The Hague Invasion Act - Page 3

Jack the Bodiless · June 14, 2002, 09:48

Well, it's amusing to speculate...

Current US military tactics involve gaining "air supremacy" and pounding the enemy into submission from the air. In theory the USAF could do that, but a lack of bases would be a problem (carriers are out, there is no such thing as a 100% effective submarine detector). So they'd be operating from Iceland. Which has itself signed up to the Rome Statutes, so they'd have to invade and conquer Iceland first: probably not difficult though. B2 stealth bombers could operate directly from Missouri, but there aren't a lot of those.

It would be difficult, but not impossible. A major ground invasion, though? No.

As for nukes: I think the Europeans would use them first. I can't see them just sitting there while their power stations, bridges, factories and so forth are pounded. Tactical nukes against airbases in Iceland, where their tormentors are coming from. They wouldn't fear retaliation in kind, because European bases would already be ruins by then. And the US wouldn't want to escalate a nuclear war, for fear of losing cities. If the US did manage to bring a carrier group and fend off European submarines: that, too, would be nuked.

Result? Stalemate.

The alternative to all this is a Special-Ops mission, but I don't think that's likely to work.

Deathwalker · June 14, 2002, 09:57

Please do you really think it would be so easy for America to beat a united Europe.

ZoboZeWarrior · June 14, 2002, 10:05

I don't think Europe will nuke first US cities. Maybe group of ships with carriers, advanced base ...

The first who nuke the cities of the other opponent will ignite a nuke war. Survivors will have the chance to play at Fallout 1 & 2 without computer and with full 3D environment.

Richelieu · June 14, 2002, 10:11

Quote:

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
Well, it's amusing to speculate...

Current US military tactics involve gaining "air supremacy" and pounding the enemy into submission from the air. In theory the USAF could do that, but a lack of bases would be a problem (carriers are out, there is no such thing as a 100% effective submarine detector). So they'd be operating from Iceland. Which has itself signed up to the Rome Statutes, so they'd have to invade and conquer Iceland first: probably not difficult though. B2 stealth bombers could operate directly from Missouri, but there aren't a lot of those.

It would be difficult, but not impossible. A major ground invasion, though? No.

As for nukes: I think the Europeans would use them first. I can't see them just sitting there while their power stations, bridges, factories and so forth are pounded. Tactical nukes against airbases in Iceland, where their tormentors are coming from. They wouldn't fear retaliation in kind, because European bases would already be ruins by then. And the US wouldn't want to escalate a nuclear war, for fear of losing cities. If the US did manage to bring a carrier group and fend off European submarines: that, too, would be nuked.

Result? Stalemate.

The alternative to all this is a Special-Ops mission, but I don't think that's likely to work.

In your scenario, the US seems to acquire air supremacy as easily as they did in Iraq or Afghanistan.
I don't think that that would happen.

DinoDoc · June 14, 2002, 10:31

Quote:

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

You give me too much credit, Roland.

Quote:

"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.

Can the ICC really ask for the arrest of person from a non-signatory country or are we talking about something along the lines of the possible BS extradition request from a court in Chile?

Roland · June 14, 2002, 10:41

That was a general point about state jurisdiction. The ICC has jurisdiction if the home state or the state where the crime took place is a member. For Kissinger it's irrelevant anyway because the ICC statute is not retroactive.

DinoDoc · June 14, 2002, 10:44

Roland: Is the "Hague Invasion Act"

really as big news over in Europe as the recent repeated threads about it would indicate?

Roland · June 14, 2002, 10:49

Not at all. IIRC it appeared as a footnote in the reports about the ICC statute getting enough ratifications to enter into force.

Andrew1999 · June 14, 2002, 10:59

Quote:

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
I can't see the President signing that. It would limit his action too much.

It's called "The American Servicemembers’ Protection Act". The title alone guarantees passage.

JohnIII · June 14, 2002, 12:31

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Roland: Is the "Hague Invasion Act"

really as big news over in Europe as the recent repeated threads about it would indicate?

I haven't heard anything about it on the main BBC news.

Chris 62 · June 14, 2002, 12:41

You guys kill me.

Holland forms a court, and says it will try war criminals, and they have the right to grab US military personal, so we object and we are wrong?

Sorry boys, your not in control of the world anymore, unless we recognize your court, you have no leagal right to grab US personal, isn't that correct Roland?

Man, you guys are silly.

Rogan Josh · June 14, 2002, 12:52

Quote:

Originally posted by Chris 62
Holland forms a court, and says it will try war criminals, and they have the right to grab US military personal, so we object and we are wrong?

Come on Chris! At least try to find out about what we are talking about before calling us stupid. This court is not being set up by Holland - it just happens to be there.

Quote:

Sorry boys, your not in control of the world anymore, unless we recognize your court, you have no leagal right to grab US personal, isn't that correct Roland?

They have every right to grab US personel if they set foot in a country which has signed the treaty (and have done something naughty obviously). If a French soldier on holiday in the US was to murder someone in the US, wouldn't the US courts have the right to arrest him?

Lincoln · June 14, 2002, 12:59

The point of course is not a French soldier murdering someone in the US, it is an American soldier killing an enemy combatant in another country which is ar war with the United States and being arrested and tried in the Hague years later because he happens to be vacationing in Europe or is there on other business.

Chris 62 · June 14, 2002, 13:03

Quote:

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
Come on Chris! At least try to find out about what we are talking about before calling us stupid. This court is not being set up by Holland - it just happens to be there.

I HAVE read up on this Rogan, it's supposed to be a world court, yet they are using European leagal codes and punishments, like no death penalty, for example.
Also, as a WORLD body, it must have the world's approval.
We don't appove.

Quote:

They have every right to grab US personel if they set foot in a country which has signed the treaty (and have done something naughty obviously). If a French soldier on holiday in the US was to murder someone in the US, wouldn't the US courts have the right to arrest him?

To be tried under that NATION'S law, not some "world court".
The world court is illeagal under international law, and despite what Roland thinks, grabbing people for "war crimes" by a rogue court is an act of war, and we won't allow it.

If our personal commit warcrimes, they will be tried under the law of recognized nations, with the full support of the US, or they will be taken home and tried under the UCMJ (with is as it SHOULD be), and believe me, we wouldn't be doing them a favor.

Stop trying to tell us what to do, your the ones being pushy and arrogant, not the United States.

Richelieu · June 14, 2002, 13:04

Quote:

Originally posted by Lincoln
The point of course is not a French soldier murdering someone in the US, it is an American soldier killing an enemy combatant in another country which is ar war with the United States and being arrested and tried in the Hague years later because he happens to be vacationing in Europe or is there on other business.

Not "killing an enemy combatant".

Commiting a war crime.

Roland · June 14, 2002, 13:14

"unless we recognize your court, you have no leagal right to grab US personal, isn't that correct Roland?"

Depends on what you mean by "grab". But yes, there is no direct jurisdiction.

"To be tried under that NATION'S law, not some "world court". "

Which rule of international law bars that NATION from exercising its jurisdiction through an international court ?

"The world court is illeagal under international law"

That's new to me. Under which rule of international law ?

Chris 62 · June 14, 2002, 13:36

Show me the provision for a world court Roland.

In ANY international law, and in any accord the US has signed.

Saint Marcus · June 14, 2002, 14:43

Quote:

more of a small spec-ops operation

will fail. can't get into, and out of the country, let alone the rest of Europe.

Quote:

an arrest of American for war crimes without America's consent is an act of war on United States.

sorry to break your bubble, but it isn't an act of war.

Quote:

unless we recognize your court, you have no leagal right to grab US personal, isn't that correct Roland?

Sure we do. Just make sure the warcriminals you are harboring don't venture to other countries

This is so damn funny. America threathens, America *****es, America whines. And the court isn't even in service yet. I can't wait till the first American is arrested and tried. It will be the best thing ever

America will threathen some more, ***** some more, whine some more, but will be absolutely helpless to do anything to stop it.

so much for being a "super"power.

Chris 62 · June 14, 2002, 15:03

Quote:

Originally posted by Saint Marcus
sorry to break your bubble, but it isn't an act of war.

Sorry son, but trying to bring a US citizen before an unrecognized court is indeed an act of war, and watch waht happens to you if you try it.

Quote:

Sure we do. Just make sure the warcriminals you are harboring don't venture to other countries

Don't know much about the law, do you marky?

To bad, your p1ss poor little country losses again, what a shame.

Well, you mattered once.

Centuries ago.

faded glory · June 14, 2002, 15:11

"will fail. can't get into, and out of the country, let alone the rest of Europe. "

LOL

(Apparently he's never heard of the stealth helicopters we have)

Sprayber · June 14, 2002, 15:11

Quote:

Originally posted by Richelieu

Not "killing an enemy combatant".

Commiting a war crime.

Who exactly are the people that define the legal definition of War Crimes.

faded glory · June 14, 2002, 15:15

In other news, Dutch defense officials blocked all roads and ports leading into and out of the country.

Dutch officials dismissed the mythical existence of American "Helicopters".

rah · June 14, 2002, 15:26

I don't know what's funnier.

The Americans that are claiming we're all powerful.

Or the others claiming we're powerless.

RAH

faded glory · June 14, 2002, 15:42

Marcus your on thin Ice when you talk big about going to war with america.

Im sure its your wet dream and all to run around with your 'Spandua' along the dutch countryside mowing down greedy capitalist paratroops. With a big bossumed chic with a Glock at your side.

A few well placed bombed can put your entire country underwater. Reclaimed by the Ocean. Perhaps that should be the first step saving mother earth.

Chris 62 · June 14, 2002, 15:50

Quote:

Originally posted by rah
I don't know what's funnier.

The Americans that are claiming we're all powerful.

Or the others claiming we're powerless.

RAH

I like the part were WE are arrogant for not permitting them to push us around!

Lincoln · June 14, 2002, 15:59

Quote:

Originally posted by Sprayber

Who exactly are the people that define the legal definition of War Crimes.

Exactly the point. They define it. And they define if it is a legitimate combat situation or a "war crime". Of course while everyone is arguing over whether the suspect committed a crime or was just engaging in a legitimate battle situation the soldier sits in jail. Thanks, but no thanks.

Hueij · June 14, 2002, 16:09

Quote:

Holland forms a court, and says it will try war criminals, and they have the right to grab US military personal, so we object and we are wrong?

Oh man, this is the level USians are informed? And we are supposed to argue with them? This explains a lot BTW...

Quote:

Roland: Is the "Hague Invasion Act" really as big news over in Europe as the recent repeated threads about it would indicate?

Don't know about the rest of Europe, but over here we take it pretty serious...

DinoDoc · June 14, 2002, 16:17

Quote:

Originally posted by Hueij
Don't know about the rest of Europe, but over here we take it pretty serious...

I just find it odd that you would be the only country in Europe to have actually heard of this act. I don't even think that the BBC even has an article about it.

Sprayber · June 14, 2002, 16:24

EXACTLY WHO IS IT THAT IS SUPPOSED TO COME UP WITH THE DEFINITION OF WHAT IS AND WHAT IS NOT A WAR CRIME.

Has this been put in writing somewhere? If it has, who were the people that decided that a certain act was a war crime. Or are we just going by what is generally accepted at the time.

DinoDoc · June 14, 2002, 16:26

Quote:

Originally posted by Sprayber
EXACTLY WHO IS IT THAT IS SUPPOSED TO COME UP WITH THE DEFINITION OF WHAT IS AND WHAT IS NOT A WAR CRIME.

The crimes within the purview of the ICC are spelled out in the Rome Statute.