the art of international justice, and why there is more for some and less for others

[Testin da Cable]

Today I heard on the dutch news that our friends and protectors, America, are pressuring countries into a treaty that prohibits said countries from turning american citizens over to the ICC, or international criminal courts for certain crimes. In effect this means that america is doing it's best to protect it's inhabitants from being tried in the ICC for such diverse items as genocide and war crimes.


this stinks people!! I'd like to hear your thoughts on the subject.



more info here and here

 

[Embattle]

Nice to know you lot over there get the latest news

This wraggle has been going on for some time now, BBC have covered it a few times from quite a while ago:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2077821.stm

to fairly recently with the Yanks taking action to block aid to certain countries:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3035296.stm

I can understand to a certain degree, but I reckon they are over reacting.

 

[Testin da Cable]

heh. the dutch may be slow, but they get there in the end.

 

[Gumbo]

Good to see a country looking after it's own. If only our government would stop handing our rights over to foreign organisations.

 

[Gekul]

The Americans certainly don't do their image any favours do they?

 

[Tom]

I don't think they give a shit. Nice attitude if you can afford it, and it looks like they can

 

[-KnoX-]

It doesn't suprise me to be honest. It's not like this is the first time that they rearange their affairs. They just do whatever they want and expect people to understand.

 

[Mr.Monkey]

There isn't a man alive that would willingly make themselves subject to a set of laws that have been created without any input from you.



It's like saying you will be subject to Afghan Law in the Taleban era. You never know what shit they can get on you.

 

[Stazbumpa]

Originally posted by Gumbo
Good to see a country looking after it's own. If only our government would stop handing our rights over to foreign organisations.

What he said ^



As long as a perp gets done for it in his own country (if he did it that is) then fairs fair.

 

[Gekul]

They seem happy to use the international laws when it suits them though...

 

[tainted]

do as I say, not as I do

 

[xane]

Am I right in thinking that the US is not the only country unwilling to join the ICC ? Other countries include China and Russia, plus Israel and most of the Arab states.

I see Amnesty in China is going full blast to complain about this, now where can their website be ?

So, in the event of an American committing genocide and the American government refusing to submit him/her to the ICC, then we have a problem. Yes, America has a long record of committing war crimes and supporting those who practise it, makes you think why all those soldiers died fighting Nazi Germany, complete waste of time really.

Not like good old China, wonderful government who support all sorts of international peacekeeping duties, and of course Israel and their Arab neighbours would never think of killing anyone, wiping them out, "pushing them into the sea", or anything like that.

 

[Mr.Monkey]

Xane, the problem is fairly unique to the USA.
They are the only organisation that provide troops in any number to NATO and UN actions (balkans, Africa, etc). Hence they have huge exposure to any legal claims.
Russia and Chinas loophole is that it is exempt on military action it mounts in it's own territory. Now there are several areas in the former ussr that rusia still claims as their own. China and tiwan are the same.
Hence they are not accountable to the ICC for what they do to "their own people".
It's an enormous legal document, with many traps in it. If it came to a head, any country can wrangle out of it. I think that the USA would rather not put it's self in the postiion to have to do that.

I'd hate to see Nato without troop backing from the USA.

http://www.un.org/law/icc/

 

[Deadmanwalking]

Originally posted by Mr.Monkey
Xane, the problem is fairly unique to the USA.
They are the only organisation that provide troops in any number to NATO and UN actions (balkans, Africa, etc).

Hmm troops in any number? Yes America is by far the biggest contributor to both organisations on numbers alone. British troops are among the best trained/equiped in the world and are also exposed to the claims as well. We agreed to it?

And its only fair the yanks contribute the most bodies as they are the cause of many problems

 

[xane]

Originally posted by Deadmanwalking
British troops are among the best trained/equiped in the world ...

Yeah, right

Originally posted by Deadmanwalking
We agreed to it?

So, if Britain had not agreed to it then claims the British government might be seeking to commit war crimes and not be held responsible would be valid ?

 

[Mr.Monkey]

Originally posted by Deadmanwalking
Hmm troops in any number? Yes America is by far the biggest contributor to both organisations on numbers alone. British troops are among the best trained/equiped in the world and are also exposed to the claims as well. We agreed to it?

And its only fair the yanks contribute the most bodies as they are the cause of many problems

In what way are our troops better trained? I know we have pride in our special ops, but that is only a few men.
Our equipment hasn't proved very reliable in recent years (been many many media stories about the cost of the rifle we use, and the failure of our radio equipment post gulf war).

Iraq is a good example, the brits are in the south (basra I believe) which was not meant to be such a stronghold for the baathists.
The US have taken the most dangerous and violent area. I seriously doubt that the british have the stomach to take the casualties the us troops are.


Interstingly there are several countries that have still not ratified it:

http://untreaty.un.org/ENGLISH/bible/englishinternetbible/partI/chapterXVIII/treaty10.asp

And the UK?

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Declaration:

"The United Kingdom understands the term "the established framework of international law", used in article 8 (2) (b) and (e), to include customary international law as established by State practice and opinio iuris. In that context the United Kingdom confirms and draws to the attention of the Court its views as expressed, inter alia, in its statements made on ratification of relevant instruments of international law, including the Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12th August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I) of 8th June 1977."

Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12th August 1949
=

Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a
spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity
hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those
cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having
forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.

Lol. Gives us the right to detain people without bringing charges.

 

[Deadmanwalking]

Originally posted by Mr.Monkey
In what way are our troops better trained? I know we have pride in our special ops, but that is only a few men.
Our equipment hasn't proved very reliable in recent years (been many many media stories about the cost of the rifle we use, and the failure of our radio equipment post gulf war).

We have some of the best trained forces in the world, from Spec ops down to Pilots. The American opposite numbers just dont compare where it matters.

Navy Seals arn't a patch on the Royal Marines for example.
British Paras, some of the hardest bastards to ever step foot out of a plane

And on the hardware front, the SA80 is an excellent gun admittedly with its faults but don't take everything you see in the Sun for granted

Originally posted by Mr.Monkey
Iraq is a good example, the brits are in the south (basra I believe) which was not meant to be such a stronghold for the baathists.
The US have taken the most dangerous and violent area. I seriously doubt that the british have the stomach to take the casualties the us troops are.

Thats because on pure numbers the US had a shed load more, and after all it was originaly their "idea" as such.

And taking the most amount of casualties doesn not by any means prove that one countries armed forces are better then anouther.

At least i hope not or im fucked

 

[Cdr]

Originally posted by Mr.Monkey
In what way are our troops better trained? I know we have pride in our special ops, but that is only a few men.
Our equipment hasn't proved very reliable in recent years (been many many media stories about the cost of the rifle we use, and the failure of our radio equipment post gulf war).

Iraq is a good example, the brits are in the south (basra I believe) which was not meant to be such a stronghold for the baathists.
The US have taken the most dangerous and violent area. I seriously doubt that the british have the stomach to take the casualties the us troops are.

hehehe

Sorry, that just made me chuckle.

 

[Mr.Monkey]

Indeed, taking on the toughest assignement does not make a better soldier.

However, the "brits are best" attitude is nice for national pride and all, but then I've never been one for buying into such things.
Other than our special forces, I've not seen anything suggesting our troops are better. If that were the case, the US would have copied our training or got some of our soldiers to train theirs (as the do with the SAS).

 

[Deadmanwalking]

Navy seals exist why?

Most of the US operation books as it were are written or based on British Tactics?

man for man we out class them.

 

[Flamin_Squirrel]

If you think that a bunch of redneck yanks scoffing big macs, shouting yeehaw and shooting everything in sight are better than British troops, you are sadly mistaken, as you are also if you think basra wasnt difficult to tackle.

 

[Deadmanwalking]

Yeah, and me and CDR ok i havent even got in yet

 

[Flamin_Squirrel]

Same

 

[Deadmanwalking]

Originally posted by xane
Yeah, right

One BBC news post proves that years and years of building on a reputation established during WW2 is false? I think not.

And if you read the article, it says the malfunction was blamed on bad maintenance and cleaning. Politicians will jump on anything they can to discredit government and their decisions.

Plus a few "malfunctions" amongst the vast amounts of troops that use it in action?

<sarcasm> "OMGS!!111 the US SAM SITE TARGETTED A FRIENDLY PLANe!!! HAX!! Governemtn sucks!!!!" </sarcasm>

Plus as your whole argument seems based around just one weapon, i can but think that you are here to prove me wrong rather then get a point across.


Oh sorry forgot

 

[Stazbumpa]

As this has turned into a "whose the best" argument, I'll add my weight to the argument. I don't think British troops are the best equipped; the SAS use American rifles and other equipment as a rule, and the SA80 is indeed pants compared to a lot of other weapons on the market. However, when you compare training, the 2 sides don't even match.
True, the US Army is a well trained (usually) bunch of soldiers, but a lot of it is borrowed from the British Army. As Deadman points out, compare the Royal Marines or the Para's to their US counterparts and its a one horse race.
On top of that you got the Ghurka's (DO NOT fuck with these guys), the Royal Artillery (who tend to know what they're shooting at), any one of the British amoured regiments and thats without even mentioning the SAS or SBS. RAF pilots are widely known to be some of the best in the world and the Royal Navy has a depth of experience spanning literally hundreds of years.

The point here is numbers. We just don't have them, so we train better and are generally more carefull who we fight and how. Only an idiot charges in. Look at Iraq 2. We got Basra, the Yanks did most of the rest. Why? Coz there's thousands of the buggers.
But look what happened. Basra proved to be a tough nut to crack, but we did the job. All the while, the US Armoured Cavalry is racing towards Baghdad, and forgetting to wait for the supply trucks to catch up.

And who is now on the receiving end of the the bombings in Iraq? The British took their time, did a slow but carefull job and as a result, you don't hear of massacres in Basra. When it comes to trained troops, we are the best, why do you think Hitler wasn't the keenest of bods on the invasion of England and so opted for a prolonged air assault to begin with?
And we beat that, with less than half the planes and even less pilots.
Falklands War; a modern army with up to date weapons and training for an enemy, and we beat them in an away game with no backup from any bugger else.

Study a bit of history and you'll find quite a few stories about the British Army being rather bloody splendid.

 

[Deadmanwalking]

Originally posted by Stazbumpa
As this has turned into a "whose the best" argument, I'll add my weight to the argument. I don't think British troops are the best equipped; the SAS use American rifles and other equipment as a rule, and the SA80 is indeed pants compared to a lot of other weapons on the market.

I hate to disagree with you as what you said in the rest of your post i more or less agree with. The SAS tend to favour European designs of Assualt rifle and Small arms as it happens. Putting the SAS in the same boat as "Regular" troops isn't done for obvious reasons.

The SA80 is not as bad as every newspaper/tv show is saying. In the vast vast majority of cases it does its job and does it well.
I agree that a new design needs to be adopted as mainstream but it is not as useless as many say.

Edit: Ghurka's are about as hard as bigfoot on a banning spree tbh (At rugby at least )

 

[Stazbumpa]

A story I must impart about the Ghurka's. A colleague of mine used to serve in Hong Kong, and a lot of time was spent on OP duty overlooking the Chinese border. He fell asleep one night whilst on duty (a big no-no) but was woken by something brushing the puttee around the top of his left boot.

The Ghurka night patrols in the area used this technique to identify friendly troops in OP's, as friendlies were the only ones that had puttee's.

He was one of 15 OP's in the area, and the only guy who noticed that the Ghurka's were ever there. Ironically, he was the only guy that fell asleep on duty too.

 

[maxi--]

Originally posted by Testin da Cable
more info here and here

this scares the shit out of me.

 

[(Shovel)]

You can make it as simple or as complex as you like, but this behavior by the US is little different to the US behavior on everything else.

They're bigger, richer and, regardless of quality, they do have the biggest military to enforce their law. There's nothing that the International Community can do to stop them at the mo (consider that the world condemned, or at least make uncomfortable mublings about, guantamo). It's a similar story with world trade (in pretty much every respect), with world 'security' and with commerical interests.

Just finished George Monbiot's "Age Of Consent", which although extremely utopian, exposes* rather a lot about the state of international politics, and the western abuses therein. And the US abuses of everything.

* I don't mean to imply that the issues in the book are new, but they are nicely digestable - highly recommended.


Anyway, yes, they should be stopped and be given a lesson in humanity and global respect - something that I think can only really be achieved by bypassing their machismo patroist attitute to the rest of the world, and somehow get through to them that they are actually citizens of the world.

 

[xane]

Originally posted by (Shovel)
Just finished George Monbiot's "Age Of Consent", which although extremely utopian, exposes* rather a lot about the state of international politics, and the western abuses therein. And the US abuses of everything.

Monboit is an asshole, he's so anti-American and he'll subvert any subject into how it relates to some sort of global conspiracy.

An example is how he is against GM Food, picturing it as some form of American sponsored corporate takeover of the world, yet the reality is many people are starving and the technology will help immensly, who gives a shit if some America makes a stack of cash over it all, that sort of thing goes on all the time.

As with all these things, the real issues are being ignored (ironically that's the argument put forward by the likes of Monboit). The danger to world is more likely to come from China and Russia, who possess technology more or less equal to the USA and have a lot more dodgy governments, and a way more arrogant attitude than America.

Pity that the effort being put into labasting America isn't applied against the real demons of the world, then again, America is a more open and easy target, I'd be just cynical if I say that people attack easy targets because they want their own political ends to be advanced, rather than genuine concern for the wider issues involved.