The USA gets its way...again... (ICC)

Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by SidiousDragon, Jul 13, 2002.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Darth_Omega Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    May 19, 2002
    star 6
    "Because it was necessary to end a war which could have killed more Americans"

    no it's because Japan was surrendering to the USSR. The president didn't want that so he dropped the 2 bombs (although I've no clue why the second bomb was dropped)

    But let's not change the subject please...

    "If you don't believe the ICC can judge American troops properly, why did the US insist on the handing over of Milosevitch, claiming that the ICC could judge him fairly?"

    This makes no sense? Dude, I hope you know that Milosevic is NOT an American soldier


    he didn't meant like that, look the USA wants that every country should obbey the ICC rules
    except them
    WHAT THE **** is going on? WHY?

    because of the constitution?

    BS!

    Australia had the same problem!

    why should the Americans be an exception? That won't work we all know about the league of Nations...
  2. Waning Drill Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Dec 30, 1999
    star 5
  3. SidiousDragon Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Feb 13, 2001
    star 4
    yes indeed, we all know about the League of Nations and the UN is set to go the same way.

    Disgusting, seems like any kind of attempt to arbitrate the worlds conflicts and problems is doomed for failure.
  4. Luscious Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Apr 10, 2001
    star 1
    I don't think some people in this thread get it. The USA cannot join the ICC as it would be a violation of its constitution. In order to join it would have to amend its constitution and take away some of the rights given to its citizens. Read it if you don't believe me. Get your facts straight before you criticize.

    Oh and as far as the US insisting that Milosevic be turned over to the ICC. What, did you want him tried in his own country where he made most of the laws and where there are still people in the justice system appointed by him and probably still loyal to him?

    Oh and where the heck were you Europeans when he was committing genocide in your own backyard? You stood by and did nothing. So did the United Nations, which you U.S. bashers seem to hold in such high regard. It was NATO, at the urging of the U.S. and Britain that took action and it was the U.S. and British militaries that did the majority of the work there. Sure other countries contributed as well, but it was U.S. and British troops that played the primary role. If the U.S. and Britain hadn?t stepped in Milosevic would have continued to kill thousand of innocent civilians.

    The U.S. seems to be damned if it does and damned if it doesn?t in the eyes of most Europeans. You?ve got Europeans saying that it is over involved in world affairs, while other Europeans say it?s not involved enough (the recent protest in Barcelona over AIDS funding springs to mind). Well which way do you people want it? You seem perfectly happy to take U.S. aid when it?s offered and perfectly happy to let its military deal with your problems (i.e. Kosovo) yet you constantly criticize it.

    The more anti-U.S. threads I read in this forum the more it hits me. Envy is the problem. The U.S. is the world?s only super power at this time and it kills some of you people. Well I?ve got news for you, especially the ones who claim they can?t wait until the U.S. is no longer a super power. China is next in line baby. Imagine a world where China is the only superpower. If that thought doesn?t scare you do a little research into the Chinese government?s record on human rights.








  5. SidiousDragon Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Feb 13, 2001
    star 4
    Britain is part of Europe, duh!
    Also, France, Germany, Italy and Spain were in Yugoslavia long before America. In fact France, Britain and Germany rougly had equal numbers present.

    Get YOUR facts right.

    And the ICC doesn't just violate your constitution, other countries had to change theirs.

    Finally, your argument that Milosevic had to be tried at the ICC because he would not have been tried in Yugoslavia is absolutely correct, but also exactly what America is now doing. Yugoslavia sais that Milosevic would not get a fiar trial in the ICC, now America is saying the smae thing regarding its soldiers.

    thats called hypocrisy
  6. Grieve Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Apr 30, 2002
    star 1
    You do realize the glaring contridiction here...The fact that the United States goes into other countries and basically kidnappes them and tries them in the United States, a trial, if I might add, that gives the person being prosecuted no rights at all.
  7. Darth_Omega Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    May 19, 2002
    star 6
    The more anti-U.S. threads I read in this forum the more it hits me. Envy is the problem. The U.S. is the world?s only super power at this time and it kills some of you people. Well I?ve got news for you, especially the ones who claim they can?t wait until the U.S. is no longer a super power. China is next in line baby. Imagine a world where China is the only superpower. If that thought doesn?t scare you do a little research into the Chinese government?s record on human rights.

    That's so true, [face_plain]
    to tell you the truth why I don't like America as a great power is because the American people are becoming almost arrogant about it...

    I don't mind China as a great power it's nice for a change instead of a western country...
  8. Waning Drill Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Dec 30, 1999
    star 5
    You comparision would be more apt, SidiousDragon, if Milosevic were a citizen of the US and had carried out his genocide in Montana.
  9. KnightWriter Administrator Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Nov 6, 2001
    star 8
    And the ICC doesn't just violate your constitution, other countries had to change theirs.


    The United States Constitution will not be changed for something like this. The American people would not stand for it.

  10. yodafett999 Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 24, 2000
    star 4
    Here's the deal:

    Milosevic could not be tried in Yugoslavia because he and his people set up most of the laws, held the highest positions in their courts, and basically could do anything they wanted. Had he been tried there he would have walked away free and never had to pay for the crimes he committed.

    America is not Yugoslavia. Our system of government is set up in such a way that one man has no supreme power. No one man can set up laws. No one man controls the country. He always has someone there on the other side of his opinions to speak out against him and his actions. Milosevic ran Yugoslavia. Bush does not run this country. The American people do. He has to answer to us. Milosevic answered to no one. He could never receive a fair hearing on the atrocities he had committed. Enter the ICC.

    Of course Yugoslavia is going to say he can't get a fair trial there. They know he'll lose.

    So now we get to the US problem with the ICC. The previous posters are correct. It is against our Constitution to join and, as many people who've studied history are aware, we don't like changing our Constitution that much. The amendments we have are usually the result of years and years of protests and litigation. We would definitely not be happy about changing it in order to give up some of our freedoms and the way of life that we feel makes it work.

    So we contend that we can hold fair and impartial hearings, which I believe we can (especially when we know the rest of the world is watching), and we further contend that if we were to allow our soldiers to be tried in the ICC they would not receive the same trial. They would be tried for past transgressions, not the issues at hand. They would be tried for their way of life, not the issues at hand. In other words, they would be tried for being American.

    I will admit that we may be a bit arrogant on this issue because what it boils down to is that there are some countries out there that we believe cannot, in any way, hold a fair and impartial trial for one of its own but that we, in America, can always do this because we feel that our system works. That is arrogant but it's also fairly accurate.

    There are many countries in this world that are run, either openly or puppet regime style, by one man or a small cell of key people. They set up everything in the country and all things happen with their knowledge and approval. That person would never receive a fair trial in their country because they run that country. An outside agency is needed.

    We don't feel one is needed for America. That's the bottom line.
  11. SidiousDragon Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Feb 13, 2001
    star 4
    no, you're right, they're too righteous, perfect. I'm so sorry to have offended you, Oh, great rulers of the world. please be magnanimous in your mercy. Pity us poor non-American sould for our ignorance! we repent! In god we trust!
  12. Darth_Omega Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    May 19, 2002
    star 6
    We don't feel one is needed for America.

    So why is it needed in UK, Ireland, Holland, Belgium, Germany, Luxembourg, France, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Norway, Sweden, Greece, Canada etc.?
  13. Sarajevo Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Jun 6, 2002
    star 3
    I don't know, why is it?

    Whats the difference in an American trial and one by the ICC? :)
  14. yodafett999 Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 24, 2000
    star 4
    Trial by peers and citizens of the US.

    I agree with you guys that those countries should not be forced into the ICC court. :)

    The question becomes....how do we decide who needs it and who doesn't? What should be the criteria?

    Should we just allow everyone to hold the trials in their countries and representative from the other countries are invited to observe or to prosecute?

    Should we try and institute a standing international judge to preside over the cases in these courts?

    What is fair for everyone involved that would yield the most impartial solution?
  15. Darth_Omega Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    May 19, 2002
    star 6
    I agree with you guys that those countries should not be forced into the ICC court.

    I think the countries joined not because they needed to, but to give an example.

    Should we just allow everyone to hold the trials in their countries and representative from the other countries are invited to observe or to prosecute?

    nah countries could refuse...

    What is fair for everyone involved that would yield the most impartial solution?

    I've no idea, is USA the only country that uses trial by citizens?
  16. Fingorfin Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Nov 7, 2001
    star 4
    So why is it needed in UK, Ireland, Holland, Belgium, Germany, Luxembourg, France, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Norway, Sweden, Greece, Canada etc.?

    It is not needed. Each of these countries has codes of conduct and courts for their military that are capable of dealing with soldiers that violate the rules of war. You just seem to be angry that the US is not willing to relinquish her claim to take care of her own, while other nations are. The world is not yet mature enough to have such a court that is free of old grudges and political prosecutions. We are not staying out of the court because we feel that we a re better than you, but because we know that this experiment will not work the way it is intended to. Just because Europe is willing to make a mistake for a noble cause does not mean that we should do the same. Staying out of a flawed treaty is not arrogance; it is rational. We are willing to take the flack that comes with this decision so that our military will not have to be hampered by concerns about having its soldiers arrested if the rest of the world decides that they do not like what we are doing.
  17. Darkside_Spirit Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Sep 9, 2001
    star 3
    This is a prime example of why the Great Power Unanimity rule on the UN Security Council should be abolished.

    What's disgraceful is that the peacekeeping missions had absolutely nothing to do with the ICC. If it were a matter of the US threatening not to participate, they could claim that the two matters were related (i.e. the troops sent by the US might be charged by the ICC). However, this was threatening to veto the efforts of other countries even if the US would not be involved at all--and why peacekeeping missions carried out by other countries' troops have anything to do with the US's status before the ICC, I really can't fathom.

    The American people aren't directly responsible for this (although a majority of them will be, if they don't vote Bush out at the next election). However, I hope that the questions of "why do people hate the US" will disappear following this.
  18. Darth_Omega Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    May 19, 2002
    star 6
    but because we know that this experiment will not work the way it is intended to.

    Why is that? Could you explain it with examples if possible...

    so that our military will not have to be hampered by concerns about having its soldiers arrested if the rest of the world decides that they do not like what we are doing.

    Even if it the USA soldiers are killing civilians, women, children etc. without reason?
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.