Bush invades the Netherlands

[emprworm]

The Bush government said they would use military force to retrieve any soldier hold in captivity by this court, thereby inderictly saying they would invade the Netherlands.

The bush government made no such statement, though force could be implied if the Netherlands is going to hold a US soldier captive illegally, which is an act of aggression.

If the court was in France, Belgium or Burkina Faso they would invade that country, but it's in the Netherlands

yes, indeed. I have been trying to say this for the last 10 posts. the physical location of the soldier who is being illegally held captive and its parent country is all that the US will be interested in.

[nampigai]

ok I'm gonna drop this. I obviusly can't get through.

[emprworm]

Here is the plain fact about US soldiers and the laws governing them.

Wherever a US soldier physically resides, there must be an agreement between the US and that host country allowing the soldier to reside there, except in the case where the US is at war with that country.

No soldier will set foot in Saudi Arabia without permission from Saudi Arabia unless the US is at war with Saudi Arabia.

When a US soldier enters foreign soil, the United States and the host country form an agreement as to jurisdiction.

Case in point: South Korea.

The U.S.-South Korea Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) is a signed agreement between the government of South Korea and the UNited States giving full jurisdiction of US soldiers committing crimes on South Korean soil to the US. The south Korean government does not have to agree to this terms. If they do not agree to these terms, then US soldiers will vacate the region.

This is the same with any and all nations of the world. No US soldier will set foot in the Netherlands unless

A) The US is at war with the Netherlands

B) There is an agreement in place between the US and the Dutch governments allowing the act to occur.

Stipulated in this agreement (that the Dutch will sign)- will be the condition that jurisdiciton of US soldiers exclusively belong to the US, though the US can elect to give up that jurisdiction on a case by case basis (as with the U.S.-South Korea Status of Forces Agreement)

these are the facts.

undeniable.

do you deny the facts?

If so, please present your case, and cite which facts you deny.

[nampigai]

what I've been saying is that if a soldier REGARDLESS where he comes from commit war crimes he/she should be put infront of the international court in Haag.

However not if it's an american soldier, they obviusly can't commit war crimes.

[Nyarlathotep]

The Bush government said they would use military force to retrieve any soldier hold in captivity by this court, thereby inderictly saying they would invade the Netherlands.

The bush government made no such statement, though force could be implied if the Netherlands is going to hold a US soldier captive illegally, which is an act of aggression.

You contradict yourself there. If they didn't state it, how come you tell us force could be used (I doubt you'll be the one that commands the US forces and give them the go ahead to use force to free the person)? So did they or didn't they state this ? Please be careful with what you reply..

[emprworm]

what I've been saying is that if a soldier REGARDLESS where he comes from commit war crimes he/she should be put infront of the international court in Haag.

However not if it's an american soldier, they obviusly can't commit war crimes.

i know you've been saying this.

and what I've been saying is that you have no jurisdiction to do such a thing. we have not signed any agreement allowing you to do this. on what legal basis can you arrest a US soldier, say, on the Korean penninsula? What jurisdiction does Europe have over this soldier again?

[Nyarlathotep]

Here is the plain fact about US soldiers and the laws governing them.

Wherever a US soldier physically resides, there must be an agreement between the US and that host country allowing the soldier to reside there, except in the case where the US is at war with that country.

No soldier will set foot in Saudi Arabia without permission from Saudi Arabia unless the US is at war with Saudi Arabia.

When a US soldier enters foreign soil, the United States and the host country form an agreement as to jurisdiction.

Case in point: South Korea.

The U.S.-South Korea Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) is a signed agreement between the government of South Korea and the UNited States giving full jurisdiction of US soldiers committing crimes on South Korean soil to the US. The south Korean government does not have to agree to this terms. If they do not agree to these terms, then US soldiers will vacate the region.

This is the same with any and all nations of the world. No US soldier will set foot in the Netherlands unless

A) The US is at war with the Netherlands

B) There is an agreement in place between the US and the Dutch governments allowing the act to occur.

Stipulated in this agreement (that the Dutch will sign)- will be the condition that jurisdiciton of US soldiers exclusively belong to the US, though the US can elect to give up that jurisdiction on a case by case basis (as with the U.S.-South Korea Status of Forces Agreement)

these are the facts.

undeniable.

do you deny the facts?

If so, please present your case, and cite which facts you deny.

Nice reply, however you're twisting the discussion again, please I beg you to stop that. You fail to see the concept of the discussion at hand. Like I said earlier, stay out of discussion you don't understand. We're not the ones dening facts, you are however.

[emprworm]

You contradict yourself there. If they didn't state it, how come you tell us force could be used (I doubt you'll be the one that commands the US forces and give them the go ahead to use force to free the person)? So did they or didn't they state this ? Please be careful with what you reply..

huh? I'm not sure I know what you mean here. If you illegally hold a US soldier captive, that is an act of aggression. I highly doubt the US would invade you, but that option would be avaliable as a response to said agression.

[Nyarlathotep]

You contradict yourself there. If they didn't state it, how come you tell us force could be used (I doubt you'll be the one that commands the US forces and give them the go ahead to use force to free the person)? So did they or didn't they state this ? Please be careful with what you reply..

huh? I'm not sure I know what you mean here. If you illegally hold a US soldier captive, that is an act of aggression. I highly doubt the US would invade you, but that option would be avaliable as a response to said agression.

That doesn't answer my question. So question still remains.

[emprworm]

Here was your question.

"If they didn't state it, how come you tell us force could be used (I doubt you'll be the one that commands the US forces and give them the go ahead to use force to free the person)?"

this question was confusing, I'll cite the points that i need clarification on.

"If they didn't state it, "

Who is "they?"

Didn't state what?

[Nyarlathotep]

Here was your question.

"If they didn't state it, how come you tell us force could be used (I doubt you'll be the one that commands the US forces and give them the go ahead to use force to free the person)?"

this question was confusing, I'll cite the points that i need clarification on.

"If they didn't state it, "

Who is "they?"

Didn't state what?

Oh common Emp, stay with the discussion will you ? Read what I replied on:

The bush government made no such statement, though force could be implied if the Netherlands is going to hold a US soldier captive illegally, which is an act of aggression.

[nampigai]

If a Danish soldier does a war crime he would arrested and put infront of the international court in the Haag.

[emprworm]

"The Bush government said they would use military force to retrieve any soldier hold in captivity by this court, thereby inderictly saying they would invade the Netherlands. "

The bush government made no such statement, though force could be implied if the Netherlands is going to hold a US soldier captive illegally, which is an act of aggression.

Yes, this is correct. It was president clinton, not Bush, who first opposed the proposition and said in Dec of 2000 that his successor should not sign the treaty and that US soldiers are exempt from it.

The act does not say "they would use military force to retrieve any soldier hold in captivity by this court"...this is misleading. Force would be a last resort, but is left as an option to any nation that illegally kidnaps a US soldier.

[Anathema]

Did you put me on your ignorelist Emp? Sure feels like it. The US signed the treaty that formed the ICC, but Bush, Americas new cowboy president, thought he could just flush that down the toilet.

[emprworm]

If a Danish soldier does a war crime he would arrested and put infront of the international court in the Haag.

only because the Netherlands has agreed to the treaty of jurisdiction of its citizens.

[nampigai]

yes and as it's a Danish soldier so have Denmark.

force is allways last resort emprworm but the mere fact that the US have written this sets the US troopers above others. They can't be set infront of an international courtroom if they does war crimes.

[emprworm]

Did you put me on your ignorelist Emp? Sure feels like it. The US signed the treaty that formed the ICC, but Bush, Americas new cowboy president, thought he could just flush that down the toilet.

the treaty in question is the Rome Statute of theInternational Criminal Court. This corrupted the ICC and it was President Bill Clinton that refused to go along with it.

This is an historical fact, Earthnuker.

"As of April 30, 2001, 139 countries had signed the Rome Statute and 30 had ratified it. Pursuant to Article 126 of the Rome Statute, the statute will enter into force on the first day of the month after the 60th day following the date on which the 60th country deposits an instrument ratifying the statute"

Dec 31, 2000

"In a statement issued that day (President Clinton), stated that in view of the unremedied deficiencies of the Rome Statute, 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"

Bush agreed with President Clinton and refuses to sign the defunct Rome Statute.

[Anathema]

I wasn't talking about the Rome Statute Emp, and if you read my posts you would have known that. I was talking about the treaty that founded the ICC, wich Bush rejected.

> The US's opposition to the court culminated in May when the Bush

> administration rejected a treaty that established the ICC — even though

> Bill Clinton signed it in 2000

Now, please answer this question.

If a French soldier in former Yugoslavia rapes a Serbian woman and then shoots her, should he either be put on:

A: a French court

B: a court overseen by Milosovic

C: a neutral international court

[emprworm]

"The US's opposition to the court culminated in May when the Bush

> administration rejected a treaty that established the ICC

[emprworm]

Now, please answer this question.

If a French soldier in former Yugoslavia rapes a Serbian woman and then shoots her, should he either be put on:

A: a French court

B: a court overseen by Milosovic

C: a neutral international court

Answer: A: a French court

If soldier is captured and taken captive under the Geneva conventions, the offended country would have a case to make trial there. This has happened many times already.

are you saying that the French legal system is so corrupt, it would tolerate its citizens raping and murdering people?

[nampigai]

my answer is C, a neutral and international court, to ensure both he get a fair trial and that justice is fullfilled.

Now if it was held by Milosovic we know he would be convicted.

If it was in a French court, they might look with mildness on him as he served his country etc.

Therefor I believe in a neutral court.

[Anathema]

Sorry Emp, the quote was indeed false. I checked the UN website.

In the situation I described, France is not the offended party. Your argument makes no sense.

And about your question, I'll quote Acriku, who put it quite nicely into words.

But there is obviously a higher chance of slighted jurers in America trying an American, than in a neutral country to the matter. Not to say there would be, but a higher possibility.

[emprworm]

Sorry Emp, the quote was indeed false. I checked the UN website.

In the situation I described, France is not the offended party. Your argument makes no sense.

And about your question, I'll quote Acriku, who put it quite nicely into words.

But there is obviously a higher chance of slighted jurers in America trying an American, than in a neutral country to the matter. Not to say there would be, but a higher possibility.

my argument was as follows:

Given: US soldier commits criminal act in South Korea.

SOuth Korea is under a signed agreement with the US called the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA). In this agreement, it explicitly states that jurisdiction of soldiers who commit crimes on S Korean soil belong soley to the US.

Now, assume US soldier rapes and murders s. korean girl.

What jurisdiction does the ICC have again?

"But there is obviously a higher chance of slighted jurers in America trying an American, than in a neutral country to the matter. Not to say there would be, but a higher possibility. "

Doubtful. Americans loathe rape and murder as much as anyone else. Europeans loathe rape and murder too. The difference is that Americans do not loathe americans. Europeans do.

Therefore rational conclusion is that likihood of fair trial in Europe is reduced.

In my opinion, the whole ICC is just an European power trip. It is basically an European court in my mind. If all of europe wants to join together and become one nation (which is basically what they are slowly doing), then so be it! But their attempt to dictate laws governning all humans on earth will fall miserably short. They cannot dictate nor have jurisdiction over people in the United States like they want to.

[Anathema]

All right, now I'm sure you haven't read anything I posted. First, it was about a French soldier commiting a crime against Serbians. I only quoted Acriku because the quote pretty much sums up my opinion on this scenario as well.

Secondly, the incident with the two korean girls wasn't a war crime. Haven't thought of that, have you? (btw, I believe this sort of incident should fall under SK jurisdiction)

Thirdly, I have stated numerous time it is not a European court. The only thing stricly European about it is it's location.

[emprworm]

ok, listen.

We are not part of Europe

We do not intend to be (hopefully).

We USED to be part of Europe. No longer.

That is all there is to it.

I know you say its not an European court, but it is European driven. Of that there can be no objection.

I would never....never support an European being tried by Americans for a crime UNLESS that crime was committed on American soil.

If an american commits a crime in Holland, I would indeed support him being tried in Holland. Yes, i support that. But NOT if he commits a crime in Venezuela.

In your example, the French government is perfectly capable of delivering sound justice. the do not need to be undermined unless they AGREEE TO IT!

in your example, the French government has signed the treaty, VOLUNTARILY GIVING its citzens' jurisdiction to the ICC