The Hague Invasion Act - Page 8

Saint Marcus · June 19, 2002, 17:54

Quote:

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

We all know Rainbow6 couldn't make a dent in a pack of butter, let alone do something like this. The Brits on the other hand...

Ned · June 19, 2002, 23:56

Saint Marcus, This all sounds real Tom Clancy. Why don't you write a book on a hypthetical capture and rescue attempt of an American president that leads to the collapse of Nato and a war between Europe and the US.

DinoDoc · June 20, 2002, 00:02

Quote:

Originally posted by Saint Marcus
We all know Rainbow6 couldn't make a dent in a pack of butter, let alone do something like this. The Brits on the other hand...

Oh, please. Bond would never know what hit him.

Sixchan · June 20, 2002, 02:57

But he does have a point, were you to attack the ICC, you would need to make sure you don't violate Dutch Sovereignty. If you do, then you are the ones making an act of war.

P.S. I'm not saying I support either side, I'm just pointing this out, OK?

ckweb · June 20, 2002, 03:36

Why wouldn't the Americans just use a Special Forces Unit and Helo from one of their many bases in Europe? The security in the ICC I'm sure is strong but I would think Special Forces could accomplish the task with minimal, if any, casualties. And, while I'm sure, you would have a flurry of international protests and mean spirited letters flying around, no NATO nation would declare war on the U.S.A. It's simply an untenable proposition. You might have some protest moves, like the EU and Russia withdrawing from NATO or placing a trade embargo on the U.S.A. You'd probably also get a strongly worded censure by the UN against the Americans. At the most extreme, the Americans would probably be told to leave their bases in Europe, which if the Americans refuse might cause a tense standoff until cooler heads prevail. But, WWIII, c'mon. . . the financial, military, and human costs of war against the U.S.A. would be far too high for the EU and Russia (never mind the threat of escalation to nuclear conflict), especially in response to the small number of casaulties that would result from carefully planned extraction of American personnel from the ICC.

Jack the Bodiless · June 20, 2002, 03:51

The helicopters would, of course, be shot down.

You think the Dutch would select deaf guards who can't hear a helicopter? Sure, there are relatively quiet "stealth helicopters", but none that can drop off a SpecOps team at the Hague (remember, they'll be expecting you), then pick them up and fly off again with nobody seeing them, hearing them, or raising a finger to stop them.

BTW, I'm still waiting for info on the process of US "recognition" of a foreign court. What, exactly, does it involve?

Roland · June 20, 2002, 04:05

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

It is. The question is what sides are bound and/or affected by the agrement. As for the ICC statute, the US is not.

"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?"

Of course. The flaw in your reasoning is that the ICC statute does not impose any obligation whatsoever on the US, does in no way whatsoever affect US sovereign rights, and is therefore as much depending on US consent as a border treaty between Austria and Germany.

"Eine Nation hat kein Recht, Leute einer anderen Nation in einem Weltgericht zu versuchen, es sei denn die andere Nation zustimmt."

="No nation has the right to lead into temptation..." -

As far as the point is concerned: It would be valid for a world court that would arrogate US jurisdiction. The ICC is not really global in its jurisdiction. It is not different from courts under regional international law, like the ECHR or the ECJ.

There is no right in international law that your nationals be tried in a court of a specific organisational level. If you think there is, I'm very curious to hear the evidence ot this.

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

It would be perfectly legal. Regardless of whether it is a war crimes or a drug crimes court. Do you think the fact that certain administrative and public power liability suits have to be brought before the ECJ makes it a rogue body unless the US accepts it ?

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

And there's nothing you can do about it.

Roland · June 20, 2002, 04:10

"The security in the ICC I'm sure is strong but I would think Special Forces could accomplish the task with minimal, if any, casualties."

How many troops ? If they succeed what is their escape route ? What if small problems arise, like in the Iran rescue mission or Mogadishu ?

"to leave their bases in Europe, which if the Americans refuse"

ckweb · June 20, 2002, 04:40

Quote:

Originally posted by Roland
"The security in the ICC I'm sure is strong but I would think Special Forces could accomplish the task with minimal, if any, casualties."

How many troops ? If they succeed what is their escape route ? What if small problems arise, like in the Iran rescue mission or Mogadishu ?

I'm certainly not qualified to answer these questions. But, the British SAS (which are the best!) and other Special Forces units of various countries around the world have conducted all sorts of operations not unlike this one . . . so I really don't see how difficult it would be unless as you say, the sh!t hits the fan. Even if the Dutch do expect it, they won't know when. If not Helos, maybe a HALO jump under cover of darkness? The ICC must cover a pretty huge area. Ah, never mind, I doubt a HALO jump could go undetected. Anyways, I'm sure there are tactics for this sort of thing.

Roland · June 20, 2002, 04:43

They'd only have to prepare the ICC area a bit to make extraction a nightmare. But who cares, the whole idea is so silly that even Bush won't do it.

ckweb · June 20, 2002, 04:46

Quote:

Originally posted by Roland
They'd only have to prepare the ICC area a bit to make extraction a nightmare. But who cares, the whole idea is so silly that even Bush won't do it.

But can't "anything be done with the right amount of smoke and mirrors"?

Roland · June 20, 2002, 04:50

Ehm.. the required amount is just too high....

Saint Marcus · June 20, 2002, 07:30

anyway, from hrw.org. unsure if it's already posted here.

What is the ICC?

The International Criminal Court (ICC) is a permanent international tribunal that will try individuals responsible for the most serious international crimes. One hundred and sixty countries attended a U.N.-sponsored conference in Rome in 1998 to draft a treaty for the establishment of the ICC. After 5 weeks of intense negotiations, 120 countries voted to adopt the treaty. Only seven countries voted against it (including China, Libya, Iraq, and the United States) and 21 abstained. Before the Court can be set up, 60 countries need to ratify the treaty. 139 states signed the treaty by the 31 December 2000 deadline. As of May 15, 2002, 67 countries have ratified it. The tribunal will come into force on 1 July.

What crimes will the ICC prosecute?

The ICC will prosecute individuals accused of genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity, all defined in the court's treaty. The ICC will help ensure that these serious crimes, which have long been recognized by the international community, no longer go unpunished because of the unwillingness or inability of individual countries to prosecute them.

Who can be brought to trial before the ICC?

The ICC will have jurisdiction over crimes committed by the nationals of governments that ratify the treaty, or in the territories of governments that ratify. It can try any individual responsible for such crimes, regardless of his or her civilian or military status or official position.

What are the rights of those accused of a crime by the ICC?

The ICC treaty contains a detailed list of the rights that any accused person shall enjoy, including the presumption of innocence, the right to counsel, to present evidence, the right to remain silent, and the right to have charges proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

How will national courts and the ICC work together?

The treaty gives the ICC jurisdiction that is complementary to national jurisdictions. This 'principle of complementarity', as it is known, gives states the primary responsibility and duty to prosecute the most serious international crimes, while allowing the ICC to step in only as a last resort if the states fail to implement their duty -- that is, only if investigations and, if appropriate, prosecutions are not carried out in good faith. Bona fide efforts to discover the truth and to hold accountable those responsible for any acts of genocide, crimes against humanity, or war crimes will bar the ICC from proceeding.
At a press conference on June 12, U.S. Secretary of Defense William Cohen, while opposing the ICC, admitted that the Court's limited authority would protect US troops and officials: "We have demonstrated over the years wherever there is an allegation of abuse on the part of a soldier we have a judicial system that will deal with it very effectively," Cohen said. "As long as we have a respected judicial system then there should be some insulation factor." That is, the ICC would then be barred from proceedings against Americans.

How is the ICC different from the International Court of Justice (World Court) and other existing international tribunals?

The International Court of Justice (ICJ or World Court) is a civil tribunal that hears disputes between countries. The ICC is a criminal tribunal that will prosecute individuals. The two ad hoc war crimes tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda are similar to the ICC but have limited geographical scope, while the ICC will be global in its reach. The ICC, as a permanent court, will also avoid the delay and start-up costs of creating country specific tribunals from scratch each time the need arises.

What good can the International Criminal Court do?

The ICC will help to end the impunity often enjoyed by those responsible for the most serious international human rights crimes. It will provide incentives and guidance for countries that want to prosecute such criminals in their own courts, and it will offer permanent back up in cases where countries are unwilling or unable to try these criminals themselves, because of violence, intimidation, or a lack of resources or political will.
As noted, the ICC is not intended to replace national courts. Domestic judicial systems remain the first line of accountability in prosecuting these crimes. The ICC ensures that those who commit the most serious human rights crimes are punished even if national courts are unable or unwilling to do so. Indeed, the possibility of an ICC proceeding may encourage national prosecutions in states that would otherwise avoid bringing war criminals to trial.

Who can join the ICC and when will it start trying cases?

All countries of the world can ratify the ICC treaty. Members must accept the Court's jurisdiction and cooperate with the court in investigating and prosecuting crimes and enforcing penalties. The ICC will come into existence once 60 countries have ratified the treaty. Human Rights Watch anticipates that this will occur by mid-2002.

Where will the ICC be located and who will pay for the Court?

The ICC will have a permanent seat in The Hague, the Netherlands. When necessary, it may also make arrangements to sit in other countries. The countries that belong to the ICC will determine its budget and provide the necessary funding. The United Nations will also contribute funds, especially when the ICC investigates and prosecutes cases referred to it by the U.N. Security Council.

How will the ICC and the Security Council work together?

The Security Council may refer cases to the ICC for investigation and prosecution. The Security Council may also request the ICC to suspend investigations for 12 months at a time if it feels that ICC proceedings might interfere with the Security Council's responsibility to maintain peace and security. This arrangement makes it difficult for any one permanent Security Council member to manipulate the ICC, while permitting the Security Council to resolve any genuine conflicts of interest with the ICC.

How politically motivated cases be avoided?

Many safeguards exist in the ICC treaty to prevent frivolous or politically motivated cases. For example, all indictments will require confirmation by a Pre-Trial Chamber of judges, which will examine the evidence supporting the indictment before issuing it. The accused and any concerned countries will have an opportunity to challenge the indictment during confirmation hearings before the Pre-Trial Chamber. In addition, any investigation initiated by the Prosecutor will first have to be approved by the Pre-Trial Chamber.

Prosecutors and judges will all undergo rigorous scrutiny before they are elected and appointed to the Court. The treaty establishes strict criteria for the selection of the prosecutor and the judges, requiring experts whose reputation, moral character and independence are beyond reproach. They will be prohibited from any activity during their term in office that might jeopardize their independence, and can be excused from particular cases if there is any question of partiality. Ultimately, in the unlikely event that they abuse their powers, they can be impeached.

States that join the ICC will nominate persons to be elected as judges and prosecutor. Only those eligible to hold high judicial office in their own country can be nominated as judges of the ICC.

What happens if a country does not ratify the treaty?

Countries that fail to ratify the ICC treaty will be prohibited from participating in the nomination of the Court's judges and prosecutor. They will also lose the privilege of contributing to decisions about the budget and administrative operations.

Saint Marcus · June 20, 2002, 07:37

one problem for those who want the US to rescue Americans from the ICC prison.

There is no ICC prison. All accused will be held in Dutch prisons (at the request of the ICC).

Any attempt to rescue Americans from those prisons would be an act of war, obviously.

Saint Marcus · June 20, 2002, 07:42

this is probably where the prisoners will be held, I think. I believe Slobo is there too.

Space05us · June 20, 2002, 07:52

my 2 cents; If WW3 broke out it would just be another cold war, I don't think any countries US or European would have the balls to attack each other. Oh and one last thing if the Europeans did invade the US they would have to deal with real street gangs, malitias, hunters, and a bunch of junkies with guns. oh yeah and those street gangs would teach you real fast what a child soldier looks like.

I didn't write this to offend anyone or anything but if it does than I apologize.

Saint Marcus · June 20, 2002, 07:56

Quote:

Oh and one last thing if the Europeans did invade the US they would have to deal with real street gangs, malitias, hunters, and a bunch of junkies with guns.

you're killing me

Of course a Leopard 2A5 Kampfpanzer wouldn't stand much of a chance against rednecks with shotguns.

Space05us · June 20, 2002, 08:04

Leopard 2A5 Kampfpanzer. can you refresh my memory, thats a tank or .....?

and it wouldn't be open fighting it would be like the US going into Vietnam

edit: there are places here where the malitias are actually quite well trained.

Roland · June 20, 2002, 08:07

"...hey would have to deal with real street gangs, malitias, hunters, and a bunch of junkies with guns."

Not to mention the NRA suicide gunners.

Saint Marcus · June 20, 2002, 08:20

funny you take a war the US lost as an example

also, why would gangs fight foreign troops? they'd probably just lay low and come out to loot the place once the soldiers have left.

Saint Marcus · June 20, 2002, 08:22

who will win?

on the right side:

the gangmember

Saint Marcus · June 20, 2002, 08:22

assisted by...

the redneck hunter/militiaman

Saint Marcus · June 20, 2002, 08:23

and on the left side...

the Special Air Service

Saint Marcus · June 20, 2002, 08:24

And of course, the Leopard 2A5 Kampfpanzer

Saint Marcus · June 20, 2002, 08:25

tough call really.

Roland · June 20, 2002, 08:28

This thread is getting more bizarre by the minute.

Space05us · June 20, 2002, 08:29

you don't get it, its all in the mindset. If you invade the US you'll get shot up like swiss cheese before you got off the boat/airplane/helicopter. Im sure the people here will defend thier homeland much more violently than in other places in the world, I for one would go psycho. not to mention there's more of us!

Space05us · June 20, 2002, 08:32

Quote:

Originally posted by Saint Marcus
funny you take a war the US lost as an example

so, it proves my point.

KrazyHorse · June 20, 2002, 08:34

I'm wondering where the hell MarkL got those redneck+gangbanger photos...

Space05us · June 20, 2002, 08:38

I know! thats the least intimidating gangmember I've ever seen!

not to mention the malitiamen here arm themselves with AK-47s and M-16s among many weapons.