--- Jeroen van Baardwijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >A platoon moves into village and one crazy guy runs out of his home with a
>
> >shotgun. The man is put down. the Man's wife runs out screming and atacks
> >one soldire with her bare hands, the soldure slaps her down and throws her
>
> >in the mud. Several 17 and 18 year old soldiurs find it humerous. Later
> >she claims that instead of being slaped and left in the mud she was raped.
>
> >The rest of the viliaged (all of whome are on the opposing side of the
> >war) coberate this fabrication.
> >
> >A real word example of a scinario that would have benched a whole platoon
> >and cost the government of the soldiours millions of dollars, possibly
> >imprisoning many inocent people.
>
> That's the problem with the US: for some reason they seem to think that any
>
> US serviceman will be considered guilty until proven innocent. That,
> however, is not how the ICC works.
Which version are you reading? IN comparison to your legal system maybe it
looks sound, but in comparison to the US legal system it is very scary. We
require it to be just as "good" as ours before we wil subject our citizens to
it.
BTW. Words like "That's the problem with the US" sounds more like doctrin
than criticizm.
> >This sort of thing can not be allowed. If the US had to deal with this
> >sort of crap from the ICC then it simply would stop peacekeeping all
> together.
>
> I wonder if the US realises that with this attitude, they're giving the
> impression that they believe US war criminals should not be prosecuted, and
> that accusations of war crimes committed by US soldiers should not be
> investigated.
Of course it can be SPUN that way. Its not an attitude though it is a
position. There is a differnce. A BIG diffence. And it is fact. With the way
the ICC is today the American people (democracy remember) would not allow us
to go into any of the peacekeeping we have done in the latter part of the
last century. Kosovo is one that really comes to mind.
OUr people would not put up with the kind of legal system the ICC has. We are
not having an "attitude" And we certainly do not believe that our criminals
should not be prosicuted. On the other hand, we do not have "war criminals"
we may have military chriminals, but there is a BIG diffence between the two.
And that is part of the destinction that the ICC does not make.
> > > Any accusation of war crimes needs to be investigated, regardless of
> who
> > > allegedly committed those crimes. If no evidence against a person is
> find,
> > > that person will not be prosecuted. If evidence *is* found, than that
> > > person should be prosecuted. Why should US servicemen be exempted from
> > > this? Are they "holier than thou"?
> >
> >I believe that JAG is perfectly capable of prosicuting criminals in the
> >military. There is no need for the ICC.
>
> JAG can handle internal matters, such as murder within the military. But
> they should stay out of international matters (and war is, by definition,
> an international matter).
>
> If an American is tried at the ICC, he will receive a fair trial, exactly
> because the judges come from the international community (which includes
> both friends and enemies of the US). If the US is going to put its own war
> criminals on trial, we can't be sure that someone behind the scenes isn't
> pulling strings to get a "not guilty".
We don't have "war criminals". That's part of the point. Just becouse a
millitary person commits a crime during a war does not make them a "war
criminal". We trust our allies to try their own criminals. They should trust
us to do the same.
We don't even call them criminals until it has been prooven that they
commited the crime. We are unprepared to relax our stance on one of the
foundations of our governmental system.
> > > By not recognising the ICC, the US is essentially saying that
> international
> > > laws should apply to everyone except the US.
> >
> >No, it is those who are recognising the ICC who are saying that that
> >particular flavor of international law should apply to them. Just becouse
> >the US doesn't go along with something doesn't seggest that they believe
> >that they should be exempt.
>
> Actually, they did say that. The US was willing to accept the ICC, but only
>
> if no US serviceman would ever have to stand trial there. And they made a
> very clear threat about what they would do if an American *would* be put on
> trial there.
Strange offers are made when the other side of the table will not listen to
reason.
> >Also, wow do you go about proving cases like the Korea bridge incedent?
> >The NKs rounded up a vilage and put them under a bridge then took up
> >defensive positions behind and just above the bridge still in the river
> >bed. The US troops came up the river bed to the bridge and were fired
> >appon. The captan in charge ordered an open fire. Almost all of the
> >viligers died. Most of the Nks got away. If all of the villigaers had dies
>
> >how would you proove that the US troops didn't round them up stick them
> >under the bridge and shoot them all?
>
> I wouldn't have to prove that US troops did *not* stick those civilians
> under the bridge. Thanks to the principle of "innocent until proven
> guilty", the burden would be on me to prove that those troops *did* round
> up and kill those civilians. No proof, no conviction.
But the way the ICC is set up, they would not recieve a trial by their peers.
Without that we do not beleive that IUPG works.
> >If the US recognized the ICC then all an enemy would have to do is
> >recreate a situation like this.
>
> See, that's the whole problem: the US seems to have this wacked notion that
> US troops will be considered guilty until proven innocent.
Just explained why. This notion goes very deep in our governement and way of
life. It is one of our esential freedoms.
Also it comes from why we exist to begin with. People came here to escape
persicution. (contradictions abound I know but that is the way it is)
Amercans would have a very hard time releasing sovernty, especialy when it
comes to one of the tenents that we beleive safeguards our freedoms.
We have a very dificult time relenquishing enforcement to an external body.
Becouse we have very long memories and remember when that very state was the
modivation for the countries existence.
> > > >France, and Russia (the countries who still do buisness, often black
> > > >market buisnes contrary to UN resolutions)
> > >
> > > One word: Halliburton.
> >
> >One phrase - "only expert option".
>
> This wasn't about US companies trying to get post-war contracts.
> Halliburton was doing business with Iraq despite UN sanctions.
provide proof please
> > > Basically, what would happen is that the oil sheiks and the Bush clique
> > > would get very upset and that the Middle East would have to find other
> ways
> > > to keep their economies going.
> >
> >No their economies would colaps.
>
> Not likely, unless their oil sales would drop by at least a few dozen
> percent.
Exactly.
> >"Do you really think that your success means that your pre-war attitude
> >will be forgotten?"
> >
> >Once again what attitude?
>
> Already explained, but nevertheless: statements to the international
> community like "we're going to war, with or without you", "we'll ignore the
> UN if we don't like its decision" and "if you're not with us, you're
> against us".
>
> Not exactly a friendly attitude.
Well we were not breaking any of the agreements made at the UN were we? we
were holding true to our word. but then I guess that doesn't have the same
value in Europe as it does here.
> >Did you ever go see a football (and I mean football, wehre you catuly use
> >your foot on the ball) game and one side was yelling "we're number one".
>
> That's what we call "soccer", and no, I've never been to a game. In fact, I
> hate soccer. Lots of my tax money is spent on it, but I get nothing back in
> return.
>
>
> > > Foreigners are forgiven if they walk hand in hand, but Sonja and I
> > > nevertheless respected that local custom and did not walk hand in hand.
> > > Other example: Thai have a particular custom when greeting each other
> > > (certain stance, certain phrase). As a foreigner, you'll get away with
> not
> > > following that custom. However, we *did* copy it and we noticed that
> our
> > > attempts to adapt were very much appreciated.
> >
> >Or laughed at.
>
> In our experience, it was certainly appreciated. And if they *did* laugh at
> us, it certainly wasn't where we could see it -- they're way too polite for
> that.
Try misspeaking frech in Qubec.
> > > which in turn, when it happens enough times, can lead to the impression
> > > that Americans generally are all arrogant and intolerant.
> >
> >Hay now, we are NOT intolerant! :) ...arrogant yes. But what's wrong with
> >being arrogant? It's a good thing isn't it?
>
> Maybe arrogance is considered a good thing in the US, but if you come over
> here I recommend you leave the arrogance at home. It is not appreciated on
> this side of the Atlantic.
You see, it would be unethical for an american to do something so unamerican.
You just don't get it. We don't ask anyone to change in that kind of way
becouse they are within our boardes. You can't be * in *land and * in America
and not expect us to be amercans in america and americans in *land. That
wouldn't be fair would it?
=====
_________________________________________________
Jan William Coffey
_________________________________________________
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com
[Sponsored by:]
_____________________________________________________________________________
The newest lyrics on the Net!
http://lyrics.astraweb.com
Click NOW!
