The Hague Invasion Act

[Bereta_Eder]

I didnt say if i believe it or not. that's not my place and besides i am in no position to know (as we are all )

i just brought this video to bare and i was moderately surpised to find out that it was so difficult to find any info or news about it (from public domain websites).

that said, there are accusations and i cant see why the US would object to have them checked out by the EU?

[Bereta_Eder]

now on a personal level, i dont find it hard at all to believe that tortures went on by americans against the taliban.

it is the same frame as israeli soldiers against pals.

but without proof there is only that. speculation both if it happened or not (which i believe it could easily happen) as well as to what extend it happened (which i do find it hard to believe it went all that way).

[Chris 62]

Let me tell you a true story Paiktis, it goes back to 1982, when I was a lowly PFC.
Our Brigade (the third) got selected for a UN force to Sinai, to act as a buffer unit.
While there, we got mortered and sniped at almost dailey from the direction of Eygpt.
Not once for Israel.
A BBC reporter and crew were there, and everyday, he would say, "we see it from the arab side, but the jews do it also, riiiight?"
He would be told no everyday.
They left, and his report, which we saw later, said, "US Personel confirm, to me in confidence, that both sides live fire on them".
In other words, he out and out lied, my first experience with BBC duplicity and anti-Jewish bias, but I would see a lot more of it.

I wouldn't trust the EU investigation half as far as I could sling a two ton anchor.

Sorry, but that is how I feel about it.

[markusf]

Let USA invade holland.. the USA would be toast, people seem to forget that Russia is being included in nato. Any attack by the USA on a nato country would spark WW3 and would basically result in every country in the world against the USA. In such a situation i wouldn't be at all surprised to see some russian nuts sending over nukes.

[Ned]

Actually, I think we would give Queen of England a call. She would in turn call the Queen of Holland. All will be resolved quite peacefully.

[Saint Marcus]

Marky, let Belgium try to send US personal before a court we don't agree to and see what happens.

You recognise the Belgian court. And they can put Americans on trial for whatever the hell they want, providing the Belgian law agrees. Same goes for the USA.

Just make sure the warcriminals you are harboring **cough**Kissinger**cough** don't visit Belgium anytime soon.

Same goes for Sharon, who is already avoiding the country

[Roland]

"Sorry pal, but your the one not making the connection, we recognize Belgium or Albania, but not an additional layer they are attempting to add, THAT'S the illeagal part."

Sorry, what you are saying does not make any sense no matter how much I try to interpret it into that direction.

Sovereign nations can create all kinds of international structures between them. You failed for the xth time to explain why it is supposedly illegal. And universal "recognition" (whatever that is) of international organisations is certainly not required for their legality.

"You should know better, it's like saying the US court sytem has added a a special court where we will try German people he can't stand, and go ahead and sieze people and try them, and Germany must comply because they recognize the US."

Germany does not have to comply with that. The US does not have to comply with the ICC. You got your brain in some kind of feedback loop there. And I wonder from where you halluzinated the "special" and "can't stand" into this.

If the US, Canada and Mexico form the NACC by a treaty among them, and decide to vest part of their jurisdiction under international law in it, and austrian nationals are brought before that court accordingly, fine. Not fine for you, it seems. So:

What kind of austrian recognition would be required for that court under your theory ?

"let Belgium try to send US personal before a court we don't agree to and see what happens."

About nothing. Unless you have agreed to funny saudi sharia "courts".....

[KrazyHorse]

Do some people not see the difference between not cooperating with the ICC and invading its host country?

[ZoboZeWarrior]

Originally posted by Saint Marcus
Same goes for Sharon, who is already avoiding the country

He he ! No more "clams & french fries" for Mr Sharon ...

[Saint Marcus]

Do some people not see the difference between not cooperating with the ICC and invading its host country?

Everyone does. Besides the Americans.

He he ! No more "clams & french fries" for Mr Sharon ...

Belgian fries are WAY bigger, and fatter, than french fries.

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by Roland
Sorry, what you are saying does not make any sense no matter how much I try to interpret it into that direction.

Make it simple:
Both sides must agree to something for it to be leagal, isn't that the basis for agreements?

Sovereign nations can create all kinds of international structures between them. You failed for the xth time to explain why it is supposedly illegal. And universal "recognition" (whatever that is) of international organisations is certainly not required for their legality.

Your own words hit on it..."between them.
The US doesn't agree, so it's not between the US and the ICC comittee, do you see it now?

Germany does not have to comply with that. The US does not have to comply with the ICC. You got your brain in some kind of feedback loop there. And I wonder from where you halluzinated the "special" and "can't stand" into this.

You seem to grasp the concept here, but then confuse yourself.
Perhaps it's a langauge problem, let me try in German:
Eine Nation hat kein Recht, Leute einer anderen Nation in einem Weltgericht zu versuchen, es sei denn die andere Nation zustimmt.

If the US, Canada and Mexico form the NACC by a treaty among them, and decide to vest part of their jurisdiction under international law in it, and austrian nationals are brought before that court accordingly, fine. Not fine for you, it seems. So:
What kind of austrian recognition would be required for that court under your theory ?

The said North American court would be a rogue body unless Austria formaly accepts it.

About nothing. Unless you have agreed to funny saudi sharia "courts".....

The US would not allow it, as was stated by many.

Let's move to the less well thought out comments:

Let USA invade holland.. the USA would be toast, people seem to forget that Russia is being included in nato. Any attack by the USA on a nato country would spark WW3 and would basically result in every country in the world against the USA. In such a situation i wouldn't be at all surprised to see some russian nuts sending over nukes.

Playing to much MP is confusing you.
Seizing US personel is a violation of the Nato agreement, Holland would be the treaty breaker, and by the treaty, all of Europe would be at war with it.
You should examine the Nato treaty before saying such things.

You recognise the Belgian court. And they can put Americans on trial for whatever the hell they want, providing the Belgian law agrees. Same goes for the USA.

Try the eyedrops Marky, I clearly said "court the US doesn't recognize.

Do some people not see the difference between not cooperating with the ICC and invading its host country?

Obviously not, from my first post I was kidding them, but they don't seem to understand the difference between not co-operating with the world court and invading the host country (which is mentioned nowhere but in this thread).
Marky loves dis-information, so we play his game little Kitty.

[KrazyHorse]

But the measure which was proposed, and which was almost passed authorizes use of "all means necessary" to retrieve US personnel. Them sounds like fightin' words, y'dig.

[Chris 62]

Typical US bravado, something for the firebrands.

[Jack the Bodiless]

In which documents does the US specifically recognize the authority of the Belgian legal system, or any other non-US court?

What about Scottish courts in the UK (Scottish law differs from English law)? Does the US officially recognize each separate legal system in use by a nation with multiple legal systems?

[Saint Marcus]

Try the eyedrops Marky, I clearly said "court the US doesn't recognize

In other words, it isn't a problem if people are put on trial before a Belgian court for acts of genocide and warcrimes, but it is a problem when they are put on trial before the ICC.

Doesn't entirely make sense. If the ICC as such is the problem, we should just hand over all American warcriminals to Belgium, and let them be tried and convicted there.

What about Scottish courts in the UK (Scottish law differs from English law)? Does the US officially recognize each separate legal system in use by a nation with multiple legal systems?

What about the Scottish court in Holland which handled the Lockerby case?

What about the UN court in Holland which handles cases of genocide and warcrimes commited in former Yugoslavia?

[Sixchan]

Playing to much MP is confusing you.
Seizing US personel is a violation of the Nato agreement, Holland would be the treaty breaker, and by the treaty, all of Europe would be at war with it.
You should examine the Nato treaty before saying such things.

Umm, wouldn't the ICC be the ones siezing them? And the ICC isn't a member of NATO, so if the US attacked Holland, which had not siezed and US personell, wouldn't the US be attacking Holland?

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by Saint Marcus
In other words, it isn't a problem if people are put on trial before a Belgian court for acts of genocide and warcrimes, but it is a problem when they are put on trial before the ICC.

That is precisly it Marky.

Doesn't entirely make sense. If the ICC as such is the problem, we should just hand over all American warcriminals to Belgium, and let them be tried and convicted there.

If they exsist, they must be tried under the laws of where they commit such a crime, UNLESS such a place has no effective court system (IE a "kangaroo court" where the verdict is preordained).
The US would object to moving to a jurisdiction just to move, and would insist that such individuals be tried under the Universal code of Military Justice (Which is far harsher then US civil courts, and much easier to convict with).

What about the Scottish court in Holland which handled the Lockerby case?

That was Britian's decision, the US has effective treaties with Britain and a solid judical system exsists.

What about the UN court in Holland which handles cases of genocide and warcrimes commited in former Yugoslavia?

I'm not convinced of the validity of this, where a man like Slobo committed his crime is where he should be tried, but the issue of fair trial becomes an issue.

As you can see, in theory a permanent "Nuremberg" type tribunal seems like a good idea, but in practice their are many questions that have yet to answered, and procedures accepted and worked out.

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by Sixchan
Umm, wouldn't the ICC be the ones siezing them? And the ICC isn't a member of NATO, so if the US attacked Holland, which had not siezed and US personell, wouldn't the US be attacking Holland?

That would imply that they have gone beyound a court mandate to being a full blown jailer, which is beyound the charter posted earlier.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Sixchan


Umm, wouldn't the ICC be the ones siezing them? And the ICC isn't a member of NATO, so if the US attacked Holland, which had not siezed and US personell, wouldn't the US be attacking Holland?

Good point. An attack on the ICC is not an attack on Holland. NATO should not be involved in defense of the ICC.

However, if the United States is conducting operations against the ICC, any intervention by Dutch forces against U.S. forces would be an act of war on United States, not the other way around. We would invoke the NATO charter to suppress Dutch aggression.

[Saint Marcus]

UNLESS such a place has no effective court system

what happeneds then?

Say Americans did commit warcrimes in Afghanistan. Afghanistan doesn't have an effective court system. Were should those Americans be tried, should the US refuse to do so (for whatever reason)?

Only answer: international court, ala the Yugoslavia court.

[Saint Marcus]

Good point. An attack on the ICC is not an attack on Holland. NATO should not be involved in defense of the ICC.

However, if the United States is conducting operations against the ICC, any intervention by Dutch forces against U.S. forces would be an act of war on United States, not the other way around. We would invoke the NATO charter to suppress Dutch aggression.

There's just one little problem. While all ICC facilities aren't on dutch soil (like embassies) all the land around it is. If American troops violate Dutch sovereignity by moving armed forces into the country without permission (which will never be given), the US is the one who commited an act of war.

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by Saint Marcus
what happeneds then?

Say Americans did commit warcrimes in Afghanistan. Afghanistan doesn't have an effective court system. Were should those Americans be tried, should the US refuse to do so (for whatever reason)?

Only answer: international court, ala the Yugoslavia court.

No, the answer is here, under provision of UCMJ.
Already said that.
Unless we agree to ICC, it has no right to US personel, and you can't get past that point.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Saint Marcus
Say Americans did commit warcrimes in Afghanistan. Afghanistan doesn't have an effective court system. Were should those Americans be tried, should the US refuse to do so (for whatever reason)?

They would get off scott free in that case, SM. To impanel an international tribunal in such a case as this would require either the consent of the US or a war in which the US was defeated.

[Garth Vader]

So the moral of the story is that if you are going to commit atrocities make sure you win

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Garth Vader
So the moral of the story is that if you are going to commit atrocities make sure you win

You should have learned that after WWII.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Saint Marcus



There's just one little problem. While all ICC facilities aren't on dutch soil (like embassies) all the land around it is. If American troops violate Dutch sovereignity by moving armed forces into the country without permission (which will never be given), the US is the one who commited an act of war.

Saint Marcus, I forsee some secret agents driving down to the ICC from the US embassy, peacefully, entering the ICC, conducting the rescue, and then driving peacefully back to the US embassy.

We would not violate Dutch sovereignty.

[KrazyHorse]

And would the heroes get the girl at the end of this?

[Saint Marcus]

Saint Marcus, I forsee some secret agents driving down to the ICC from the US embassy, peacefully, entering the ICC, conducting the rescue, and then driving peacefully back to the US embassy.

My name is Bond. James Bond.


sounds like someone has been watching to much television.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Saint Marcus
My name is Bond. James Bond.

He's thinking more along the lines of Rainbow 6 than that of MI6.

[Saint Marcus]

A group of heavily armed special forces would leave the US Embassy undetected, then travel to the ICC prison. Open the gate, move into the prison, get past all security, find the warcriminal, get him out, and go back the same way.


Of course, the US embassy would be under constant surveillance and protection should an American be in prison here for warcrimes. Same goes for the ICC facilities. And those soldiers/policemen protecting both compounds would of course have the dutch nationality. Probably most security personel inside the ICC complex would be dutch too, for logistical reasons.

Any attempt to get people out of the ICC prison would lead to dutch casualties, on dutch soil (outside the gate). And that is an act of war.