The Hague Invasion Act - Page 2

DinoDoc · June 13, 2002, 16:44

Would a copy of the bill be sufficent for you? I can not seem to find any mainstream articles on the subject.

Frankychan · June 13, 2002, 16:47

Thanks Dino.

That's pretty messed up. All I can say is that we better shape up fast or else EVERYONE is going to be pissed off at us....

.....if they aren't already.

Buck Birdseed · June 13, 2002, 16:54

Yup, a link to the bill would be fine. Though an article would be best... I have some backup subjects I can bring in stuff for in any case, and it's a late afternoon seminar.

monkspider · June 13, 2002, 16:55

Man, the United States is acting more and more like the so-called "rogue states" it is up and arms against. This is truly a black day for justice-loving Americans.

DinoDoc · June 13, 2002, 16:58

Quote:

Originally posted by Snapcase
Yup, a link to the bill would be fine.

http://www.senate.gov/~rpc/rva/1071/1071359.pdf
http://www.house.gov/rules/delay_003.pdf

I can get you an article from several human rights web sites if you really do need an article about it.

chequita guevara · June 13, 2002, 17:05

I can't see the President signing that. It would limit his action too much.

Jack the Bodiless · June 13, 2002, 17:11

The effects could be interesting...

With virtually the whole of the rest of the world united behind the concept of an International Criminal Court, and the US pledging itself to withold military assistance to virtually any ICC signatory: the ICC nations will be forced to look to each other for military assistance in bringing the perps to justice.

The US would create a military vacuum and oblige someone else to fill it.

This might help turn the European Union into a true superpower, or give the UN a standing army one day.

DinoDoc · June 13, 2002, 17:17

Quote:

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
With virtually the whole of the rest of the world united behind the concept of an International Criminal Court,

IIRC, there are whole continents that have not signed the Rome Statute.

Jack the Bodiless · June 13, 2002, 17:29

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc
IIRC, there are whole continents that have not signed the Rome Statute.

...Really?

I can see only one missing continent.

Those damn stubborn isolationist penguins...

DinoDoc · June 13, 2002, 17:42

Quote:

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless

...Really?

Yes, according to your list the claim that "virtually the whole of the rest of the world being united behind the concept of an International Criminal Court" is nothing more than hot air. Many important states have failed to sign or ratify the agreement and, based on a qick skim on the ratification list, it looks like I can count the African and Asian country that are truely behind the concept on on hand for each continent.

Az · June 13, 2002, 17:49

DinoDoc is right. generally, I don't see the US invading the Netherlands. more of a small spec-ops operation.

Jack the Bodiless · June 13, 2002, 18:18

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Yes, according to your list the claim that "virtually the whole of the rest of the world being united behind the concept of an International Criminal Court" is nothing more than hot air.

It does, however, appear to be steadily growing. This scenario may yet come to pass.

Az · June 13, 2002, 18:33

*yawn* , Jack.. the number of countries in Asia that have ratified it is 5 or so . This is a european gig, sort to speak.

Sava · June 13, 2002, 18:37

If I took a dump in a paper bag and wrote "Free Lunch" you guys would probably start a thread and argue about whether it would be a free lunch or not.

The US and Holland aren't going to war, God, you people really don't make any sense sometimes.

And tell paiktis not to hold all of America responsible for what our retarded politicians are talking about.

Ecthy · June 13, 2002, 18:40

Quote:

Originally posted by Dalgetti
*yawn* , Jack.. the number of countries in Asia that have ratified it is 5 or so . This is a european gig, sort to speak.

1. it's "so to speak"

2. every country ratified it but Somalia and the US

Apocalypse · June 13, 2002, 18:41

I don't know one person in my real life who knows about this act. Most of them don't even know what Hague is.

Ned · June 13, 2002, 18:42

I really like the idea of cutting of military assistance to those countries that sign the ICC. Let's start with Holland.

Saint Marcus, as I said before an earlier thread on this topic, an arrest of American for war crimes without America's consent is an act of war on United States. Please get this through your very, very thick skull. The act the war would be by Holland against the United States and not the other way around. When are you going to understand this?

The ICC is fundamentally flawed in that it does not require Security Council consent prior to bringing a case. This flaw will only cause or extend future conflicts as combatants file complaints with the ICC against the other county's leaders: War by other means.

In the case of the United States, there are all sorts of lunatics in the world more than willing to bring ICC actions against America's military and against America's leaders. The current threat to Kissinger being arrested at the request of a Chilean judge is an example. An arrest of Kissinger without United States' consent by any country is an act war on United States.

Az · June 13, 2002, 18:43

blah , Echtlion. only 60+ countries ratified it . It's in the site.

JohnIII · June 13, 2002, 18:44

Quote:

Originally posted by Apocalypse
I don't know one person in my real life who knows about this act. Most of them don't even know what Hague is.

Well, he wasn't very inspiring, even for a Tory.

Apocalypse · June 13, 2002, 18:47

Quote:

Originally posted by JohnIII
Well, he wasn't very inspiring, even for a Tory.

I was talking about The Hague, but some people did think I was talking about the Tory.

- Groucho - · June 13, 2002, 18:55

Don't worry too much. America doesn't have the greatest record of pulling off daring rescue missions. (Can anyone say Iran?)

Does it bother any other posters that the ICC will purport to have authority over everyone on earth after it is ratified by 60 nations, even those people whose countries have not ratified the treaty?

Even the Geneva conventions only bind signatories.

Lincoln · June 13, 2002, 19:04

"Does it bother any other posters that the ICC will purport to have authority over everyone on earth after it is ratified by 60 nations, even those people whose countries have not ratified the treaty?"

It is the old story of absolute corruption. They think it won't apply to the "world" court.

Roland · June 14, 2002, 03:14

Amazing what bullshit gets throuh congress. Or did you just make that up, Dino ?

"Saint Marcus, as I said before an earlier thread on this topic, an arrest of American for war crimes without America's consent is an act of war on United States."

Darling you can arrest foreign nationals on your territory, we can arrest foreign nationals on our territory, just respecting the terms of consular protection. It's called territorial principle and sovereignty. If you want the personal principle I recommend feudal Europe, roughly 500-1500.

"An arrest of Kissinger without United States' consent by any country is an act war on United States."

Not if he moves his ass into that country's jurisdiction.

"Does it bother any other posters that the ICC will purport to have authority over everyone on earth after it is ratified by 60 nations, even those people whose countries have not ratified the treaty?"

Read the detailed provisions in the ICC statute about the link between jurisdiction and ratifying states.

Asher · June 14, 2002, 03:23

I'd LOVE to see the rest of NATO try to put up a fight against the US.

Roland · June 14, 2002, 03:27

At the Hague ? Only if their helicopters don't crash on their own....

ZoboZeWarrior · June 14, 2002, 04:33

Special American Forces are mostly good in Holywoodian movies.
I prefere largely British special forces. They have maybe less technological gadget, but are better trained.

KrazyHorse · June 14, 2002, 07:10

Quote:

Originally posted by Ned
I really like the idea of cutting of military assistance to those countries that sign the ICC. Let's start with Holland.

Saint Marcus, as I said before an earlier thread on this topic, an arrest of American for war crimes without America's consent is an act of war on United States. Please get this through your very, very thick skull. The act the war would be by Holland against the United States and not the other way around. When are you going to understand this?

The ICC is fundamentally flawed in that it does not require Security Council consent prior to bringing a case. This flaw will only cause or extend future conflicts as combatants file complaints with the ICC against the other county's leaders: War by other means.

In the case of the United States, there are all sorts of lunatics in the world more than willing to bring ICC actions against America's military and against America's leaders. The current threat to Kissinger being arrested at the request of a Chilean judge is an example. An arrest of Kissinger without United States' consent by any country is an act war on United States.

What a load of crap. Arresting a foreign national on your own soil isn't an act of war by any reasonable definition of that term.

The US' sovereignty does not extend to include its citizens when they are abroad. If that were the case, I'd have a very lucrative career robbing banks just south of the 49th...

Rogan Josh · June 14, 2002, 07:38

As a matter of interest, does anyone here actually think that the US could succesfully invade Europe, assuming all the European countries were united against them?

I am not asking who would win a war, but could the US 'conquor' Europe without inside help?

(Assuming Nuclear weapons are not used - obviously no side wins if nukes are used...)

Deathwalker · June 14, 2002, 07:54

America's should be arrested if they commit war crimes.
But please America invade Europe, they would never stand a chance. It not like they would be going to war with a third rate backwards country like there used to.

ZoboZeWarrior · June 14, 2002, 08:35

Quote:

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
As a matter of interest, does anyone here actually think that the US could succesfully invade Europe, assuming all the European countries were united against them?

Not conquere, but destroying army & gouvernment, maybe.

[QUORE]
I am not asking who would win a war, but could the US 'conquor' Europe without inside help?

(Assuming Nuclear weapons are not used - obviously no side wins if nukes are used...) [/QUOTE]

If the war is getting hard for them, they would not hesitate to use it. A little propaganda on CNN, and the people of USA will not object.