Mmmm. Camaroon. Is that dipped in white chocolate or dark chocolate Camaroon?
-Kevin > -----Original Message----- > From: John Stanley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, July 07, 2003 1:16 PM > To: CF-Community > Subject: RE: US threatens Caribbean Countries > > > here...here....I nominate Equador and Camaroon.... > > -----Original Message----- > From: Nagy, Daniel J [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, July 07, 2003 2:04 PM > To: CF-Community > Subject: RE: US threatens Caribbean Countries > > > tim, > > i find it very unfair and unpopular for you to say that the > world should not be run by second rate countries in the form > of a hegemony. > > also, we should nationalize the reese's corporation so we can > all eat white chocolate and processed peanut butter fat > instead of relying on capitalist 'fat cats' whom only sell > them as they see fit. > > --d. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Heald, Tim > Sent: Monday, July 07, 2003 2:01 PM > To: CF-Community > Subject: RE: US threatens Caribbean Countries > > > Have you ever read the soviet union's constitution? Very reasonable. > > I am sorry but giving prosecutorial ability to the UN would > be madness. The majority of member states are hostile to the > US. That would make no sense at all, anymore than I could > see China or England or any other world player wanting to do so. > > Tim > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Larry C. Lyons [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, July 07, 2003 1:48 PM > To: CF-Community > Subject: RE: US threatens Caribbean Countries > > > Have you looked at the provisions governing the ICC, they are > very strong > protections against any politically motivated prosecutions > from their faq: > > > 13. When does the Court have jurisdiction over crimes? > The Court's jurisdiction is not retroactive. It can only > address crimes > committed after the entry into > force of the Statute, which occurred on 1 July, 2002. From 1 > July, 2002, > the Court has jurisdiction over > nationals of states that have ratified or acceded to the treaty. This > automatic jurisdiction represents a > major advance in international law as in the past, the acceptance of > jurisdiction has, in most cases, been > subject to additional State consent. In the case of war > crimes, a State, on > becoming a party to the > Statute, may withdraw its consent for seven years. However, > this does not > affect the Court's > jurisdiction when it is conferred by the Security Council. > Matters can be referred to the Court by a State Party to the > Rome Statute, > by an Independent > Prosecutor, and by the UN Security Council. The Court may > then exercise its > jurisdiction over the > matter if either the State in whose territory the crime was > committed, or > the State of the nationality of > the accused, is a party to the Statute. Non-party States may > accept the > Court's jurisdiction on an ad hoc > basis. When a matter is referred by the Security Council, the > Court will > also have jurisdiction whether > or not the State concerned is a party to the Statute. > > 14. Will the International Criminal Court infringe on the > jurisdiction of > national courts? > No. The International Criminal Court will complement, not > supercede, the > jurisdiction of national > courts. National courts will continue to have priority in > investigating and > prosecuting crimes within > their jurisdiction. Under the principle of complementarity, the > International Criminal Court will act > only when national courts are unable or unwilling to exercise > jurisdiction. > If a national court is willing > and able to exercise jurisdiction, the International Criminal > Court cannot > intervene and no nationals of > that State can be brought before it. The grounds for > admitting a case to > the Court are specified in the > Statute and the circumstances that govern inability and > unwillingness are > carefully defined so as to > avoid arbitrary decisions. In addition, the accused and > interested States, > whether they are parties to the > Statute or not, may challenge the jurisdiction of the Court or > admissibility of the case. They also have a > right to appeal any related decision. > > 15. Will the Court violate international law by having > jurisdiction over > members of national > forces or of peacekeeping missions? Won't this make States > unwilling to > participate in > peacekeeping operations? > No. Under existing international law, the State in whose territory > genocide, war crimes or crimes > against humanity have been committed, or whose nationals are > victims of > such crimes, has the right to > and is often legally obligated to investigate and prosecute > persons accused > of committing such crimes. > The Court's Statute does not violate any principle of treaty > law and has > not created any entitlements or > legal obligations not already existing under international law. The > cooperation of a non-party State is > purely voluntary and no legal obligation is imposed on a > non-party State. The Court's Statute provides for special > protection of peacekeepers by > including among its punishable > crimes intentional attacks against personnel, installations, > material units > or vehicles involved in > humanitarian assistance or peacekeeping missions. Such violations > constitute war crimes and, under > certain circumstances, also crimes against humanity. The > Statute does not > otherwise affect existing > arrangements with respect to UN peacekeeping missions since > troop-contributing countries retain > criminal jurisdiction over their members of such missions. > > (from http://www.iccnow.org/documents/iccbasics/Q&AJuly2002.pdf). > > Regardless the number of weird hoops and twists that someone > would have to > go through first in order to get a prosecution is quite impressive. > Moreover to do this on trumped up charges, which is what you > are referring > to, would almost take a miracle. > > larry > > At 12:30 PM 7/7/2003 -0400, Nick McClure wrote: > >It is not impunity, it is a country with the ability and the will to > protect > >it citizens from potentially overzealous accusations from countries > >around the world. > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Angel Stewart [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Sent: Monday, July 07, 2003 12:26 PM > > > To: CF-Community > > > Subject: RE: US threatens Caribbean Countries > > > > > > Therefore the international laws governing genocide and other war > > > crimes extends to US military personnel only so far as a US court > > > chooses to enforce the laws. > > > > > > This is exactly what the ICC was meant to combat. > > > Impunity. > > > > > > -Gel > > > > > > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=5 This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for dependable ColdFusion Hosting. http://www.cfhosting.com Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
