Another reason to not like America

**Shiro** · 06-08-2002

>you are completely wrong here, and even a bigger dolt than i
>first thought...

Thanks. I'm happy that most American don't react like you do, else I would really start disliking Americans.

>So you don't think it's possible for an innocent to be found
>guilty? That's laughable especially when so many people in the
>rest of the world dislike the US...

It is always possible for an innocent to be found guilty, the other way is also possible.

It's true that I didn't know the real differences between ICC and IWCT, but that didn't care for the situation I was pointing at. You have probably still not read the posts, but the point was using violence to get people out from a trial.

**Sorensen** · 06-08-2002

>So you don't think it's possible for an innocent to be found guilty?

No but from your post you seem to think that the rest of the world is living in the legal dark ages and the only chance anyones got of a fair trial is in the US.

I don't think the point is to entrap hapless US citizens, but provide an unbiased trial for crimes where such a thing would not be done in the suspects home countries. Whether this is possible is another matter, but should the Pan-Am bombers have been allowed to be sentrenced in Libyia?

>No American will stand to be tried in the Netherlands for anything. US citizens are entitled the protections of its constitution, and the Senate isn't going to let that change, and if it comes to it, will probably fight for it.

What? There are thousands of Americans that have stood trial abroad and and are in foreign prisons.

**incognito** · 06-08-2002

Ok if the US citizens are going to be given an unfair trial can't be withdrawn from this court peacefully then sometimes violence has to do the job.

**Shiro** · 06-08-2002

>Ok if the US citizens are going to be given an unfair trial can't be
>withdrawn from this court peacefully then sometimes violence
>has to do the job.

Unless innocent people get hurt or killed. If US troops will try to get their citizens out of the court with violence, then they will probably have to fight our troops which will protect their country from an invading country.

**incognito** · 06-08-2002

Or they can just hand the US citizens all nicely and I am sure none of this will happen.

**Shiro** · 06-08-2002

Note that it is an International Court, so in fact, the Dutch have little to do with the trials. The Dutch don't have anything to say about the US citizens and other citizens who are there for trial. They are "owned" by the International Court. (I don't know the correct English word, so I used owned)

[edit]
Just wondering, the Netherlands is just small, what if the International Court was in some other country, say France, Germany, China or Russia. Would the US also invade those countries if necessary?
[/edit]

**incognito** · 06-08-2002

Why did they accept to have the court in their country? The US is not going to INVADE your country like you said, they would just want to get their citizens that's all, just hand them over.

**incognito** · 06-08-2002

Originally posted by Shiro
Note that it is an International Court, so in fact, the Dutch have little to do with the trials. The Dutch don't have anything to say about the US citizens and other citizens who are there for trial. They are "owned" by the International Court. (I don't know the correct English word, so I used owned)

[edit]
Just wondering, the Netherlands is just small, what if the International Court was in some other country, say France, Germany, China or Russia. Would the US also invade those countries if necessary?
[/edit]

I think that US would.......Ok there's something you should know most Americans take pride in the fact that the US looks out for their citizens even if it is over seas.

**Shiro** · 06-08-2002

>Why did they accept to have the court in their country?

Don't know, there's a lot of such international courts and institutions here in the Netherlands. Milosevic was here, the trial of the Libians was here (Lockerbie).

>The US is not going to INVADE your country like you said, they
>would just want to get their citizens that's all, just hand them
>over.

Invasion is the word used in the media, so I used it too. Hand them over would also be an easy solution, but then the International Court would bring the Netherlands to court for freeing suspects of war crimes. Perhaps even the UN wil take economical sanctions. You see, we don't have anything to say about those people. I think we even don't protect them.

In the Lockerbie case, the court in the Netherlands was protected by the British.

**incognito** · 06-08-2002

>>>Invasion is the word used in the media, so I used it too. Hand them over would also be an easy solution, but then the International Court would bring the Netherlands to court for freeing suspects of war crimes. Perhaps even the UN wil take economical sanctions. You see, we don't have anything to say about those people. I think we even don't protect them.

If the court decides to hand them over, the court composed of various people from various countries would be the one handing them over not just The Netherlands........

(not related to disscussion)

What does Netherlands mean? What's the meaning behind this name?

**Shiro** · 06-08-2002

>I think that US would.......Ok there's something you should know
>most Americans take pride in the fact that the US looks out for
>their citizens even if it is over seas.

In fact, the Dutch citizens also are pride that the Dutch government takes care of them, wherever they are. We are also proud of our goverment who takes care of our citizens in jail in Morocco, or victims of crimes in Turkey, or citizens in Indonesia. But the Netherlands is not as powerful as the US, so they can not force things the way the US can.

**Shiro** · 06-08-2002

>What does Netherlands mean? What's the meaning behind this
>name?

It is a small country in Europe, 300 km long and about 150 km wide, it lays between Great-Brittain and Germany.

Many centuries ago, there were several small countries here. Then a king stood up and merged the countries and called it "de nederlanden", in English "the low lands", because the countries lay several meters beneath the sea. And usually we don't say the lowlands, but the netherlands. We're still a country, a kingdom. However our queen has less impact on government. So it is more a republic than a kingdom.

**mix0matt** · 06-08-2002

<<No but from your post you seem to think that the rest of the world is living in the legal dark ages and the only chance anyones got of a fair trial is in the US. >>

That wasn't really my point, but there are a lot of countries who's idea a legal system is a joke, and they're going to be able to participate in this because it's the "right thing to do".

<<What? There are thousands of Americans that have stood trial abroad and and are in foreign prisons.>>

okay i'm summing up my point....

There's a major difference here. I don't have a problem with someone being arrested while in a foreign country. Countries have there own laws, systems etc...that's fine.

The MAJOR difference is in the power the ICC wants. It wants international law and international enforcement of those laws. Imagine that murder is illegal under international law (which is not outside the realm of possibility). Imagine the nightmare in determining proper jurisdiction, the police force...etc

the Senate simply is saying (in a rather strong way, i admit) that they will not stand for an International Criminal Court, and will use force IF NECESSARY if any US citizen is brought to trial under it.

You see that's the difference, we respect and recognize the courts and laws of other countries (in most cases), but an International government would superceed the law and protections of the US. That's what the senate is trying to stop.

This has nothing to do with War Crimes...there's already a tribunal for that. This thing is not necessary, and to "not like America" because of this, shows a poor understanding of the facts.

**Betazep** · 06-08-2002

To initial post:

Maybe you are only seeing one portion of the picture. Could this be possible? If you weren't at the actual meetings determining actions and policy, how can you beligerently state an opinion.

I know of absolutely zero cases where the American Govt. actually went into a non-hostile country with military force to retrive an American. SO what is your problem?

Recently, an American was caned for disobeying a foreign country's law. I think this American was a military member nonetheless.

I didn't see the big bad American govt. going in to defy justice then, and I would bet heavily that you will never see it in your country...

The cloud of smoke that shrouds some people is thin and meaningless... Have you thought of the possibility that other governments may do the same thing, only they are not polite enough to warn you before-hand?

We have people here like you... Nazi's, Clan, Biggots, etc. All people with unfounded reasons to discriminate and hate people because of there ideals, race, politics, and affiliations.

**Sorensen** · 06-08-2002

>That wasn't really my point, but there are a lot of countries who's idea a legal system is a joke, and they're going to be able to participate in this because it's the "right thing to do".<

Yes, but do you really think they'll have any power? From what little that I've read it would seem that this is a council, not some vehicle for the relatively few unstable regions in the world to gain power. I think hell will freeze over before it'll get the power that you fear it might (a large proportion of western Europe would rather sink than share power on anything remotely important with its neighbours).

I suspect the Senate's objection is more due some remote possibility that might play out (which is fair enough). But some countries seem to see it as an opportunity to police rogue states which would seem right up the US Governments street.