see with your historian comment is the fact that it can be applied to any nation. Pretty much everybody has things in their past that are not necessarily worthy of being heralded. Not to dilute your point, it is just that it cannot be focused on one country alone.

Anyway....

I still stand by my original argument. The international community cannot get past their own differences/cultures/religion/etc. enough to even order a pizza without squabbling over it. Why would I think that they could do a better job investigating/prosecuting our soldiers. Especially with the obvious slant they would come to the table with.

We have already proven that we will investigate and prosecute our own. We may not do the best job at it, but at least we are willing to do it. This so-called International Communtiy has done nothing to even remotely convince me that they could even do as well as we do.

As a soldier, I would rather face my own peers. At least I know that they have an inkling of the place I would be coming from. I have no doubt that, if I had done something, I would at least be given a chance for a fair trial. I may be convicted and go to BFE Kansas, but I couldn't say I didn't get a fair shake.

I would never want to stand trial in another country, any country. I would also never want to stand trial having my judges be a motley assortment pulled from various countries. There would be absolutely no notion of "innocent until proven guilty", many people would automatically assume guilt because the soldier is American--just to prove a point.

roachboy · 12-15-2004, 08:37 AM

Quote:

There would be absolutely no notion of "innocent until proven guilty", many people would automatically assume guilt because the soldier is American--just to prove a point.

if i operated with the assumption that the american judicial system had a monopoly on due process, then i would maybe agree with you, kma. but i dont. i do not see where the assumption would come from that the icc would be a kangaroo court, that it would employ multiple standards, reserving a particularly unfair one for americans--i do not see it. were i a more cynical fellow, i might see this concern as projection: under the bush administration, it is the american judicial system that has de facto condoned the denial of basic features of due process to people held prisoner under the veil of the war on terrorism---the suspension of habeas corpus for folk held at guantanamo comes immediately to mind here. so i do not understand where this assumption comes from.

more generally, i can see how i might have given the impression that my criticism is directed exclusively at the states--but that is a function of the nature of most debates in this space that i choose to participate in, which are focussed on american politics, usually to the exclusion of all else. so there is no occaision to talk about how i might view other places--but to give an indication--most of what i work on concerns france since ww2--which includes, for example, the period of the algerian war--which you cannot look at and maintain any illusion that it is only the americans who commit appalling acts--at times---under the cloak of nationalism. so no, i do not think americans alone have done this stuff. but to introduce material that would broaden the frame of discussion requires that you step back a little from the debate--the occiasions for which are infrequently presented--spaces like this, when others declare the thread to be simply twisting in circles provide something like that....

Mojo_PeiPei · 12-15-2004, 11:17 AM

As a historian RB you should note that in regards to the detainees at Gitmo the President is acting well within his constitutional powers, therefore making that point of legality moot.

Quote:

We cannot say that Congress in preparing the Fifth and Sixth Amendments intended to extend trial by jury to the cases of alien or citizen offenders against the law of war otherwise triable by military commission, while withholding it from members of our own armed forces charged with infractions of the Articles of War punishable by death. It is equally inadmissible to construe the Amendments- [317 U.S. 1, 45] whose primary purpose was to continue unimpaired presentment by grand jury and trial by petit jury in all those cases in which they had been customary-as either abolishing all trials by military tribunals, save those of the personnel of our own armed forces, or what in effect comes to the same thing, as imposing on all such tribunals the necessity of proceeding against unlawful enemy belligerents only on presentment and trial by jury. We conclude that the Fifth and Sixth Amendments did not restrict whatever authority was conferred by the Constitution to try offenses against the law of war by military commission, and that petitioners, charged with such an offense not required to be tried by jury at common law, were lawfully placed on trial by the Commission without a jury.

Chief Justice Stone 1942

Quote:

While it is the usual procedure on an application for a writ of habeas corpus in the federal courts for the court to issue the writ and on the return to hear and dispose of the case, it may without issuing the writ consider and determine whether the facts alleged by the petition, if proved, would warrant discharge of the prisoner. Walker v. Johnston, 312 U.S. 275, 284 , 61 S.Ct. 574, 578. Presentation of the petition for judicial action is the institution of a suit. Hence denial by the district court of leave to file the petitions in these causes was the judicial determination of a case or controversy, reviewable on appeal to the Court of Appeals and reviewable here by certiorari. See Ex parte Milligan, 4 Wall. 2, 110, 113; Betts v. Brady, 316 U.S. 455 , 62 S.Ct. 1252, 1253.

Petitioners' main contention is that the President is without any statutory or constitutional authority to order the petitioners to be tried by military tribunal for offenses with which they are charged; that in consequence they are entitled to be tried in the civil courts with the safeguards, including trial by jury, which the Fifth and Sixth Amendments guarantee to all persons charged in such courts with criminal offenses. In any case it is urged that the President's Order, in prescribing the procedure of the Commission and the method for review of its findings and sentence, and the proceedings of the Commission under the Order, conflict with Articles of War adopted by Congress-particularly Articles 38, 43, 46, 50 1/2 and 70-and are illegal and void.

....

But the detention and trial of petitioners-ordered by the President in the declared exercise of his powers as Commander in Chief of the Army in time of war and of grave public danger-are not to be set aside by the courts without the clear conviction that they are in conflict with the Constitution or laws of Congress constitutionally enacted.

Congress and the President, like the courts, possess no power not derived from the Constitution. But one of [317 U.S. 1, 26] the objects of the Constitution, as declared by its preamble, is to 'provide for the common defence'. As a means to that end the Constitution gives to Congress the power to 'provide for the common Defence', Art. I, 8, cl. 1; 'To raise and support Armies', 'To provide and maintain a Navy', Art. I, 8, cls. 12, 13; and 'To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces', Art. I, 8, cl. 14. Congress is given authority 'To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water', Art. I, 8, cl. 11; and 'To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations', Art. I, 8, cl. 10. And finally the Constitution authorizes Congress 'To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.' Art. I, 8, cl. 18.

The Constitution confers on the President the 'executive Power', Art II, 1, cl. 1, and imposes on him the duty to 'take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed'. Art. II, 3. It makes him the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy, Art. II, 2, cl. 1, and empowers him to appoint and commission officers of the United States. Art. II, 3, cl. 1.

The Constitution thus invests the President as Commander in Chief with the power to wage war which Congress has declared, and to carry into effect all laws passed by Congress for the conduct of war and for the government and regulation of the Armed Forces, and all laws defining and punishing offences against the law of nations, including those which pertain to the conduct of war.

By the Articles of War, 10 U.S.C. 1471-1593, 10 U.S.C.A. 1471- 1593, Congress has provided rules for the government of the Army. It has provided for the trial and punishment, by courts [317 U.S. 1, 27] martial, of violations of the Articles by members of the armed forces and by specified classes of persons associated or serving with the Army. Arts. 1, 2. But the Articles also recognize the 'military commission' appointed by military command as an appropriate tribunal for the trial and punishment of offenses against the law of war not ordinarily tried by court martial. See Arts. 12, 15. Articles 38 and 46 authorize the President, with certain limitations, to prescribe the procedure for military commissions. Articles 81 and 82 authorize trial, either by court martial or military commission, of those charged with relieving, harboring or corresponding with the enemy and those charged with spying. And Article 15 declares that 'the provisions of these articles conferring jurisdiction upon courts-martial shall not be construed as depriving military commissions ... or other military tribunals of concurrent jurisdiction in respect of offenders or offenses that by statute or by the law of war may be triable by such military commissions ... or other military tribunals'. Article 2 includes among those persons subject to military law the personnel of our own military establishment. But this, as Article 12 provides, does not exclude from that class 'any other person who by the law of war is subject to trial by military tribunals' and who under Article 12 may be tried by court martial or under Article 15 by military commission.

Similarly the Espionage Act of 1917, which authorizes trial in the district courts of certain offenses that tend to interfere with the prosecution of war, provides that nothing contained in the act 'shall be deemed to limit the jurisdiction of the general courts-martial, military commissions, or naval courts-martial'. 50 U.S.C. 38, 50 U.S.C.A. 38.

roachboy · 12-15-2004, 11:26 AM

if we were working in a civil law tradition, mojo, then what you say would settle the matter i guess: but this is a common law tradition, and so questions settled at the level of precedent for the moment are nevertheless active as political questions. the production of a legal black hole, the matter of creating a second justice system within the american justice system, and using the "war on terror" as the pretext for it is there for all to see. this administration has created such a hole. whether your reading of selected elements from case law supports that view or not is secondary to the fact that it is a political problem, that there are other views on the matter, and that no number of arbitrary quotes will make that go away.

what is more, you do not address the main point in the post.
further, i do not work on american history. so your assumptions are, in your language, moot about what i should and should not know.

Mojo_PeiPei · 12-15-2004, 11:34 AM

Well let's take this from a different angle then perhaps. I think we are both in agreement that the American tradition doesn't hold a monopoly on due process, many of our own traditions were derived from traditions before our own time.

But on what grounds do you think that this ICC will be legit and just? If you read the link posted regarding the congressional bill on the matter, there were many assertations made that pointed out that there would be no due process, no double jeopardy, no trial by peers, limited access to bail, and an indefinite detention.

Maybe you know, but on what traditions are the basis of the ICC to be set up on? I'll drop the issue of authority.

energus · 12-16-2004, 02:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

Well let's take this from a different angle then perhaps. I think we are both in agreement that the American tradition doesn't hold a monopoly on due process, many of our own traditions were derived from traditions before our own time.

But on what grounds do you think that this ICC will be legit and just? If you read the link posted regarding the congressional bill on the matter, there were many assertations made that pointed out that there would be no due process, no double jeopardy, no trial by peers, limited access to bail, and an indefinite detention.

Maybe you know, but on what traditions are the basis of the ICC to be set up on? I'll drop the issue of authority.

It would be legit if we all sign the treaty and accept it, or am I oversimplifying the matters now. Cause I though that was the foundation for a international treaty. Countries sign and abide by it.

Furthermore it would be just if the court would be unbiased and thus giving due process. How to do that? Well how do you do that in a country? How do you know your system is unbiased? In some cases people still argue that any system is biased (whether American or European). If that is your problem with the ICC I suspect that you are weiry of your own system as well, cause (like mine) it is not flawless, but it tries darn hard to be that.

As for the trial by peers, not every country has a trial by jury/peers. So in that aspect there could well be a problem. Then again who are his peers? the people from the country of origin? or from the country were the alleged crime was committed?

Limited acces to bail could be resolved by letting the suspect go under supervision of his/her country. But yes that is a problem. As for indefinite detention I fail to see the point since under American law terrorist are being held for years now without trial. No I am not saying the people in front of the ICC are terrorist (nor am I implying that USA soldiers are), but it seems that even the American system has found ways round that point.

Personally my biggest beef with the ICC would be the length of trial. As can be seen with Milosovic, Saddam and Chemical Ali it can take years before they appear before court, and that process takes years as well. If that can be trimmed down to months there would be less problems.

Furthermore I can well imagine that people feel that there is bias/hatred towards the USA. Speaking personally I know plenty of people who agree with the USA politics as well as people who hate the politics. However the vast majority does not hate Americans (do not mix those up).

roachboy · 12-16-2004, 08:33 AM

what energus said is, in general, what i would have said, had i the time to really consider the various features of teh treaty that you raise, mojo. but had the thread gone that way, it would have opened up a different kind of debte--which i would have endorsed then, and endorse now. so there we are. interested to see further development.

stevo · 12-16-2004, 09:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by energus

Personally my biggest beef with the ICC would be the length of trial. As can be seen with Milosovic, Saddam and Chemical Ali it can take years before they appear before court, and that process takes years as well. If that can be trimmed down to months there would be less problems.

FYI - Saddam and Chemical Ali are being tried by the iraqi government, not the ICC

roachboy · 12-16-2004, 11:21 AM

stevo: i think the proper terminology would be:
an "iraqi" court.
that way nothing damaging to the americans can be introduced into evidence.
o the virtues of "freedom" american style...where to start enumerating them....?

stevo · 12-16-2004, 07:54 PM

What do you mean, an 'iraqi' court? What's the difference? The iraqis are setting up a government, including a judicial system, in which Saddam will be tried by the people he ruled over, if you will, his peers. The US isn't trying him, it came as a suprise to the US that trials will begin in Jan.

Quote:

BAGHDAD, Iraq — In a surprise announcement yesterday, Iraq's interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi promised that former officials in Saddam Hussein's regime will go on trial next week, before elections scheduled for January.

"I can now tell you clearly and precisely that, God willing, next week the trials of the symbols of the former regime will start, one by one, so that justice can take its path in Iraq," Allawi told members of Iraq's National Council, an advisory body, in a live televised address.

Allawi did not name those who would go on trial or say whether Saddam would be among the first Baath party leaders to be called to account for crimes committed by the former regime. But other government officials have said recently that Saddam will not go on trial before the election scheduled for Jan. 30.

Allawi's announcement seemed to catch U.S. and Iraqi government officials off guard.

On Monday, State Department spokesman Richard Boucher told reporters he did not expect the trials of officials in Saddam's regime to start until at least 2005, and Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari said in Rome that there was no "specific date" for the trials.

Saddam and 11 of his top lieutenants are expected to be tried by a special tribunal on charges including genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, though no formal charges have been filed.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/tex...iraqdig15.html

powerclown · 12-16-2004, 08:20 PM

No stevo22, I think that's just roachboy's lovable way of referring to the Iraqi Court as a puppet system of the Americans. He's of the Noam Chomsky school of American Foreign and Domestic Policy, except further left. It's a beautiful thing.

KMA-628 · 12-16-2004, 08:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

He's of the Noam Chomsky school of American Foreign and Domestic Policy, except further left. It's a beautiful thing.

roach -

Are you gonna hate me if this made me smile....no guffaws or chuckling, just a smile.....well, maybe more like a smirk.....you know what I mean.

ScottKuma · 12-16-2004, 09:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo22

As seaver pointed out, we owe it to ourselves. Those that hold US treasury bonds are the ones owed the debt, most of those people are american investors, although some are foreign. Its not like we owe the countries around the world 7 trillion dollars. When did we borrow $7 tril from other countries?

Debt breakdown (as of 1998, but still relevant...if not exactly current):
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/faq.html

Note that only 22% of the debt is owed to foreign entities. Also, a whopping 44% of the debt is government-internal debt.

Also note that ANY percentage of the debt is a HUGE amount of money.

KMA-628 · 12-16-2004, 09:16 PM

I would be interested in seeing similar info, but in reverse.

i.e., how much other people/gov'ts/etc. owe the U.S.

energus · 12-17-2004, 03:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo22

FYI - Saddam and Chemical Ali are being tried by the iraqi government, not the ICC

I know I put those in to show that no matter what court these cases tend to drag on. Saddam will go on trial more than a year after his capture, and they captured Chemical Ali way before him. Add to that the fact that these trials are far from over and you have the same dillema.

These cases tend to drag on way to long, no matter what the court or system it is held in. That is, as I said, my main beef with the trials like these (should have stated that more clearly)

stevo · 12-17-2004, 09:28 AM

Ok, but in order for the iraqis to try saddam and his henchmen, they had to construct a government and judicial system first, that takes time, and in less than 2 years looks to be more like a success than a failure. Either way it is happening much earlier than anyone expected. What I'd like to know is if they are going to have saddam rot in a jail cell for a while before they excute him or if they're going to drag him our back and shoot him in the head after his trial.

stevo · 12-17-2004, 09:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ScottKuma

Debt breakdown (as of 1998, but still relevant...if not exactly current):
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/faq.html

Note that only 22% of the debt is owed to foreign entities. Also, a whopping 44% of the debt is government-internal debt.

Also note that ANY percentage of the debt is a HUGE amount of money.

And those foreign entities are the ones that have bought US treasuries.

roachboy · 12-17-2004, 11:08 AM

i quite enjoyed finding myself referred to as of the noam chomsky school.
it isnt exactly true, but whatever, its pretty funny nonetheless.
i kinda like the underlying affection in it.
not sure where i see it exactly, but somehow i think its there.

edit: at the same time, if you think for a minute that the "iraqi" courts that will eventually try hussein are not american puppet operations, then you are simply deluding yourself. no chomsky required for this conclusion--just have alook at the groundrules for the trial. there is a long article on this in the last le monde diplomatique (novembre 2004)

powerclown · 12-17-2004, 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

no chomsky required for this conclusion--just have alook at the groundrules for the trial. there is a long article on this in the last le monde diplomatique (novembre 2004)

Of course, one will find no more of an unbiased publication on Planet Earth than from the French publication, Le Monde Diplomatique. Remember the French? The government whose oil companies kicked back money to Saddam Hussein for oil contracts in the U.N. Oil-for-Food debacle? The government that so vociferously protested the overthrow of their good business partner Saddam Hussein?

The only things you're going to get from a large French publication regarding Iraq are distortions and anti-American rhetoric.

stevo · 12-18-2004, 12:29 AM

Now hold on powerclown, Le Monde Diplomatique has put out some credible reports on bush being a le bag douche, an article on what a good man Arafat was, and an article reminding the world how hypocritical the US is for trying to stop the spread of WMDs, esp. in Asia (N. Korea), when it was the US that actually dropped a couple of nukes way back when. So don't just dismiss an article based on the name of the paper that published it. Thats just not fair.

12-14-2004, 05:02 PM	#81 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	RB, this is ridiculous that you say that the ICC some how has legal authority. On what grounds? They exert no power except where it's conceded. What makes there actions so righteous and legal? If anything it is illegal because it circumvents the legal constants of our country. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

12-14-2004, 06:09 PM	#83 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	They are part of the axis of evil, so they don't count. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

12-14-2004, 06:53 PM	#86 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	Welcome to Tilted politics! __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

12-15-2004, 07:25 AM	#87 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	well that's too bad, the circle-spinning... before this thread dies altogether--and to clear up misapprehension of my positions--what bothered me here was intially was what i saw as a replacement of the question of the icc with reference to the prosecution of war crimes with either: what i took to be an irrelevant issue of sovereignty (that i find it irrelevant does not mean that it is not persuasive to folk, including those in power, so legally the question is moot, even if politically it is not) or: more curiously a series of general statements about american troops, which seemed to come down to whether you could at once claim affection for the american military as a huge collection of people on the one hand, as an idea more generally, and entertain the matter of prosecution for war crimes at the international level. one seems to preclude the other. i wonder, reading through the thread, whether i underestimated the extent to which my own position was caught up in a reversed version of what i criticized others for. i find that curious. so i adopted the tack of trying to force debate back onto the question of war crimes. which put me in the place of talking about fairly inflammatory matters. whence the appearance, i guess, of "negativity". so there were really two matters: that at hand and another, of what either prevents of enables someone to look at the military as potentially capable of the commission of crimes against humanity. on the first, the debate was fairly straightforward: on the second it was (predictably i think) less so. one strange side-effect of working as a historian (which is what i do) is that you end up finding out a mountain of ugly things about what the united states has done in the world politically, militarily, etc... initially it puts you in a difficult position vis-a-vis your own committments---later it puts you in a strange position relative to some kinds of conversation because you find it difficult to understand how others do not find themselves placed in a strange position vis-a-vis their committments by this information as well...inside of this is i guess an unspoken assumption that everyone knows the history of american foreign policy since, say world war 2 (the history of the american empire) and that arguments that remain uncritical of american actions are built around a repressing of that information. because this assumption creeps in, arguments take on a particular kind of edge: the "you cant be serious" tone comes from here. i still maintain that thinking about this issue by emphasizing the question of war crimes in themselves, and pushing the possible linkage between opposing the icc and the condoning of war crimes if and when they are committed by american troops (who have no monopoly either on their commission of their avoidance--but this was a particular argument, so american troops were the focus) is interesting, maybe important. but there we are. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 12-15-2004 at 07:27 AM..

12-15-2004, 11:26 AM	#91 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	if we were working in a civil law tradition, mojo, then what you say would settle the matter i guess: but this is a common law tradition, and so questions settled at the level of precedent for the moment are nevertheless active as political questions. the production of a legal black hole, the matter of creating a second justice system within the american justice system, and using the "war on terror" as the pretext for it is there for all to see. this administration has created such a hole. whether your reading of selected elements from case law supports that view or not is secondary to the fact that it is a political problem, that there are other views on the matter, and that no number of arbitrary quotes will make that go away. what is more, you do not address the main point in the post. further, i do not work on american history. so your assumptions are, in your language, moot about what i should and should not know. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

12-14-2004, 06:41 PM	#85 (permalink)
Aborted Tilted Location: London	I swear we're going round in circles now.

12-15-2004, 07:43 AM	#88 (permalink)
KMA-628 ....is off his meds...you were warned. Location: The Wild Wild West	O.K. roach, I can understand that. The only problem I see with your historian comment is the fact that it can be applied to any nation. Pretty much everybody has things in their past that are not necessarily worthy of being heralded. Not to dilute your point, it is just that it cannot be focused on one country alone. Anyway.... I still stand by my original argument. The international community cannot get past their own differences/cultures/religion/etc. enough to even order a pizza without squabbling over it. Why would I think that they could do a better job investigating/prosecuting our soldiers. Especially with the obvious slant they would come to the table with. We have already proven that we will investigate and prosecute our own. We may not do the best job at it, but at least we are willing to do it. This so-called International Communtiy has done nothing to even remotely convince me that they could even do as well as we do. As a soldier, I would rather face my own peers. At least I know that they have an inkling of the place I would be coming from. I have no doubt that, if I had done something, I would at least be given a chance for a fair trial. I may be convicted and go to BFE Kansas, but I couldn't say I didn't get a fair shake. I would never want to stand trial in another country, any country. I would also never want to stand trial having my judges be a motley assortment pulled from various countries. There would be absolutely no notion of "innocent until proven guilty", many people would automatically assume guilt because the soldier is American--just to prove a point.

12-15-2004, 11:34 AM	#92 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	Well let's take this from a different angle then perhaps. I think we are both in agreement that the American tradition doesn't hold a monopoly on due process, many of our own traditions were derived from traditions before our own time. But on what grounds do you think that this ICC will be legit and just? If you read the link posted regarding the congressional bill on the matter, there were many assertations made that pointed out that there would be no due process, no double jeopardy, no trial by peers, limited access to bail, and an indefinite detention. Maybe you know, but on what traditions are the basis of the ICC to be set up on? I'll drop the issue of authority. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

12-16-2004, 08:33 AM	#94 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	what energus said is, in general, what i would have said, had i the time to really consider the various features of teh treaty that you raise, mojo. but had the thread gone that way, it would have opened up a different kind of debte--which i would have endorsed then, and endorse now. so there we are. interested to see further development. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

12-16-2004, 11:21 AM	#96 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	stevo: i think the proper terminology would be: an "iraqi" court. that way nothing damaging to the americans can be introduced into evidence. o the virtues of "freedom" american style...where to start enumerating them....? __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

12-16-2004, 08:20 PM	#98 (permalink)
powerclown Junkie Location: Detroit, MI	No stevo22, I think that's just roachboy's lovable way of referring to the Iraqi Court as a puppet system of the Americans. He's of the Noam Chomsky school of American Foreign and Domestic Policy, except further left. It's a beautiful thing.

12-16-2004, 09:16 PM	#101 (permalink)
KMA-628 ....is off his meds...you were warned. Location: The Wild Wild West	I would be interested in seeing similar info, but in reverse. i.e., how much other people/gov'ts/etc. owe the U.S.

12-17-2004, 09:28 AM	#103 (permalink)
stevo Rail Baron Location: Tallyfla	Ok, but in order for the iraqis to try saddam and his henchmen, they had to construct a government and judicial system first, that takes time, and in less than 2 years looks to be more like a success than a failure. Either way it is happening much earlier than anyone expected. What I'd like to know is if they are going to have saddam rot in a jail cell for a while before they excute him or if they're going to drag him our back and shoot him in the head after his trial.

12-17-2004, 11:08 AM	#105 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	i quite enjoyed finding myself referred to as of the noam chomsky school. it isnt exactly true, but whatever, its pretty funny nonetheless. i kinda like the underlying affection in it. not sure where i see it exactly, but somehow i think its there. edit: at the same time, if you think for a minute that the "iraqi" courts that will eventually try hussein are not american puppet operations, then you are simply deluding yourself. no chomsky required for this conclusion--just have alook at the groundrules for the trial. there is a long article on this in the last le monde diplomatique (novembre 2004) __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 12-17-2004 at 11:38 AM..

12-18-2004, 12:29 AM	#107 (permalink)
stevo Rail Baron Location: Tallyfla	Now hold on powerclown, Le Monde Diplomatique has put out some credible reports on bush being a le bag douche, an article on what a good man Arafat was, and an article reminding the world how hypocritical the US is for trying to stop the spread of WMDs, esp. in Asia (N. Korea), when it was the US that actually dropped a couple of nukes way back when. So don't just dismiss an article based on the name of the paper that published it. Thats just not fair.