Blair 'war crimes' case launched

[Grammatron]

From the article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3524133.stm):

The International Criminal Court in the Hague is being asked to probe allegations of war crimes by Tony Blair, Jack Straw and Geoff Hoon.
The claims surround the UK's role in invading Iraq and have been raised by the group Legal Action Against War.

They say a "principal charge" is "intentionally launching an attack knowing it will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians".

So they are charged with war crimes for fighting a war, interesting.

[Tony]

The ICC is a joke.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by Tony
The ICC is a joke.

Is the ICC an agency of the EU or the UN or what? Or just a separate institution established by treaty?

What is the source of their authority, and what is the extent of their authority?

I'm asking for information here, not opinions about whether it's a good thing.

Opinions are welcome too, but information first please.

[aerocontrols]

Here's hoping that Congress expands the definition of "Covered Allied Persons" in the ASPA (http://www.usaforicc.org/ASPA.htm) to include members of our allied governments in cases like this.


I should note here that all the British have to do is put Blair, Straw, and Hoon on trial themselves, and the ICC won't be able to.

[demon]

"So they are charged with war crimes for fighting a war, interesting."

Yeah, the deal is, if you kill people without a DAMNED good excuse (as opposed to, say, some confection of lies and doublespeak about WMD and your sincere concern for the ickle people), people tend to take it badly. And if you do it in the context of a war, it's called a war crime.

Learning is fun isn`t it?

An unprovoked attack on another country is illegal.
You use diplomats. That's what they're for.

Check out the Nuremberg Trials, when America tried the Nazi leaders for attacking Poland, France and the Sovier Union without provocation...they hanged.
The Nazi leaders had an excuse for every attack. You can imagine how thoroughly they rationalised their attack on the Soviet Union. The brutal, torturing and murdering dictator. The enslavement of the masses. The gulag archipelago. The mass murders by the state police. Come to think of it, they had a BETTER case than Blair---and they STILL hanged.

Still you don`t have to worry, when did you ever see a non-foreigner get taken up to the ICC? The American government have moved to stop American residents being arrested for crimes under any International Criminal Court. Looks like the UK is backing them up now. So it's all black people and shifty Arabs from here on in...






--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[curious]

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred
Is the ICC an agency of the EU or the UN or what? Or just a separate institution established by treaty?

What is the source of their authority, and what is the extent of their authority?

I'm asking for information here, not opinions about whether it's a good thing.

Opinions are welcome too, but information first please.
The ICC is an independent treaty-based institution, separate from the U.N. system, accountable to the countries that have ratified the Treaty, known the Assembly of States Parties. The Assembly will, among other things, establish an independent oversight mechanism for inspection, evaluation and investigation of the Court; elect judges, prosecutors, and other court officials; determine and pay for the budget of the Court, and be able to vote to dismiss judges, prosecutors and other court officials. Those countries that have not ratified the Rome Treaty will NOT be involved in those decisions.

Cases will be referred to the ICC by one of four methods:

1. A country member of the Assembly of States Parties sends the case;
2. A country that has chosen to accept the ICC's jurisdiction sends the case;
3. The Security Council sends the case (subject to the U.S. veto); or
4. The three-judge panel authorizes a case initiated by the International Prosecutor.
http://www.usaforicc.org/facts_whatis.html

[Aoidoi]

They say a "principal charge" is "intentionally launching an attack knowing it will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians". If that's accurate, would a guilty verdict make any war illegal? (It's tough to imagine any realistic war that doesn't endanger civilians. Who wants to fight in the arctic circle?)

I wonder how you enforce that... "hey, get down off that M1A1 tank, you're under arrest! And you, in the stealth bomber! You're under arrest too!"

"Put your guns down and come out with your hand up!" Five minute crash of small arms being dropped

;)

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Aoidoi
If that's accurate, would a guilty verdict make any war illegal? (It's tough to imagine any realistic war that doesn't endanger civilians. Who wants to fight in the arctic circle?)

I wonder how you enforce that... "hey, get down off that M1A1 tank, you're under arrest! And you, in the stealth bomber! You're under arrest too!"

"Put your guns down and come out with your hand up!" Five minute crash of small arms being dropped

;)

How would you arrest them though; it's highly likely that they will try to fight back and that may endanger civilians. So in essence, it would be illegal to arrest people who are doing this illegal act!

[Agammamon]

Originally posted by demon
. . ."So they are charged with war crimes for fighting a war, interesting."

Yeah, the deal is, if you kill people without a DAMNED good excuse (as opposed to, say, some confection of lies and doublespeak about WMD and your sincere concern for the ickle people), people tend to take it badly. And if you do it in the context of a war, it's called a war crime. . .

No government, no matter how pacifistic, has ever considered even a war of aggression/imperialism (ie Iraq invading Kuwait, or Germany invading, well pretty much everyone else) to be a war crime. That's essentially what these guys are trying to slap onto the Brits. Even if Blair and co didn't have a "good" reason to go into Iraq, that doesn't make it a war crime to invade. War crimes deal with how a war is conducted and not why.
Being in the military I can tell you that we go through a lot of trouble and not a little risk to ensure that bystanders are not injured. We never attack with the express purpose of causing civilian injuries but it's unavoidable in many cases.
What this group will do (if they succeed in getting a conviction) is set a precedent for making war (for any reason, including self defense) illegal. You can't throw weapons around without someone getting hurt.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by aerocontrols
Here's hoping that Congress expands the definition of "Covered Allied Persons" in the ASPA (http://www.usaforicc.org/ASPA.htm) to include members of our allied governments in cases like this.
The US intervene in the UK's treaty obligations? That should be interesting.

I should note here that all the British have to do is put Blair, Straw, and Hoon on trial themselves, and the ICC won't be able to.
That would be even more interesting - Blair et al take selves to court!

[Reginald]

Similar thing happened over Yugoslavia, I think it was a group of profs and lawyers from countries other than yugoslavia who put the case forward IIRC. However the biggest contention there was alledged deliberate bombing of civilian targets. During the invasion of Iraq (at least as far as publicity is concerned) it was made clear that civilian targets were not being deliberately targetted.

Posted by demon...

You use diplomats. That's what they're for.

Yep they keep stalling while more people keep getting killed, diplomats have a use but they are not the whole solution.

Check out the Nuremberg Trials, when America tried the Nazi leaders for attacking Poland, France and the Sovier Union without provocation...they hanged.

It wasn't only "America" why do you say that? Also most of the high ranking leaders didn't hang for one reason or another.

For you to even imply any similarity between the actions of WW2 and this conflict shows a lack of perspective.

[rikzilla]

In this age of frivilous lawsuits, we now have a frivilous court! What a joke!

The ICC is a naked attempt at a legalistic power grab. Nations around the world who cannot hope to compete on the modern battlefield seek to control the last military superpowers through a kangaroo court. It's easy to see why the United States, China, Israel, among others have not, and will not ever sign onto this thing.

The ICC was a good idea. Originally it was set up as an international judicial authority to prosecute the most heinous tyrants and purveyors of genocide. Not even a nitwit like Demon is willing to say that Tony Blair is guilty of genocide! (or is he?)

From this humble and good origin it has grown into what it was never intended to be; a tool to be used by weak nations to subvert the sovereignty of strong ones.

In the case against Tony Blair the ICC has allowed itself to be used by an anti-war special interest group, therefore making a mockery of it's initial purpose.

-z

[zenith-nadir]

When Uganda's rebel Lord's Resistance Army (LRA) massacred thousands was the International Criminal Court in the Hague interested in war crimes?

When the ethnic massacres in the Republic of Congo happened was the International Criminal Court in the Hague interested in war crimes?

When the tribal massacres in Rwanda happened was the International Criminal Court in the Hague interested in war crimes?

When terror groups blew up buses in Israel was the International Criminal Court in the Hague interested in war crimes?

When Assad of Syria massacred 10,000 people in Hama Syria was the International Criminal Court in the Hague interested in war crimes?

When Saddam massacred 5,000 people in Halabja was the International Criminal Court in the Hague interested in war crimes?

When the Taliban was killing people in a football stadium for listening to music or not dressing properly was the International Criminal Court in the Hague interested in war crimes?




....'nuff said about the agenda of the International Criminal Court in the Hague....

[iain]

Has everyone gone mad? What is the problem here?

The ICC has been signed up to by the UK. It has a huge number of checks and balances. It doesn't just make up its own laws. It's only just got off the ground and doubtless will find its way over the next few years.

You can't prevent people from asking a court to consider a case. I realise that frivolous court cases never happen in the US, so perhaps you don't realise that these things can happen elsewhere ;)

If the court agrees to hear the case, that's the time to look at what the charges actually are and what the court is doing; but attacking a court for allowing people to petition it is ludicrous.

[Earthborn]

Originally posted by rikzilla
It's easy to see why the United States, China, Israel, among others have not, and will not ever sign onto this thing.Ahum... The US did sign onto the thing. A later administration just 'unsigned' (http://www.usaforicc.org/facts_unsigning.html) it.From this humble and good origin it has grown into what it was never intended to be; a tool to be used by weak nations to subvert the sovereignty of strong ones.It cannot be used in that way at all. The claim that it can is one of the myths put forth by the Bush administration (http://www.usaforicc.org/facts_myths_admin.html#Unchecked%20Power)In the case against Tony Blair the ICC has allowed itself to be used by an anti-war special interest group, therefore making a mockery of it's initial purpose.I am sure you also think that the fact that anyone can report a crime to the police is the fault of the police, even if they are very unlikely to start an investigation for every kook accusing someone of something.

Even in the unlikely event that the ICC thinks Tony Blair might have commited a crime the ICC has jurisdiction over, how likely do you think it is that the British police will arrest their own Prime-Minister?From this humble and good origin it has grown into what it was never intended to be; a tool to be used by weak nations to subvert the sovereignty of strong ones.If this is true, then obviously the US should have negotiated more agressively to prevent that from happening. But this isn't true, because the US did: ICC, Made In America (http://www.usaforicc.org/facts_america-icc.html).

From Myths: The 'Unchecked' power of the ICC (http://www.usaforicc.org/facts_myths_admin.html#Unchecked%20Power):there were four years of intense ICC negotiations that preceded the Rome diplomatic conference at which the Statute was adopted. The United States participated fully, constructively, and aggressively in all these negotiations. At Rome, other countries made many concessions to the U.S. to limit ICC jurisdiction.Emphasis mine.

[mbp]

Originally posted by zenith-nadir

....'nuff said about the agenda of the International Criminal Court in the Hague....
Your examples are irrelevant as the court's statue didn't enter into force until the 1st of July 2002. The ICC doesn't have retroactive jurisdiction.

[Earthborn]

Originally posted by zenith-nadir
When Uganda's rebel Lord's Resistance Army (LRA) massacred thousands was the International Criminal Court in the Hague interested in war crimes?Did Uganda sign the Rome treaty?When the ethnic massacres in the Republic of Congo happened was the International Criminal Court in the Hague interested in war crimes?Did Congo sign the Rome treaty?When the tribal massacres in Rwanda happened was the International Criminal Court in the Hague interested in war crimes?Did Rwanda sign the Rome treaty?When terror groups blew up buses in Israel was the International Criminal Court in the Hague interested in war crimes?Did Israel sign the Rome treaty?When Assad of Syria massacred 10,000 people in Hama Syria was the International Criminal Court in the Hague interested in war crimes?Did Syria sign the Rome treaty?When Saddam massacred 5,000 people in Halabja was the International Criminal Court in the Hague interested in war crimes?Did Iraq sign the Rome treaty?When the Taliban was killing people in a football stadium for listening to music or not dressing properly was the International Criminal Court in the Hague interested in war crimes?Did Afganistan sign the Rome treaty?....'nuff said about the agenda of the International Criminal Court in the Hague....Or yours. Because the question 'where was the ICC when' for your examples can be answered by: nowhere. It didn't exist yet.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by curious

The ICC is an independent treaty-based institution, separate from the U.N. system, accountable to the countries that have ratified the Treaty, known the Assembly of States Parties. The Assembly will, among other things, establish an independent oversight mechanism for inspection, evaluation and investigation of the Court; elect judges, prosecutors, and other court officials; determine and pay for the budget of the Court, and be able to vote to dismiss judges, prosecutors and other court officials. Those countries that have not ratified the Rome Treaty will NOT be involved in those decisions.

Cases will be referred to the ICC by one of four methods:

1. A country member of the Assembly of States Parties sends the case;
2. A country that has chosen to accept the ICC's jurisdiction sends the case;
3. The Security Council sends the case (subject to the U.S. veto); or
4. The three-judge panel authorizes a case initiated by the International Prosecutor.
http://www.usaforicc.org/facts_whatis.html

Thank you. I assume the USA is not a signatory to the treaty, or George W Bush would be indicted as well.

Is that correct?

I think it stinks. I'm no partisan of Milosevich, but they are not doing right.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by BillyTK
The US intervene in the UK's treaty obligations? That should be interesting.

Let us Americans straighten out all islands, Haiti and Great Britain and like that. Australia is just barely a continent, so those guys get off the hook, for now. :p

[zenith-nadir]

Originally posted by Earthborn
Did Uganda sign the Rome treaty?Did Congo sign the Rome treaty?Did Rwanda sign the Rome treaty?Did Israel sign the Rome treaty?Did Syria sign the Rome treaty?Did Iraq sign the Rome treaty?Did Afganistan sign the Rome treaty?Or yours. Because the question 'where was the ICC when' for your examples can be answered by: nowhere. It didn't exist yet.


Originally posted by mbp
Your examples are irrelevant as the court's statue didn't enter into force until the 1st of July 2002. The ICC doesn't have retroactive jurisdiction.


Ok. My bad. I redact all my statements and bow to the pressure of technicalities. ;)

(F.Y.I. I was under the impression that The International Court of Justice began work in 1946, when it replaced the Permanent Court of International Justice which had functioned in the Peace Palace since 1922.....)

[demon]

Agammamon:
"No government, no matter how pacifistic, has ever considered even a war of aggression/imperialism (ie Iraq invading Kuwait, or Germany invading, well pretty much everyone else) to be a war crime. That's essentially what these guys are trying"

I`m afraid governments certainly did buy into the criminalisation of aggressive war. This is a defining principle of the Nuremburg Trials which all Western govts bought into.

Supreme Court Justice Robert L. Jackson stated:

"We must make clear to the Germans that the wrong for which their fallen leaders are on trial is not that they lost the war, but that they started it. And we must not allow ourselves to be drawn into a trial of the causes of the war, for our position is that no grievances or policies will justify resort to aggressive war. It is utterly renounced and condemned as an instrument of policy."

As an aside, he states:

"The very essence of the [Nuremberg] Charter is that individuals have intentional duties which transcend the national obligations of obedience imposed by the individual state."
This means we are all responsible for our actions and that if we individually partake in aggressive war we are responsible.

Reginald, about diplomats you said :

"Yep they keep stalling while more people keep getting killed, diplomats have a use but they are not the whole solution."

You mean like Hans Blix, trying to delay the start of the war, basically because he believed that with enough time he could prove that Iraq had no weapons. Well he seems to have had good reason to want to stall. What was it Churchill said? "Jaw jaw is better than War war!" I'm inclined to agree. Pity he didn't follow his own dictum.

And about WW2 you said :

"For you to even imply any similarity between the actions of WW2 and this conflict shows a lack of perspective."

Here, you're completely right of course. The former was a real war between two heavily armed gangs fighting it out for the future ownership of the world. The latter was a crimial attack on an impoverished defenceless country that had the misfortune to be governed by a US supported despot who got stupid and greedy.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by demon
I`m afraid governments certainly did buy into the criminalisation of aggressive war. This is a defining principle of the Nuremburg Trials which all Western govts bought into.

All wars, aggressive or not, were outlawed by the Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1928. All Western governments bought into that one, too.


Originally posted by demon
What was it Churchill said? "Jaw jaw is better than War war!" I'm inclined to agree. Pity he didn't follow his own dictum.

When did Churcull say that?

[Shaun from Scotland]

Originally posted by demon

What was it Churchill said? "Jaw jaw is better than War war!" I'm inclined to agree. Pity he didn't follow his own dictum.


I don't get this either. He did say it (about negotiations to end the war in Korea) but what point are you making by saying he didn't follow his own dictum?

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred


Let us Americans straighten out all islands, Haiti and Great Britain and like that. Australia is just barely a continent, so those guys get off the hook, for now. :p
Y'see, when you Americans carnt even grasp basic geography, us Yoo-row-peans get distrustful of your actions; the UK's more than just an island (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/uk.html).

:p

[Giz]

Originally posted by demon
And about WW2 you said :

"For you to even imply any similarity between the actions of WW2 and this conflict shows a lack of perspective."

Here, you're completely right of course. The former was a real war between two heavily armed gangs fighting it out for the future ownership of the world. The latter was a crimial attack on an impoverished defenceless country that had the misfortune to be governed by a US supported despot who got stupid and greedy.

A fantastic synopsis of the modern eras titanic clash between good and evil there Demon! "two heavily armed gangs fighting it out for the future ownership of the world".

Did you ever consider that Iraq's impoverished state might owe something to that despot? And defenceless, hmmm, up till Gulf War 1, Iraq had the 4th largest armed forces on the planet.

Did you ever consider that sometimes in diplomacy you have to take the lesser of two evils (in your WW2 exammple this would be the US and UK sending aid to the USSR) because the alternative is worse. In the days of the cold war it may have been seen that having Saddam in the west's pocket was absolutely essential given the position of Syria, Iran and the USSR around the Gulf.

Post cold war there would'nt be such an imperative to support such an unsavoury type any more and (whaddya know!?) Saddam found his freedom of action severely curtailed.

To go back to your ww2 analogy, France in 1944 was occupied by a large body of troops (with insufficient aircover) but was liberated - at the cost of some French lives! Does this mean that D-Day should not have taken place?

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Giz

A fantastic synopsis of the modern eras titanic clash between good and evil there Demon! "two heavily armed gangs fighting it out for the future ownership of the world".

...

Did you ever consider that sometimes in diplomacy you have to take the lesser of two evils (in your WW2 exammple this would be the US and UK sending aid to the USSR) because the alternative is worse.


You give Demon far too much credit: you assume he thinks the US was the lesser evil between us and Hitler. I see no evidence of this in his argument. You see, to demon, WE are the great evil. Why? Because we are powerful. Meanwhile, he'll excuse Saddam's genocide because he was weak compared to us, and find a way to blame it all on us anyways. Never mind that Russia and France were his main supporters all along, and that the French had been so monumentally irresponsible as to help him build a nuclear reactor (hmmm... what could a country soaked in oil want a nuclear reactor for?). Demon is not simply wrong on the facts. His basic morality is twisted, and his kind of thinking has been used to justify and excuse one genocidal dictator after another (Chomsky and Pol Pot come to mind, for example).

[Giz]

Originally posted by Ziggurat

His basic morality is twisted, and his kind of thinking has been used to justify and excuse one genocidal dictator after another (Chomsky and Pol Pot come to mind, for example).

Admittedly, I've heard a lot of bad things about Chomsky but calling him a genocidal dictator seems a bit harsh! ;)

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Giz

Admittedly, I've heard a lot of bad things about Chomsky but calling him a genocidal dictator seems a bit harsh! ;)

I know you're joking, but just in case somebody jumps on this and runs the wrong way with it, for a very long time Chomsky denied that what was going on in Cambodia was, in fact, genocide. He was a Pol Pot appologist. And when he could finally deny it no longer, instead of admitting that he was wrong to support Pol Pot, he just blamed the US for it all. He's a liar, and people like demon often buy into him hook, line and sinker because his knee-jerk anti-american rhetoric fits in nicely with their own biases.

[zenith-nadir]

Originally posted by Giz
Admittedly, I've heard a lot of bad things about Chomsky but calling him a genocidal dictator seems a bit harsh! ;)



Quoting 'Chomsky' is like quoting Falwell on the homosexuality of Tinky Winky from the teletubbies...meaningless tripe.

[demon]

Ziggurat:
"Demon is not simply wrong on the facts. His basic morality is twisted, and his kind of thinking has been used to justify and excuse one genocidal dictator after another (Chomsky and Pol Pot come to mind, for example)."

"...Chomsky denied that what was going on in Cambodia was, in fact, genocide. He was a Pol Pot appologist. And when he could finally deny it no longer, instead of admitting that he was wrong to support Pol Pot, he just blamed the US for it all. He's a liar, and people like demon often buy into him hook, line and sinker because his knee-jerk anti-american rhetoric fits in nicely with their own biases."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oooh, get her! lol

So tell me Mr "Saddam kicked the Weapons Inspectors out in 1998", since you seem to have read more Chomsky than I have, can you give me a source for that allegation, preferably a quote or a reference from one of his books to justify your lazy smear?

[aerocontrols]

For those interested in reading about Noam Chomsky and the Khmer Rouge

J-Bradford Delong's (http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/archives/000155.html) Very Very Allergic Reaction to Noam Chomsky.

Or here (http://www.mekong.net/cambodia/chomsky.htm).

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by aerocontrols
For those interested in reading about Noam Chomsky and the Khmer Rouge

J-Bradford Delong's (http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/archives/000155.html) Very Very Allergic Reaction to Noam Chomsky.

Or here (http://www.mekong.net/cambodia/chomsky.htm).

I did some quick Googling and found a great number of sources that say essentially the same thing in amazing detail. It's almost stupefying how people can trust Chomsky after he's proven not only wrong but thoroughly wrong.

[demon]

aerocontrols:
"For those interested in reading about Noam Chomsky and the Khmer Rouge

J-Bradford Delong's Very Very Allergic Reaction to Noam Chomsky.
Khmer Rouge


Or here."

Grammatron:Khmer Rouge


"I did some quick Googling and found a great number of sources that say essentially the same thing in amazing detail. It's almost stupefying how people can trust Chomsky after he's proven not only wrong but thoroughly wrong."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I`m afraid the reports of Chomsky`s support of the Khmer Rouge are slightly exaggerated...which you would know if you bothered to read him instead of relying on Delong. I just knew someone would throw his name into the arena here...somehow I didn`t think it would be you aerocontrols as Delong`s piece has been exposed for the smear it is for some time now. But anyway....

quote:
DeLong then takes up Chomsky's crimes in treating Cambodia. He starts with a quote from our 1979 book After the Cataclysm (ATC):

"If a serious study...is someday undertaken, it may well be discoveredthat the Khmer Rouge programs elicited a positive responsebecause they dealt with fundamental problems rooted in the feudal past and exacerbated by the imperial system.Such a study, however, has yet to be undertaken."

DeLong comments: "Reflect that it was published three full years after the Cambodian Holocaust of the Year Zero. Ask yourself whether this is an uncovering or a covering of the crimes of an abominable regime." The answer is that a single stripped-down quote taken out of context and that speculates about what may come from a future study tells nothing to an honest person. DeLong naturally fails to acknowledge that our stated aim in the book was not to uncover crimes but to see how the "facts have been interpreted, filtered, distorted or modified by the ideological institutions of the West" (ATC, vii). For DeLong, as for the mainstream, this was an illegitimate objective.

DeLong seems to think that the "holocaust" occurred instantaneously upon the takeover of the KR in 1975. He pretends that full data on this closed regime were readily available for a book published three years later. He fails to mention that in speculating here Chomsky (and this writer, his co-author) also raised the possibility that the worst charges might also turn out to be true when all the facts are in, and that we were drawing no conclusions about where the truth lies in this range of descriptions (ATC, 293). He suppresses the fact that our reference to the "positive response" was taken mainly from Francois Ponchaud's Cambodge annee zero, where Ponchaud speaks of the "genuine egalitarian revolution," the "new pride" of miserably oppressed peasants in constructive work, and first time women's participation. Ponchaud's book was widely cited as an authoritative source as well as a condemnation of the KR, so citing it and acknowledging its finding of positive features in the KR revolution wouldn't suit DeLong's purpose; nor would Long attack Ponchaud as an apologist for the "crimes of this abominable regime" although Ponchaud's positive statements are unqualified, whereas DeLong goes into a tantrum about a speculation of ours saying that these explicit conclusions may turn out to be correct. We quoted similar material from David Chandler and Richard Dudman, highly respected analysts of Cambodia. DeLong suppresses our use of these sources as well in order to make it appear that any positive notions were unique to his smear target. He suppresses the fact that Ponchaud himself complimented Chomsky for his "responsible attitude and precision of thought" in his writings on Cambodia.

DeLong continues: "But it gets worse. Go back to your Nation of 1977, and consider the paragraph"-then quoting us that "Space limitations preclude a comprehensive view," but that specialists writing in the Far Eastern Economic Review, Economist, and Melbourne Journal of Politics have studied the evidence and concluded "that executions have numbered at most in the thousands" DeLong then quotes at length an ally attacking these source references, and DeLong himself says he looked through the Economist and couldn't find anything written by the Economist staff on the subject. "So why does Chomsky lie about these 'highly qualified specialists'? The claim that it is 'space limitations' rather than 'non-existence' that prevents their being named cannot be a claim in good faith, can it? And why would anyone lie for Pol Pot, unless they were either a nut-boy loon or were being mendacious and malevolent in search of some sinister and secret purpose?"

DeLong's statement that Chomsky lied here is itself a plain lie. Our references were exactly correct. DeLong couldn't find anything written by the Economist "staff," but he knows full well that the reference was to a letter to the editor, published in and therefore provided by, the paper, by Cambodia demographer W. J. Sampson, an economist-statistician who was living in Phnom Penh and worked in close contact with the government's central statistics office. Sampson's work is cited with respect by Nayan Chanda, at the time the most highly respected journalist in Southeast Asia, writing for the Far Eastern Economic Review (ATC, 231f). Sampson was at least as "highly qualified [a] specialist" as anybody on the staff of the Economist. DeLong knows that we cited many other "highly qualified specialists" just one year later in After the Cataclysm, so his sneer about the "non-existence" of these sources is another dishonest suppression and shows that his own "good faith" and intellectual integrity are non-existent.

DeLong and his ally claim that Chomsky said that Khmer Rouge killings were "at most in the thousands," and that Chomsky had implied that this was "a conclusion of an article[by Nayan Chanda in] the Far Eastern Economic Review." DeLong and friend also note that the author Chanda says "the numbers killed are impossible to calculate." DeLong's ally asserts that "Chomsky presented the Far Eastern Economic Review as confidently denying the possibility that killings were vastly higher, but Chanda specifically denies such knowledge and confidence." First of all, we did not attribute the "at most in the thousands" statement to Chanda, but to Sampson. Second, we ourselves quoted Chanda's statement that "the numbers killed are impossible to calculate," that DeLong implies we neglected (ATC, 229). Third, we quote Chanda saying that the testimony from refugees and others "leaves no doubt: the number of deaths has been terribly high" (229), so the statement that Chomsky denied "the possibility that killings were vastly higher" is another lie.

DeLong ends on Cambodia asserting that "Chomsky not only said that there wasn't conclusive evidence that the Khmer Rouge were genocidal butchers, he wrote-falsely-that there was reliable evidence that they weren't genocidal butchers." This is one more flat, outright lie. We never said, or hinted, anything like this. We cited every serious source available at the time on the KR killings, including Ben Kiernan, Michael Vickery, Stephen Heder, David Chandler, Chanda, Ponchaud, and State department Cambodia experts Charles Twining and Timothy Carney. We quoted Twining's estimate of killings--in the "thousands or hundreds of thousands," but with admitted difficulty in getting valid numbers. We quoted Twining's superior Richard Holbrooke's estimate of "tens if not hundreds of thousands " for "deaths" from all causes. The State Department's Timothy Carney estimated the deaths from "brutal, rapid change" (explicitly not "mass genocide") as in the hundreds of thousands (ATC, 159-160). We took no position on the accuracy of these numbers, but did note that they were far below the widespread mainstream claims of two million massacred. On DeLong principles, the State Department analysts and Holbrooke are liars and apologists for Pol Pot, downplaying the "conclusive evidence" that he was a genocidal butcher.

DeLong never mentions that our book was explicitly aimed at countering the huge and lie-rich propaganda barrage on Cambodia that began upon the KR entry into Phnom Penh in April 1975, a barrage and lies which only served a political and ideological purpose and did not help the Cambodians in any way whatsoever. DeLong of course ignores our comparative analysis of the difference in treatment of Indonesia in East Timor and Pol Pot in Cambodia. A larger fraction of the population of East Timor died in the wake of the Indonesian aggression than died in Cambodia under Pol Pot (where many of the deaths were residuals of the starvation conditions facing the KR in April 1975). The East Timorese mass killings were positively supported by the U.S. government, and in contrast with Pol Pot's killings those in East Timor were readily subject to U.S. influence and control. Brad DeLong does not condemn these killings as genocide and assail its perpetrators and apologists for practical support of genocide. Doesn't this make him an apologist for genocidal butchers?

DeLong never mentions that estimates of the numbers killed by the U.S. Air Force in its bombing of Cambodia from 1969 to 1975 run into the hundreds of thousands, which on his terms should make Nixon and Kissinger into "genocidal butchers." He has never so described them, nor assailed those who neglect this "genocide." He never mentions that the United States defended and supplied the KR after its ouster by the Vietnamese in 1978, which allowed the KR to continue to attack Cambodians; this doesn't elicit his indignation over support for genocidal butchers. With a turn in U.S. policy toward China and the Khmer Rouge in 1977-1978, we find Douglas Pike, former U.S. government specialist on Vietnam, and later head of the University of California Indochina Archives, writing in November 1979 about the "charismatic leader" Pol Pot, leader of a "bloody but successful peasant revolution with a substantial residue of popular support" and where most of them "did not experience much in the way of brutality." This great warmth toward the genocidal butchers, long after the facts were in, and after the escalated KR killings in 1977 and 1978, has produced no allergic reaction in Brad DeLong.

In his book The Spirit and Structure of German Fascism, in a chapter entitled "Science: Handmaiden of Inspired Truth," Robert A. Brady noted how often scientists carelessly "assume that the attempt to think rigorously in one field automatically implies thinking rigorously whenever one thinks about anything at all." When he does this "he is merely allowing himself to abandon rational criteria in favor of uncritical belief." Brady pointed out that such "uncritical belief" is often the conventional wisdom, in which God and country rank high. Could it be that just as Brad DeLong, by an act of patriotic faith, explains Clinton's wars in the Balkans as based on humanitarian motives, so also he offers implicit apologetics for U.S. policy in Cambodia and East Timor based on the same deep-seated chauvinistic biases? Could these underpin his "allergic reaction" and intellectually degraded and dishonest smear job on Chomsky?

Edward S. Herman is Professor Emeritus of Finance at the Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, an economist and media analyst. He is author of numerous books, including Corporate Control, Corporate Power (1981), The Real Terror Network (1982), Manufacturing Consent (1988, with Noam Chomsky), Triumph of the Market (1995), and The Myth of The Liberal Media: an Edward Herman Reader (1999).

http://www.counterpunch.org/herman07262003.html

edited to add: I know there aren`t many takers for Chomsky around here but if you are interested in Chomsky and what he has to say about the Khmer Rouge, then read Chomsky, not Delong. You`ll get a fairer and more accurate idea of what he has to say.

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by Earthborn
Ahum... The US did sign onto the thing. A later administration just 'unsigned' (http://www.usaforicc.org/facts_unsigning.html) it.snip .....

Excellent post, Earthborn.

Scrolling through the rest of the thread, however, I'm not sure if anyone actually read it. :)

[demon]

"Scrolling through the rest of the thread, however, I'm not sure if anyone actually read it."

I read it having been happily corrected on this very point by Earthborn before.
I was saying nothing, just giving them enough rope to hang themselves with:)

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by demon
Ziggurat:
...
"He's a liar, and people like demon often buy into him hook, line and sinker because his knee-jerk anti-american rhetoric fits in nicely with their own biases."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oooh, get her! lol

So tell me Mr "Saddam kicked the Weapons Inspectors out in 1998", since you seem to have read more Chomsky than I have, can you give me a source for that allegation, preferably a quote or a reference from one of his books to justify your lazy smear?

I don't recall ever saying Saddam kicked out the weapons inspectors. I don't remember everything I ever said, so maybe I did once. In any event, Saddam didn't, and I don't claim he did. He merely stopped cooperating with them. The effect was essentially the same: they were prevented from doing their job.

I think the Cambodia stuff has been dealt with enough, you seem to be a dedicated appologist for an appologist for genocide, I'm not going to bother dregging up more on that issue. But here's a more recent lie: Chomsky claimed in a Salon interview that Human Rights Watched estimated 10,000 people died as a result of the cruise missle bombing of a sudanese pharmaceutical company under Clinton. However, HRW never made any such estimate. The only source for that number was a German ambassador who was himself pulling that number out of his backside.

http://archive.salon.com/people/letters/2002/01/22/chomsky/index.html

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Ziggurat
But here's a more recent lie: Chomsky claimed in a Salon interview that Human Rights Watched estimated 10,000 people died as a result of the cruise missle bombing of a sudanese pharmaceutical company under Clinton. However, HRW never made any such estimate. The only source for that number was a German ambassador who was himself pulling that number out of his backside.

http://archive.salon.com/people/letters/2002/01/22/chomsky/index.html

FGI, the Salon article requires registration; for interested Chomsky apologists and smearers, here's a freely available copy (http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/20020116.htm) of the interview. As a further service (hell, it's Friday; I'm feeling generous), here's the quote in question:
I mentioned the toll from one bombing, a minor footnote to U.S. actions -- what was known to be a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan, providing half the supplies of the country. That one bombing, according to the estimates made by the German Embassy in Sudan and Human Rights Watch, probably led to tens of thousands of deaths.

Edited to add:
And here's Chomsky's response (http://www.salon.com/people/letters/2002/01/29/chomsky/).

[Ziggurat]

Getting back to the ICC:

There is one fundamental reason that the US isn't a party to that treaty, which Europeans (and even some Americans) just can't seem to grasp: it violates the US constitution, and we cannot and will not be party to treaties that do so:

http://denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2002/07/InternationalCriminalCour.shtml

The US constitution demands that the US Supreme Court be the highest court for US citizens. Our constitution simply will not allow us to give the ICC jurisdiction above the supreme court, which is what this treaty does. We can't be a party to it without changing the constitution, and that's asking more than Europeans will probably ever understand. Blast Bush all you want to about this, but he had no other legitimate choice but to back out of it: he's sworn to uphold the constitution, and the constitution is in conflict with this treaty.

As for claims of checks and balances being in place, that's laughable. The very process of judge selection pretty much guarantees that this court will be stacked against us:

http://denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2002/07/ICCJudgeSelection.shtml

From Earthborn's link, "A majority of the judges can decide whether or not to disqualify a judge," but if the majority of judges are stacked against us, this is not a check or balance at all.
Edit to correct: I had said that there's no other way to remove a judge, which isn't quite correct. But there is no way to prevent a coalition of corrupt states from highjacking the court.

Sorry, Earthborn, but you don't understand the problems with the ICC, and you don't understand the US constitution and what it means to most citizens of the US.

[iain]

Just to be clear, it's not a problem to change the constitution to ban gay marriages; but changing it to allow the US to play a full integrated role in the world is not possible.

(Only joking - I know how difficult consitutional amendments are to pass; though I have no idea as to the validity of your analysis of the constitutional position).

Edited to add : I don't think the ICC has any ability to overule national courts. It can't say that national laws are invalid or anything like that as far as I know; just apply international law. I'm not sure why the ICC would be seen as superior to the Supreme Court - surely it's just in a different jurisdiction.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by iain

Edited to add : I don't think the ICC has any ability to overule national courts. It can't say that national laws are invalid or anything like that as far as I know; just apply international law. I'm not sure why the ICC would be seen as superior to the Supreme Court - surely it's just in a different jurisdiction.

Rulings by the ICC cannot be overturned by the US Supreme Court. That is the sense in which they are superior - or at least not inferior. The Constitution guarantees citizens can appeal to the Supreme Court, but that right is taken away by this treaty. Therefore we cannot sign on to it. We cannot simply ignore the constitution for political expediency either. Our European friends just don't understand what it means to us, because their constitutions don't mean nearly as much to them.

On the topic of a marriage ammendment, that's never going to happen, it's just posturing.

[iain]

Originally posted by Ziggurat


Rulings by the ICC cannot be overturned by the US Supreme Court. That is the sense in which they are superior - or at least not inferior. The Constitution guarantees citizens can appeal to the Supreme Court, but that right is taken away by this treaty. Therefore we cannot sign on to it. Surely the US has signed other treaties which allow US citizens, in some situations, to be tried in courts where the ruling cannot be overturned by the Supreme court.

For example, the US has extradition treaties with many countries around the world. A US citizen could be extradited to, for example, Britain and convicted of a crime for which there was no appeal to the US Supreme Court. How do extradition treaties work if this right of appeal is inviolate?

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by iain
How do extradition treaties work if this right of appeal is inviolate?

Extradition can be appealed to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court can overrule that extradition request.

Edit to add: also, extradition is generally for crimes that take place under another country's jurisdiction. The ICC can claim jurisdiction over the actions of US citizens who are normally considered under US jurisdiction, just as Blair's actions regarding Iraq are under the jurisdiction of British courts.

[iain]

I'm sure that there's a debate to be had there but it doesn't sound like the legal argument is cut-and-dried. I guess whether it would count as usurping the Supreme Court would depend on the exact terms of the treaty.

Given that the US was heavily involved in negotiating that treaty and was initially going to sign up, and given that they probably mentioned this to a lawyer at some stage - at least in passing - I can't see how you could think that this legal issue was black and white.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by iain
Just to be clear, it's not a problem to change the constitution to ban gay marriages; but changing it to allow the US to play a full integrated role in the world is not possible.


Seriously,

Proposing a constitutional amendment is easy. Usually it's just political grandstanding. Another example was the amendment to ban flag burning. Went nowhere.

Getting an amendment passed requires 2/3 of both houses of congress and a majority vote in 3/4 of the state legislatures. It's not easy to change the constitution.

If the gay marriage ban can get through that, we've got bigger problems than not being able to get married, which we can't now anyway.

Don't want to hijack this to a gay thread, we now return you to a thread already in progress. :D

As for the ICC, as you Brits used to say: Never, never, never! :p

[Earthborn]

Originally posted by Ziggurat
Extradition can be appealed to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court can overrule that extradition request.Doesn't this mean that extradition to the ICC can also be appealed to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court can also overrule an extradition to the ICC? Same thing, innit? also, extradition is generally for crimes that take place under another country's jurisdiction. The ICC can claim jurisdiction over the actions of US citizens who are normally considered under US jurisdiction, just as Blair's actions regarding Iraq are under the jurisdiction of British courts.The ICC can only claim jurisdiction over the worst kind of crimes there are and only when the country that would normally have jurisdiction over them considers itself unable to try them. If the legal system in Britain considers itself able to prosecute Blair for whatever he may have done, the ICC is irrelevant. If British authorities aren't willing to send Blair to the ICC, the ICC is powerless.

[WildCat]

Originally posted by Earthborn
Ahum... The US did sign onto the thing. A later administration just 'unsigned' (http://www.usaforicc.org/facts_unsigning.html) it.

From the link:
It is historically unprecedented. This is the first time any President has ever revoked a former Chief Executive's signature on a treaty or "unsigned" any kind of treaty. According to the UN Under-Secretary for Legal Affairs no one in the world has ever "unsigned" a UN treaty.


What a load of BS! No US President can legally bind the country to a treaty, only the US Senate can. Any evidence that the Senate ever ratified this treaty, Earthborn?

A POTUS can negotiate a treaty, but it is null and void until the Senate ratifies it. Clinton was grandstanding for the purpose of pandering to foreign governments, knowing full well it never had a chance of passing in the Senate, and never will IMHO.

[Earthborn]

Originally posted by WildCat
What a load of BS! No US President can legally bind the country to a treaty, only the US Senate can. Any evidence that the Senate ever ratified this treaty, Earthborn?

A POTUS can negotiate a treaty, but it is null and void until the Senate ratifies it.Are we to conclude then that the signature of a head of state is meaningless, and later governments can safely ignore it? That sets a nice precedent..."Unsigning" the Rome Statute cripples US diplomats trying to pressure key countries that have signed treaties but not ratified them. The "unsigning" precedent creates a wholly new and undesirable degree of uncertainty and confusion surrounding the ratification period. International treaties cover drug trafficking, money laundering, hostage taking, terrorism, torture, and scores of other topics of vital national interest to the United States. There are many countries that have signed but not ratified treaties of vital concern to the US. "Unsigning" makes it easier for these countries to back away from their commitments to the treaties and the United States. The 1979 International Convention against the Taking of Hostages. Iraq, Liberia and the DR Congo are countries that have signed, but not ratified, the treaty.
The UN Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs. The DR Congo and Gabon have signed but not ratified. While Colombia has ratified, it took six years for it to do so, years during which an "unsigning" precedent would have severely damaged US efforts.
Neither Afghanistan nor the military junta in Burma has ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention, but both nations have signed it.
Turkey, a nation the US has strongly encouraged to improve its human rights record, only recently signed, but has not ratified the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
From here (http://www.usaforicc.org/facts_unsigning.html). Clinton was grandstanding for the purpose of pandering to foreign governments, knowing full well it never had a chance of passing in the Senate, and never will IMHO.If it didn't have a chance of passing in the Senate, I don't see why Bush had to unsign it. Couldn't he just have allowed the Senate to reject it and go back to his allies saying: "Sorry guys, I did everything I could to get it passed, but the Senate rejected it, so we'll have to start new negotiations." That way he would have gotten what he wanted and kept moral highground.

Sure Clinton was grandstanding for the purpose of pandering to the US's most loyal allies (why is that a bad thing anyway?) by signing a treaty that has absolutely no effect on any US citizen whatsoever, unless guilty of the most heinous crimes against humanity and the US itself being unable to bring him to justice and preferring to extradite him to an international court instead.

[WildCat]

Originally posted by Earthborn
Are we to conclude then that the signature of a head of state is meaningless, and later governments can safely ignore it?
Yes, in the case of treaties. The POTUS's signature means absolutely nothing. That darn US Constitution keeps getting in the way.
If it didn't have a chance of passing in the Senate, I don't see why Bush had to unsign it. Couldn't he just have allowed the Senate to reject it and go back to his allies saying: "Sorry guys, I did everything I could to get it passed, but the Senate rejected it, so we'll have to start new negotiations." That way he would have gotten what he wanted and kept moral highground.
Because his political goals were different than Clinton's. At the end of his presidency, Clinton wanted to have a treaty, any treaty, as part of his legacy. The content and implications didn't matter to him.

Subjecting US troops and officials to a show trial conducted by anti-US partisans and despots is not the "moral highground" in everyone's view. I'd bet fewer than a dozen Senators would have voted for it, and you don't even see the Dem candidates making an issue of it because they don't support it either.

Bush never "unsigned" it. He just didn't push it. Clinton's signature is still on it after all.

[Earthborn]

Originally posted by WildCat
Subjecting US troops and officials to a show trial conducted by anti-US partisans and despots is not the "moral highground" in everyone's view.Which 'show trial' ? Which 'anti-US partisans' have signed the Rome treaty? Which 'despots' have? Which US troops and officials are likely to stand trial before the ICC? Which US police officer is going to arrest them? Which US politician is going to send them to The Hague? Are you saying that by years of intense and agressive negotiation, by limiting the power of the ICC, the US has created something that can easily be used against it?

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Earthborn
Which 'show trial' ? Which 'anti-US partisans' have signed the Rome treaty? Which 'despots' have? Which US troops and officials are likely to stand trial before the ICC? Which US police officer is going to arrest them? Which US politician is going to send them to The Hague? Are you saying that by years of intense and agressive negotiation, by limiting the power of the ICC, the US has created something that can easily be used against it?

I will answer one part of that since WildCat appears to be far more informed on this topic than I.

Which US troops and officials are likely to stand trial before the ICC? Which US police officer is going to arrest them? Which US politician is going to send them to The Hague?

This is pretty much one question since no one is going to arrest US soldiers/officials in USA. However, the concern is that when they are out of the country on vacation or for whatever reason, they can be arrested and brought to the court.

[Earthborn]

Originally posted by Grammatron
However, the concern is that when they are out of the country on vacation or for whatever reason, they can be arrested and brought to the court.That's assuming that they are accused of war crimes, genocide or crimes against humanity, they have acted out these crimes in an ICC member state (all allies to the US!), or the US has ratified the Rome Statute (it has not!) or the Security Council (in which the US has veto power!) granted the ICC jurisdiction over US citizens through a referral, the country in which they are visiting is an ICC member state and is willing and able to use its police force to arrest them and there is enough evidence warranting an arrest and the US itself is unable or unwilling to try them. How likely is that?

Is the US planning any war crimes, genocide or crimes against humanity in one of its closest allies?
Is the US planning to ratify the Rome statute or allowing the security council to grant the ICC jurisdiction over a US citizen?
Is there in the US a war criminal, a genocidal maniac or a criminal against humanity who would be stupid enough to go on a holiday to an ICC member state if he can stay at home with out being arrested?
Has the US legal system fallen to such disrepair that it would not be able to try such a person itself if it prefered to?

If you think the answer is 'no' to any of these questions, who in the US has anything to fear from the ICC? Nobody right?

Then why hinder the prosecution of Ugandan warlords who abducted children to serve as soldiers and sex slaves (http://www.usaforicc.org/facts_news.html)?Originally posted by Wildcat
...you don't even see the Dem candidates making an issue of it because they don't support it either.Here (http://www.amicc.org/usinfo/administration_advocacy.html#remarks.) you can find the opinions of several presidential candidates concerning the ICC. Surprised?

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Earthborn
That's assuming that they are accused of war crimes, genocide or crimes against humanity, they have acted out these crimes in an ICC member state (all allies to the US!), or the US has ratified the Rome Statute (it has not!) or the Security Council (in which the US has veto power!) granted the ICC jurisdiction over US citizens through a referral, the country in which they are visiting is an ICC member state and is willing and able to use its police force to arrest them and there is enough evidence warranting an arrest and the US itself is unable or unwilling to try them. How likely is that?

Is the US planning any war crimes, genocide or crimes against humanity in one of its closest allies?
Is the US planning to ratify the Rome statute or allowing the security council to grant the ICC jurisdiction over a US citizen?
Is there in the US a war criminal, a genocidal maniac or a criminal against humanity who would be stupid enough to go on a holiday to an ICC member state if he can stay at home with out being arrested?
Has the US legal system fallen to such disrepair that it would not be able to try such a person itself if it prefered to?

If you think the answer is 'no' to any of these questions, who in the US has anything to fear from the ICC? Nobody right?


I love the "if you don't have anything to fear then why are you worrying" argument. Let's just monitory everybody's actions all the time, if they are not doing anything illegal, then why would they care?

Perhaps it's because people will sue for thing like the war is illegal or USA didn't help when it was suppose to, or USA didn't help enough, etc.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Earthborn
here (http://www.usaforicc.org/facts_unsigning.html). If it didn't have a chance of passing in the Senate, I don't see why Bush had to unsign it. Couldn't he just have allowed the Senate to reject it and go back to his allies saying: "Sorry guys, I did everything I could to get it passed, but the Senate rejected it, so we'll have to start new negotiations." That way he would have gotten what he wanted and kept moral highground.


Earthborn: You appear to be far to informed (at least on one side of this debate) to not know the answer to the question you are implying here.

Are you serious about this 'confusion'?

[WildCat]

Originally posted by Earthborn
Here (http://www.amicc.org/usinfo/administration_advocacy.html#remarks.) you can find the opinions of several presidential candidates concerning the ICC. Surprised?
Thanks for the link, though I'm not particularly surprised.
Kerry: Information limited. Probably supports "constructive engagement" with allies but not full U.S. support for Court.

Edwards: Supports positive engagement with the Court.

Gephardt: Spoke out against ASPA, supports international justice efforts, and believes U.S. should work multilaterally on this issue. Hasn't said U.S. should join Court.

Dean: Believes the U.S. should stay engaged with the Court and "work to rewrite" the Rome Statute. Doesn't know if he would support U.S. becoming a signatory. Believes concerns about American Servicemembers are justified.

Lieberman: Believes that the Administration policy is needlessly alienating our allies. Says that the U.S. should stay engaged with the ICC but doesn't say U.S. should join. Strongest statement was made to foreign press.

So none has said they'd vote for it in it's current form, and seem to be trying to play to both sides of the issue for political reasons. "If Bush is fer it I'm agin it!"

When US troops as a matter of official policy start rounding up and executing the males of entire villages or deliberately bomb orphanages and hospitals (that aren't being used to shield combatants, and contain no actual orphans or patients!) I would become a supporter. Not likely to happen though.

The current allegations against Blair and Straw offer all the proof I need about the motives and aims of the ICC, which are purely political in nature.

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by WildCat
The current allegations against Blair and Straw offer all the proof I need about the motives and aims of the ICC, which are purely political in nature. How can the current allegations (from someone else, not the ICC) tell something about the motives and aims of the ICC?

The International Criminal Court in the Hague is being asked to probe allegations of war crimes by Tony Blair, Jack Straw and Geoff Hoon. (From original article)

[iain]

Originally posted by Bjorn
How can the current allegations (from someone else, not the ICC) tell something about the motives and aims of the ICC?Indeed.

To criticise the ICC for allowing someone to ask them to investigate something is like criticising Bush because someone writes him a letter requesting that slavery be reinstated.

Sure, anyone can ask but the important thing is the answer - in this instance whether the case makes it to the point of being heard before the court and, if so, what decision the court reaches.

[Earthborn]

Let's just monitory everybody's actions all the time, if they are not doing anything illegal, then why would they care?Why would they care if they are not doing anything wrong and they are not being monitored? That would be a more accurate comparison.Perhaps it's because people will sue for thing like the war is illegalStarting an illegal war is not a nice thing to do. It will not make you many friends. But it is not a crime that one can be prosecuted for by the ICC. The ICC only takes cases of war crimes, genocide or crimes against humanity, which are very clearly and narrowly defined here (http://www.un.org/law/icc/statute/99_corr/2.htm).USA didn't help when it was suppose to, or USA didn't help enough, etc.If that is true, than that is not very nice of the USA. But those are not crimes anyone can be prosecuted for by the ICC.Earthborn: You appear to be far to informedIf by that you mean that I can read, thanks for noticing!at least on one side of this debateWell, the other side doesn't seem to be offering much, does it? All things that are easily refuted.

Now I am sure that someone could have some legitimate criticism on the ICC. Maybe they know of a better way to elect judges, or they see a little loophole in its system that makes it a bit biased against, I don't know, Vatican City, or something. But the idea that the US would create a kangaroo court that is biased only against itself is something I don't take seriously.Are you serious about this 'confusion'?Yes, I am. I really have no idea why the Bush administration would do such a thing. I can think of a few reasons, but they are too ridiculous to contemplate (or are they?) The Bush administration believes its own rubbish and everything they do to the ICC is pure stupidity.
The Bush administration has simply a very deep fear of anything that might threaten its world hegemony, and it tries to sabotage everything that could potentially one day be explained as a tiny loss of US sovereignty. Even the hint of losing control to some foreign entity (while of course maintaining their own control over the rest of the world) makes them against it.
The Bush administration is planning to make the US a dictatorship commiting horrible atrocities, and it tries to make sure that whenever the American people are fed up with it, they can never be extradited to The Hague to stand trial.Well that's the best I can come up with. If anyone has any better idea, let me know.

Since according the old adage 'never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity', I'll assume for now that the first reason is the most likely. I'll keep an eye open for signs of the other possibilities, though.When US troops as a matter of official policy start rounding up and executing the males of entire villages or deliberately bomb orphanages and hospitals (that aren't being used to shield combatants, and contain no actual orphans or patients!) I would become a supporter.So basically you only support a law against something after it has been broken for the first time and the people who did it first should be allowed to walk free? I don't quite follow that logic.

If it ever goes that far, do you think the government doing those things will be willing to submit itself to the ICC's authority? Or do think it is more likely that your life will be in danger when you speak out in favour of the ICC?

Just imagine that the Founding Fathers used that sort of logic. "Ah, we don't need a Bill of Rights to restrict the power of government. We have a very nice government now! The government can always write a Bill of Rights when it goes bad."Not likely to happen though.No, of course not. The same is true for almost all ICC members, and still they signed and ratified the treaty. And for some strange reason all the bad regimes didn't! The good ones have something to gain: a little extra protection for when things go horribly wrong. Dictatorships have nothing to gain.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Earthborn
If by that you mean that I can read, thanks for noticing!



The Bush administration had stated reasons for unsigning it. I just figured you knew what they were. No?

What reasons did Clinton give for his reluctance to sign it, even as a lame duck? Did he not say that he didn't believe that the treaty should be ratified by the Senate unless certain changes were made? Changes that have not, in fact, been made?

MattJ

[Earthborn]

Originally posted by aerocontrols
The Bush administration had stated reasons for unsigning it. I just figured you knew what they were. No?If there are any that are not already adressed by the way the ICC is structurerd: no, I don't know them.What reasons did Clinton give for his reluctance to sign it, even as a lame duck? Did he not say that he didn't believe that the treaty should be ratified by the Senate unless certain changes were made? Changes that have not, in fact, been made?I have no idea. You tell me. What are those changes that have not been made?

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Earthborn
I don't know them.I have no idea.

Upon signing the treaty, President Clinton tallied off several objections, one of which was:

In particular, we are concerned that when
the Court comes into existence, it will not only exercise authority over personnel of states that have ratified the Treaty, but also claim jurisdiction over personnel of states that have not.

Still true or not?

But more must be done. Court jurisdiction over U.S. personnel should come only with U.S. ratification of the Treaty. The United States should have the chance to observe and assess the functioning of the Court, over time, before choosing to become subject to its jurisdiction. Given these concerns, I will not, and do not recommend that my successor submit the Treaty to the Senate for advice and consent until our fundamental concerns are satisfied.


With all due respect, I find it astonishing that you can appear so knowledgeable with regard to the debates about this court and not know why the Bush Administration unsigned it at the moment that it chose to. It did not unsign the ICC upon taking control of the government, it waited until a particular time, and unsigned it at that time for a particular reason. Which has to do with the second paragraph of President Clinton's that I've quoted.

MattJ

[Earthborn]

In particular, we are concerned that when
the Court comes into existence, it will not only exercise authority over personnel of states that have ratified the Treaty, but also claim jurisdiction over personnel of states that have not.Still true or not?Sort of:The 'Unchecked' Power of the ICC (http://www.usaforicc.org/facts_myths_admin.html#Unchecked%20Power)

Jurisdiction Over Non-State Parties

Administration: According to the May 6th State Department Backgrounder, "The ICC purports to have jurisdiction over crimes committed in the territory of a state party, including by nationals of a non-party. Thus the court would have jurisdiction for enumerated crimes alleged against U.S. nationals, including U.S. service members, in the territory of a party, even though the U.S. is not a party."

Reality: The ICC will have very limited subject matter jurisdiction to try individuals accused of the most serious crimes condemned by all nations: crimes against humanity, genocide, and war crimes. Its jurisdiction is limited to "the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole." This high legal threshold necessitates that the criminal act must have occurred on a large scale, must shock the conscience of humanity, and must, in general, be the result of deliberate plans or policies by a nation or organization. Thus, the Court does not have jurisdiction over all war crimes, only the worst (Article 5 of the Rome Statute).

Reality: Even if U.S. peacekeepers commit such crimes (a possibility which is highly unlikely, given the nature of their mission) Bilateral Agreements, such as SOFA (Status of Forces Agreement), which are always signed by both the host country and the contributing country before a peacekeeping mission is dispatched, will ensure that the U.S. receives jurisdiction over its nationals (Article 21, Paragraph 1-b of the Rome Statute). The White House is acting under the presumption that these agreements will not be honored in the event of a reported misconduct.

But more must be done. Court jurisdiction over U.S. personnel should come only with U.S. ratification of the Treaty. The United States should have the chance to observe and assess the functioning of the Court, over time, before choosing to become subject to its jurisdiction.Again the US's wishes, served on a silver platter (http://www.usaforicc.org/facts_myths.html):By joining the Court, the US would also be able to benefit from the many advantages written into the treaty for state parties. For example, parties to the Court can choose not to accept the Court’s jurisdiction over war crimes for seven years. By invoking this provision, the US could see how the Court handles such cases from the beginning and the United States could withdraw from the Statute if the Court exceeds its authority by engaging in political prosecutions. As a party, the US could also protect its nationals from prosecution for the crime of aggression or any other new crimes added to the Statute if it found the definitions unacceptable.Which has to do with the second paragraph of President Clinton's that I've quoted.Are you also going to tell me where you quoted them from? And when Clinton said it?

[epepke]

Originally posted by Earthborn
Are we to conclude then that the signature of a head of state is meaningless, and later governments can safely ignore it? That sets a nice precedent.

Well, I keep hearing over and over again about how Europeans are so smart and educated and know everything about the US while all those American dumbskis know nothing.

I don't really expect that level of sophistication by Europeans, but I do think that one or two of you should have heard about the League of Nations by now.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Earthborn
.Starting an illegal war is not a nice thing to do. It will not make you many friends. But it is not a crime that one can be prosecuted for by the ICC. The ICC only takes cases of war crimes, genocide or crimes against humanity, which are very clearly and narrowly defined here (http://www.un.org/law/icc/statute/99_corr/2.htm).If


You're kidding me, right? They've included a crime, "agression", AND IT ISN'T EVEN DEFINED! How the hell "narrow" a definition is that? I could include just about anything. And don't try to claim it won't, that everything will be peachy keen, because international institutions like this have proven time and again that they are NOT in fact trustworthy (the UN sure as hell isn't). Even the stuff that is defined is pretty damned broad if you actually parse it carefully.
http://denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2002/07/MoreontheICC.shtml
The crime of persecution, for example, is ambiguous enough that just about any peackeeping force could be charged with it if they find themselves needing to impose martial law to maintain order.


Just imagine that the Founding Fathers used that sort of logic. "Ah, we don't need a Bill of Rights to restrict the power of government. We have a very nice government now! The government can always write a Bill of Rights when it goes bad."No, of course not. The same is true for almost all ICC members, and still they signed and ratified the treaty. And for some strange reason all the bad regimes didn't! The good ones have something to gain: a little extra protection for when things go horribly wrong. Dictatorships have nothing to gain.

Once again, you prove that you do not understand America, or the constitution. The Bill of Rights was about limiting the power of government: the founding fathers knew, as most Europeans still do not, that they should not trust government to behave itself, but must bind the government to keep it from overstepping its bounds before it did so. You aren't arguing for limiting government power before it's too late, you're arguing for MORE government power before it's needed. And a government that isn't even answerable to the population it presides over at that. Sorry, but you've got it backwards from the founding fathers - they would stay the hell away from this kind of treaty.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Earthborn
Sort of:

I would characterize that as 'no'.



Originally posted by Earthborn
Are you also going to tell me where you quoted them from? And when Clinton said it?

I would expect you to be able to find Bill Clinton's statement (made when he signed it) on your pro-ICC website. You mean they don't link to it, or discuss any of the objections he had when he signed it?

And it doesn't explain why Bush 'unsigned it' at the time that he did?

[Skeptic]

Yeah, the deal is, if you kill people without a DAMNED good excuse (as opposed to, say, some confection of lies and doublespeak about WMD and your sincere concern for the ickle people), people tend to take it badly. And if you do it in the context of a war, it's called a war crime.

...which is why Arafat is now on trial in the ICC together with Hamas, Syria, North Vietnam, etc., etc., etc.

Oh wait.

An unprovoked attack on another country is illegal.

Which is why the ICC put Saddam on trial the moment he invaded Kuwait. The US was simply executing the ICC's previous ruling, you know.

Oh wait.

Check out the Nuremberg Trials, when America tried the Nazi leaders for attacking Poland, France and the Sovier Union without provocation...they hanged.

Which is why Saddam, who invaded Kuwait without provocation, Ho Chi Min, who invaded South Vietnam in violation of all agreements, Arafat, who did the same with israel, and so on are all on trial in the ICC as we speak.

Oh wait.

The Nazi leaders had an excuse for every attack.

So do Arafat, Saddam, Ho Chi Minh, and the rest. You know, "we shall wipe the jewish scum from the holy Arab land" (replace with "American", "imperialist", etc. as needed), that sort of thing.

Still you don`t have to worry, when did you ever see a non-foreigner get taken up to the ICC?

The day they'll try a dictator for war crimes, instead of using it as a battlefield against the "racist" western governments and/or israel.

So it's all black people and shifty Arabs from here on in.

Actually, the problem is that "black people and shifty Arabs" get a free pass. Do you really see Quaddafi or Mobutu on trial there? No, it's ONLY western democracies that are "put to the question" in the ICC.

[Earthborn]

Originally posted by Ziggurat
You're kidding me, right? They've included a crime, "agression", AND IT ISN'T EVEN DEFINED!Crimes of agression and other 'new crimes' that are not defined yet, fall outside the jurisdiction of the ICC until the ICC member states have agreed on a definition. If one of them does not agree with the definition for whatever reason, they can prevent the ICC from having jurisdiction on that crime over their region. Again one of those things the US has negotiated agressively for before Clinton signed the treaty.How the hell "narrow" a definition is that? I could include just about anything.Yes, and if you can convince the other member states that yours is a good definition, you might even be able to get the ICC to try someone for it.And don't try to claim it won't, that everything will be peachy keen, because international institutions like this have proven time and again that they are NOT in fact trustworthyInternational institutions only get their power from the nations that support them. An international institution that cannot count on support from its member states will seize to exist.(the UN sure as hell isn't).What did the UN ever do to you? Step on your toe?Even the stuff that is defined is pretty damned broad if you actually parse it carefully.
http://denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2002/07/MoreontheICC.shtml
The crime of persecution, for example, is ambiguous enough that just about any peackeeping force could be charged with it if they find themselves needing to impose martial law to maintain order.None of the examples the author of the article presents is a crime that the ICC has jurisdiction over at this moment. I can imagine that they are crimes that are considered to be included or have been proposed to be included, but the ICC member states could not yet commonly agree on a definition.

The author also makes the erroneous assumption that when they are included, the ICC will be able to try anyone for crimes they commited before the crimes where included. It cannot.You aren't arguing for limiting government power before it's too late, you're arguing for MORE government power before it's needed. And a government that isn't even answerable to the population it presides over at that. Sorry, but you've got it backwards from the founding fathers - they would stay the hell away from this kind of treaty.This is totally irrelevant as the ICC depends totally on the power of local governments.

[Earthborn]

Originally posted by aerocontrols
I would expect you to be able to find Bill Clinton's statement (made when he signed it) on your pro-ICC website. You mean they don't link to it, or discuss any of the objections he had when he signed it?No, I can't find it on 'my' pro-ICC website. BUt I did find it on a US government site (http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/usandun/00123101.htm). To me, he doesn't sound so overly concerned about the ICC. That he has a few concerns over what he considers 'significant flaws' is fine by me. The US doesn't have to surrender to the international institutions, and critical views should always be appreciated. They can only make the institution better.

I think that's the point Clinton is trying to make, it is the point the USAforICC website is trying to make, and it is the point the international community is trying to make: "We celebrate the input and criticism by the United States. We want the United States to be in the treaty, because we believe if they are in, they can help us make it better. Please, please, please, honour us with your signature, and keep the constructive criticism coming."And it doesn't explain why Bush 'unsigned it' at the time that he did?Well, it does list a lot of reasons (http://www.usaforicc.org/facts_myths_admin.html#Unchecked%20Power) the Bush administration used to justify why he unsigned it. It refutes all those reasons as either irrelevant because of the way the ICC was built, or as being adequately adressed already.

Is there any reason the Bush administration has used that isn't mentioned in this list or the list of general myths (http://www.usaforicc.org/facts_myths.html)? Or can you refute their refutations?

[DialecticMaterialist]

IMO, this is absurd. Anyone who knows me knows I have a special disliking for Bush, but charging him with war crimes is just way too extreme.

It's the equivalent imo, to wanting to impeach Clinton over a blow job, or accusations directed against Clinton of assasinating political opponents.

[Earthborn]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
[B]IMO, this is absurd. Anyone who knows me knows I have a special disliking for Bush, but charging him with war crimes is just way too extreme.Yes, it is absurd. But who was it that accused Bush of war crimes again? Someone we know?

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Earthborn
No, I can't find it on 'my' pro-ICC website. BUt I did find it on a US government site (http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/usandun/00123101.htm). To me, he doesn't sound so overly concerned about the ICC. That he has a few concerns over what he considers 'significant flaws' is fine by me. The US doesn't have to surrender to the international institutions, and critical views should always be appreciated. They can only make the institution better.

I think that's the point Clinton is trying to make, it is the point the USAforICC website is trying to make, and it is the point the international community is trying to make: "We celebrate the input and criticism by the United States. We want the United States to be in the treaty, because we believe if they are in, they can help us make it better. Please, please, please, honour us with your signature, and keep the constructive criticism coming.

Actually, the point Clinton made is that the US should not ratify the treaty until the reservations he listed were settled. Those reservations were not (and are not) settled to even his satisfaction.

Clinton suggested that Bush not enter the treaty unless changes were made to it. The Treaty was not changed to address those concerns. Bush left the US signature on as long as possible (see below) to maintain our ability to affect the law and try to make those changes, and 'unsigns' it at the last minute.

When Bill Clinton says that an international agreement is too flawed to join, I pay attention. "Sort of" wasn't good enough for him, and it's not good enough for me.


Originally posted by Earthborn
"Well, it does list a lot of reasons (http://www.usaforicc.org/facts_myths_admin.html#Unchecked%20Power) the Bush administration used to justify why he unsigned it. It refutes all those reasons as either irrelevant because of the way the ICC was built, or as being adequately adressed already.

Is there any reason the Bush administration has used that isn't mentioned in this list or the list of general myths (http://www.usaforicc.org/facts_myths.html)? Or can you refute their refutations?

He 'unsigned it' for the same reasons that Bill Clinton reccommended that it not be sent to the Senate for Advice and Consent. He 'unsigned it' when (this is the part I've been trying to hint at) he did because the treaty had just gained the necessary number of signatures to enter into force, after which all signatories become subject to its jurisdiction.


If you want to know why the US doesn't trust the ICC or the people behind it, perhaps this (http://untreaty.un.org/ENGLISH/bible/englishinternetbible/partI/chapterXVIII/treaty10.asp#notes) will help you a little:


1. On 6 November 1998, the Secretary-General received from the Government of the United States of America the following communication dated 5 November 1998, relating to the proposed corrections to the Statute circulated on 25 September 1998:

"[...] The United States wishes to note a number of concerns and objections regarding the procedure proposed for the correction of the six authentic texts and certified true copies:

"First, the United States wishes to draw attention to the fact that, in addition to the corrections which the Secretary-General now proposes, other changes had already been made to the text which was actually adopted by the Conference, without any notice or procedure. The text before the Conference was contained in A/CONF.183/C.1/L.76 and Adds. 1-13. The text which was issued as a final document, A/CONF.183/9, is not the same text. Apparently, it was this latter text which was presented for signature on July 18, even though it differed in a number of respects from the text that was adopted only hours before. At least three of these changes are arguably substantive, including the changes made to Article 12, paragraph 2(b), the change made to Article 93, paragraph 5, and the change made to Article 124. Of these three changes, the Secretary-General now proposes to "re-correct" only Article 124, so that it returns to the original text, but the other changes remain. The United States remains concerned, therefore, that the corrections process should have been based on the text that was actually adopted by the Conference. (aero note: duh)

"Second, the United States notes that the Secretary-General's communication suggests that it is "established depositary practice" that only signatory States or contracting States may object to a proposed correction. The United States does not seek to object to any of the proposed corrections, or to the additional corrections that were made earlier and without formal notice, although this should not be taken as an endorsement of the merits of any of the corrections proposed. The United States does note, however, that insofar as arguably substantive changes have been made to the original text without any notice or procedure,[b] as noted above in relation to Articles 12 and 93, if any question of interpretation should subsequently arise it should be resolved consistent with A/CONF.183/C.1/L.76, the text that was actually adopted.

"More fundamentally, however, as a matter of general principle and for future reference, [b]the United States objects to any correction procedure, immediately following a diplomatic conference, whereby the views of the vast majority of the Conference participants on the text which they have only just adopted would not be taken into account. The United States does not agree that the course followed by the Secretary-General in July represents "established depositary practice" for the type of circumstances presented here. To the extent that such a procedure has previously been established, it must necessarily rest on the assumption that the Conference itself had an adequate opportunity, in the first instance, to ensure the adoption of a technically correct text. Under the circumstances which have prevailed in some recent conferences, and which will likely recur, in which critical portions of the text are resolved at very late stages and there is no opportunity for the usual technical review by the Drafting Committee, the kind of corrections process which is contemplated here must be open to all.

" In accordance with Article 77, paragraph 1 (e) of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, the United States requests that this note be communicated to all States which are entitled to become parties to the Convention."

In short, if the international community can't have a transparent and honest procedure to write the treaty document, why should anyone think they can run the court honestly?

[demon]

Ziggurat:
"I think the Cambodia stuff has been dealt with enough, you seem to be a dedicated appologist for an appologist for genocide, I'm not going to bother dregging up more on that issue."

"Dealt with enough?" You haven`t dealt with anything.
"A dedicated apologist" for Chomsky? That I asked you to support your allegation makes me a dedicated apologist for Chomsky and genocide? Where does that perverted logic work? On Planet X?

As for "dregging" up more on the issue, I`ll remind you that you are the one who dredged up Chomsky`s name into this thread in the first place.
So as to my original question..."Can you give me a source for that allegation, preferably a quote or a reference from one of his books to justify your lazy smear?"...the real answer is no you can`t, not that you can`t be "bothered" to.
It`s noted that you can be "bothered" to repeat the smear though. What an idiot.

Ziggurat:
"I don't recall ever saying Saddam kicked out the weapons inspectors."

Yea right. Well, I do. For example:
"Just kick the inspectors out again sometime down the road. Nobody really did much in 98 when they kicked them out, wait a few years and Saddam would probably have done the same thing again."
http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/show...#post1870085352

"Kick the inspectors out again, and Saddam could do whatever the hell he pleased with it. That's what I mean by he had hundreds of tons of unenriched uranium."
http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/show...#post1870086314

You are a purveyor of smears and myths Ziggurat...how unpleasant and disgusting to watch someone brainwashing themselves in public.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by demon
Ziggurat:
"I think the Cambodia stuff has been dealt with enough, you seem to be a dedicated appologist for an appologist for genocide, I'm not going to bother dregging up more on that issue."

"Dealt with enough?" You haven`t dealt with anything.


You're right, *I* didn't deal with the issue of Chomsky being an appologist for Pol Pot. But what other people posted was sufficient. Which is why I said that the topic had been dealt with enough, not that *I* had dealt with it enough. Learn to read.


Ziggurat:
"I don't recall ever saying Saddam kicked out the weapons inspectors."

Yea right. Well, I do. For example:


I congratulate you on your excellent memory, and for missing the point entirely. I clarified my stand on the issue (which you haven't claimed is anything other than correct now). And my main point in the quotes you list are speculation about what Saddam might do in the future, not what he did in '98. On that note, kicking inspectors out and halting cooperation have no substantive difference. Yes, I shouldn't have used the word "again", and I have since clarified this. Let's see Chomsky ever actually clarify the fact that he was completely wrong about Pol Pot, and never admitted how wrong he had been. Just don't hold your breath.

Edit: BTW, demon, learn how to actually post a link on this board: your links are broken, and don't go anywhere.

[demon]

Ziggurat, three questions.
1)Have you read the Chomsky on Cambodia? "After the Cataclysm" for instance where most of the "genocide apologist" smears seem to come from?
2)Did you read the DeLong smear on Chomsky concerning Cambodia?
3)Did you read Herman`s refutation of DeLong?

If you can answer two of the above in the positive and still insist that Chomsky is an apolgist for genocide/Pol Pot then you have some explaining to do.
Of course, if you can`t answer in the positive for two of the questions above then you are talking bollocks.

[Earthborn]

He 'unsigned it' when (this is the part I've been trying to hint at) he did because the treaty had just gained the necessary number of signatures to enter into force, after which all signatories become subject to its jurisdiction.Of course he could also have chosen to keep the signature, and deny the ICC jurisdiction for the seven year period that is allowed under the Rome statute. During that time he could have lobbied to change the treaty in such a way that does satisfy any concerns, and if after that time the ICC has proven itself as a 'kangaroo court', the US could withdraw from the treaty, or as the most powerful nation on Earth could probably demand that its immunity must be extended a bit.

Now the US has even increased the risk that US citizens will be tried by the ICC. Since it doesn't help shape it, it can't help defining what the 'new crimes' such as the crime of agression is going to mean. If the ICC members were to define it in such a way that an american citizen might be guilty of it, and that american citizen ends up in a member state somehow with a government willing to arrest him then he could very well end up standing trial before the ICC. However: if the US was a member state itself, it could exempt its citizens for any crime that is defined in a way the government would consider unacceptable.If you want to know why the US doesn't trust the ICC or the people behind it, perhaps this will help you a littleI agree that changing the text of treaties after the negotiations and just before the signing is a very serious problem that needs to be adressed.

I am going to use the 'don't attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity' thumbrule here and assume, for now, that the substantial changes in the text are not due to illwill, but caused by differences in interpretation of what the text meant. A problem that is exaggerated by the fact that in international negotiations texts must be translated back and forth continuesly and must also often be rewritten to maintain clarity.

This is certainly not the first or the last time such errors are made, and are also not limited to the UN or the ICC. Such problems have also arisen between Cameroon and the EU (http://www.iisd.ca/vol04/0452003e.html) and between the US and Panama (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=17248), for example.

Such problems are inevitable whenever people with different viewpoints, political goals, languages, ways in which they interprete things work on a common project. I don't see how you can claim that this is a weakness of the ICC and not at the same time denounce all forms of human negotiation.In short, if the international community can't have a transparent and honest procedure to write the treaty document, why should anyone think they can run the court honestly?I do not see the fact that it does not have a transparent and honest procedure as evidence that it cannot create such a procedure in the future, with the help of critical friends such as the US.

If there is doubt that the court will be run honestly (which is a possibility since it is run by people) then the solution is not to run away from it, but to demand that procedures are put in place that exclude dishonesty. From Randi, or from System Approach in risk management, we should have learned that it is possible to prevent fraud or random mistakes. Although not perfectly.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Earthborn
What did the UN ever do to you? Step on your toe?


The UN has sat by and permitted genocide to occur time and time again. The UN has never stepped in to prevent genocide, or even stop genocide as it is occuring. What has the UN ever done to me? That's the wrong question. What has the UN done for humanity? It has failed humanity on far too many occasions, with alarming regularity. And yes, I take that personally, and if you don't, perhaps you should ask yourself why.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by demon

DeLong comments: "Reflect that it was published three full years after the Cambodian Holocaust of the Year Zero. Ask yourself whether this is an uncovering or a covering of the crimes of an abominable regime." The answer is that a single stripped-down quote taken out of context and that speculates about what may come from a future study tells nothing to an honest person.


In what context does this NOT sound like apologism? And BTW, space limitations my ass, what a sorry excuse for not listing sources thoroughly for such an important claim.


DeLong naturally fails to acknowledge that our stated aim in the book was not to uncover crimes


No, of course not. Why would Chomsky want to do that?


but to see how the "facts have been interpreted, filtered, distorted or modified by the ideological institutions of the West" (ATC, vii). For DeLong, as for the mainstream, this was an illegitimate objective.


When it leads to appologism for genocide, damned straight.


First of all, we did not attribute the "at most in the thousands" statement to Chanda, but to Sampson. Second, we ourselves quoted Chanda's statement that "the numbers killed are impossible to calculate," that DeLong implies we neglected (ATC, 229). Third, we quote Chanda saying that the testimony from refugees and others "leaves no doubt: the number of deaths has been terribly high" (229), so the statement that Chomsky denied "the possibility that killings were vastly higher" is another lie.


What a complete non-disclaimer. First they repeat the statement that the death tole is at most in the thousands, then claim that "the number of deaths has been terribly high" somehow is adequate coverage for the case where it's orders of magnitude larger? Sorry, but that simply does not wash.


DeLong ends on Cambodia asserting that "Chomsky not only said that there wasn't conclusive evidence that the Khmer Rouge were genocidal butchers, he wrote-falsely-that there was reliable evidence that they weren't genocidal butchers." This is one more flat, outright lie. We never said, or hinted, anything like this.


Sure they did. They pretty much flat-out said it with the quote about an upper limit of thousands of deaths. And they can't provide a counter-quote where THEY state that the figure may be MUCH higher - the reference to higher totals is completely ambiguous as to the context in which it was listed, whether or not they gave it any credence.


On DeLong principles, the State Department analysts and Holbrooke are liars and apologists for Pol Pot, downplaying the "conclusive evidence" that he was a genocidal butcher.


Ah, blame someone else. Except that I may think the same thing of those people as well.


DeLong never mentions that our book was explicitly aimed at countering the huge and lie-rich propaganda barrage on Cambodia that began upon the KR entry into Phnom Penh in April 1975, a barrage and lies which only served a political and ideological purpose and did not help the Cambodians in any way whatsoever.


Lies like what? That the KR was commiting genocide? Here's the sort of lie that Chomsky likes to make you think he's really arguing against:

"Questions that are obviously crucial even apart from the legacy of the war--for example, the sources of the policies of the postwar Cambodian regime in historical experience, traditional culture, Khmer nationalism, or internal social conflict--have been passed by in silence as the propaganda machine gravitates to the evils of a competitive socioeconomic system so as to establish its basic principle: that "liberation" by "Marxists" is the worst fate that can befall any people under Western dominance."
--Chomsky and Herman, 1979

Does the fact that they were countering what he sees as lies somehow make their appologism more palitable? Not to me it doesn't. I frankly couldn't give a crap about supposed andi-marxist bias, but I care a lot about the fact that Chomsky is an appologist for genocide, that he simply discounted witness testimony about attrocities by saying that refugees were unreliable. Does Chomsky actually have a defense against the claim that he initially supported the KR? Haven't ever heard it, only waffling about the accuracy of sources, or an attempt to change the subject by claiming that he wasn't supporting the KR, just opposing media bias. Not good enough.


DeLong never mentions that estimates of the numbers killed by the U.S. Air Force in its bombing of Cambodia from 1969 to 1975 run into the hundreds of thousands, which on his terms should make Nixon and Kissinger into "genocidal butchers."


Back to the blame someone else game. I'm not DeLong, so I can't state how he views Kissenger and Nixon. I do happen to think Kissenger and Nixon are butchers. And Chomsky is still an appologist for butchers, but only for left-wing butchers, apparently.

What you posted amounts to an attack on DeLong for not attacking targets Chomsky thinks were more deserving. It is not a defense against the body of the accusations.

Here's a more in-depth criticism of KR appologism, not just from Chmosky:

http://www-mcnair.berkeley.edu/uga/osl/mcnair/Sophal_Ear_canon.html

[demon]

LIAR

[Earthborn]

The UN has sat by and permitted genocide to occur time and time again. The UN has never stepped in to prevent genocide, or even stop genocide as it is occuring.I guess I understand now. The anti-UN people are anti-UN because it isn't powerful enough to stop the most horrible crimes against humanity. But when the UN tries to become even the slightest bit more powerful, they protest against it because 'it is against our constitution!', 'it violates the principle of sovereignty!', 'we don't want a one world government!'.

What will it be: a UN that can intervene in other countries to stop war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide, or a UN that declares the sovereignty of nations holy and untouchable?*

* Actually, this is a false dichotomy: there is also the possibility of a UN that obeys the USA's every command (http://www.theonion.com/onion3911/us_forms_own_un.html), can intervene in every country in the world except the USA, and only the sovereignty of countries the US likes is respected. But if avoiding double standards is more important, the UN should be able to stop genocide in the US as well as elsewhere. All the US has to do then to avoid being hassled by the UN is to avoid genocide in its own country. Is that so hard to do?

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Earthborn
I guess I understand now. The anti-UN people are anti-UN because it isn't powerful enough to stop the most horrible crimes against humanity. But when the UN tries to become even the slightest bit more powerful, they protest against it because 'it is against our constitution!', 'it violates the principle of sovereignty!', 'we don't want a one world government!'.


No, actually you still don't get it. I'm not against the UN because it's not powerful enough to stop genocide, I'm against it because it doesn't try to stop genocide. I see no reason to think that giving it more power will change that.

And let's keep a few things straight: the UN is not the ICC. I would have thought you'd be adamant about keeping the distinction, because bluring it just makes the ICC look bad.


What will it be: a UN that can intervene in other countries to stop war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide, or a UN that declares the sovereignty of nations holy and untouchable?


Are you trying to use this as an argument FOR the ICC? Because if you are, it doesn't make sense. The ICC isn't charged with stopping genocide, only prosecuting those responsible. It's supposed to act against individuals with the cooperation of states, not against states. Stopping genocide as it's occuring (or better, about to occur) requires acting against states. It's the UN's habitual unwillingness to do the latter that's my biggest problem with the UN.

[Earthborn]

No, actually you still don't get it. I'm not against the UN because it's not powerful enough to stop genocide, I'm against it because it doesn't try to stop genocide.Ah, yes. And whose fault is that? Let's read about about the history of the Rwanda conflict for example:the Security Council failed to intervene in Rwanda because Washington opposed any such intervention.From here (http://www.creativeresistance.ca/united-states/2003-mar12-how-dare-bush-invoke-rwanda-to-justify-his-war-gerald-caplan-globeandmailcanada.htm), emphasis mine.In addition, the US government in particular frustrated efforts by African governments to assemble an African intervention force with Western logistical backing.From here (http://www.iss.co.za/AF/profiles/Rwanda/SecInfo.html), emphasis mine.

Apperently it sometimes happens that several UN members are willing to end genocide, but they are sometimes frustrated by one particular superpower. This is not to say that that particular superpower is solely to blame for the inadequacy of the UN, but you can't solely blame the UN for it either.

Also interesting is what George W. Bush said during his campaign about how he would handle a situation like Rwanda if he were faced with it:"We should not send our troops to stop ethnic cleansing and genocide outside our strategic interests. . . . I would not send the United States troops into Rwanda."Makes one wonder what his strategic interests are in Iraq...And let's keep a few things straight: the UN is not the ICC. I would have thought you'd be adamant about keeping the distinction, because bluring it just makes the ICC look bad.The ICC is not the UN, but its goals are in line with the UN and the ICC and UN work closely together.Are you trying to use this as an argument FOR the ICC? Because if you are, it doesn't make sense. The ICC isn't charged with stopping genocide, only prosecuting those responsible.Apperently prosecuting those responsible is the only thing that is achieveable right now, assuming the US doesn't hinder it too much.It's supposed to act against individuals with the cooperation of states, not against states.I think you are starting to understand now. So what is your problem with the ICC being able to act against individuals with the cooperation of, for example the United States?It's the UN's habitual unwillingness to do the latter that's my biggest problem with the UN.Why don't you lobby against the US's veto power then?

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Earthborn

This is not to say that that particular superpower is solely to blame for the inadequacy of the UN, but you can't solely blame the UN for it either.


I don't solely blame the UN. I also blame Clinton and Albright. Of course, they also wanted to stop genocide in the Balkans, and there the UN again failed, and not because of us.


Also interesting is what George W. Bush said during his campaign about how he would handle a situation like Rwanda if he were faced with it:


Bush also said he wouldn't get involved in nation building. All that really proves is he changed a lot since the campaign.


Makes one wonder what his strategic interests are in Iraq...


Are you trying to imply something sinister? I know exactly what our strategic interests in Iraq are. If it's not apparent to you, you haven't been paying attention. But here's a hint: it's not even primarily about oil.


I think you are starting to understand now. So what is your problem with the ICC being able to act against individuals with the cooperation of, for example the United States?

What's the point of our participation in a treaty whose primary use in regards to us is going to be to try to paint us as a pariah state? We may be able to successfully shield our citizens from persecution (provided they aren't nabbed while traveling abroad), but that's still a public relations gain for our enemies. For example, what's to stop the ICC from trying to prosecute Bush for crimes of aggression over Iraq? After all, the US will have shown itself "unwilling" to prosecute that crime. So far, the only reason I see for US participation in the ICC is to try to limit our power.

[Earthborn]

But here's a hint: it's not even primarily about oil.So you admit it plays a role? Interesting.

What was that other thing again... Oh, yes, Weapons of Mass Destruction, because 'we must act now before Iraq becomes an imminent threat.'What's the point of our participation in a treaty whose primary use in regards to us is going to be to try to paint us as a pariah state?A pariah state? I would think that if the international community would want to make the US into a pariah state, it would prefer it to be outside the ICC instead of in. And it would make sure it would still have jurisdiction over it. But the opposite has happened.We may be able to successfully shield our citizens from persecution (provided they aren't nabbed while traveling abroad), but that's still a public relations gain for our enemies.Yes, I see it now. All those enemies of the US cheering: "Hurrah, people in the United States can now be prosecuted for war crimes! All they have to do now is peform some war crimes as defined in the Rome Statute, and one of their most loyal allies to arrest them!"

It makes perfect sense now! Thank you. :rolleyes:For example, what's to stop the ICC from trying to prosecute Bush for crimes of aggression over Iraq?I can think of several things that are going to stop the ICC:
the ICC does not (yet) prosecute anyone for crimes of aggression.
The US government might refuse to extradite Bush to the ICC.
If the ICC has defined 'crimes of aggression' and its member states decide that it has jurisdiction over such crimes, there first must be evidence that Bush is guilty of such a thing (after the definition was agreed on!).
(and that's assuming the US has signed the Rome treaty): The US government can participate in the negotiations on how crimes of aggression should be defined, and it can refuse jurisdiction over such crimes by US citizens if it disagrees on the definition that will be decided.
<ul>
Please note that now that Bush has unsigned the treaty, the ICC member states can decide what 'crimes of aggression' means on their own, and if Bush were to attack an ICC member state he might be accused of it if he does anything that falls within the definition, and the ICC would have jurisdiction. If he had not unsigned it, he could have denied jurisdiction.

Iraq is not an ICC member state. To accuse Bush would require a referral of the UN Security Council, which brings us to:
The US has veto power in the UN Security council.
Whose going to arrest him?
[/list=1]
I think Bush is pretty safe. And that's just what is stopping ICC from putting him on trial. Assuming he will stand trial, he might also be able to defend himself very well and go free. After all, it can't be a 'crime of aggression' if he had a darn good reason to go to war with Iraq, right? And he did have a darn good reason, right? (No, I don't know what it is either.)

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Earthborn
So you admit it plays a role? Interesting.


Please. Your attempts to make this sound sinister are amateur. Yes, it's partly about oil, but not for the reasons most people think it's about oil. It's about oil because oil lets failed societies prop themselves up, buy weapons, and encourage violent, irrational ideologies because they don't actually need to produce anything themselves. This makes oil-producing countries very dangerous places (there is no worse curse for a developing country than vastly rich natural resources). So yes, it's partly about oil. But it isn't about the US controlling that oil. If we wanted to do that, we could have cozied up to Saddam, and he would have been quite willing to sell us all the oil we wanted on the cheap. The mullahs of Iran are basically asking us to do the same thing. But of course, you hear "oil" and you immediately think it means we'll sell anyone out for a few drops of it. Guess again. It was the UN, with it's corrupt and unaccountable food for oil program, which made billions off of prolonging the suffering of the people of Iraq. And billions of that money is unaccounted for, and I'm not even talking about the kickbacks and payoffs outside the program's control. It was France and Russia whose foreign policy bowed down before their desires for cheap oil, not us.


What was that other thing again... Oh, yes, Weapons of Mass Destruction, because 'we must act now before Iraq becomes an imminent threat.'


Actually, I quite like this quote, and agree with it. Maybe you need help parsing it. The quote makes it quiote plain that Iraq is not yet an imminent threat, but is likely to be in the future. And that is completely correct. Nobody has given any evidence to contradict that, and it was the safest bet going.


A pariah state? I would think that if the international community would want to make the US into a pariah state, it would prefer it to be outside the ICC instead of in. And it would make sure it would still have jurisdiction over it. But the opposite has happened.


Nobody is going to agree to an ICC with jurisdiction over countries that don't agree to it, and if that's not obvious to you, you're simply not getting it. But there is no single "international community" with a single will an intention, that's a fantasy only the Europeans seem to fall for. Some of our European "allies" want us in the ICC because they hope it will limit our actions, that we will need to tread more lightly for fear of prosecution. France explicitly calls for opposing the US not because our course is wrong but because they think we are too powerful. These countries do not want us to be a pariah, but merely hobbled. It's the corrupt little countries in Africa and the middle east that would want to turn us into a pariah state. And there's no reason to think that France etc. wouldn't let them.


Yes, I see it now. All those enemies of the US cheering: "Hurrah, people in the United States can now be prosecuted for war crimes! All they have to do now is peform some war crimes as defined in the Rome Statute, and one of their most loyal allies to arrest them!"


Not exactly. All they need to do is get a majority of judges on the panel (and here's where the plethora of tiny dictatorships comes in handy). They don't need an actual war crime to happen, they only need something they can CALL a war crime. And you can bet your house that the Iraq invasion would qualify.


After all, it can't be a 'crime of aggression' if he had a darn good reason to go to war with Iraq, right? And he did have a darn good reason, right? (No, I don't know what it is either.)

You simply haven't been paying attention, have you? Actions that don't resemble terrorism are regularly labeled as terrorism by people who blow themselves up to kill children, and much of the middle east media follows along with the rhetoric. It's quite easy to call something a war crime even if it isn't, all you need is the judges stacked against you. Where, exactly, is the mechanism to keep that from happening?