Author Topic: Congrats USA (Read 521 times)

Thrawn · « **Reply #15 on:** June 23, 2004, 03:59:23 PM »

This resolution is meaningless. The US is not a signatory to the permanent international war crimes court treaty and so aren't subject to it anyway. The resolution would have just reaffirmed this.

xrtoronto · « **Reply #16 on:** June 23, 2004, 04:02:52 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Fishu
US credibility is on the stake here.

what credibility?

Slash27 · « **Reply #17 on:** June 23, 2004, 04:10:06 PM »

what credibility?

hehehe:rofl

Nilsen · « **Reply #18 on:** June 23, 2004, 04:33:20 PM »

heeeeeeeey, keep this one civil please. It was a compliment to the US.

Gh0stFT · « **Reply #19 on:** June 23, 2004, 05:22:40 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nilsen
So, you will "help" the world your way, but if you have to follow international laws you wont/cant cause you know you will break them?

Hey Nielsen, USA Über alles? sure lol
What have u expected, that they dont sign it ?

Nilsen · « **Reply #20 on:** June 23, 2004, 05:28:51 PM »

Well, i always thought America could use its military abroad without breaking international laws.
Some on this board seem to think that if they have to follow them then their hands are tied and they cant do anything any more. I find that very strange.

Otto · « **Reply #21 on:** June 23, 2004, 05:42:07 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by -tronski-
No, why would have it been?

Tronsky

I agree, but it would only take one nation to bring charges for that action as a 'War Crime' and the U.S. would have to defend it's self in front of a panel of Judges possibility from Syria, Sudan, Cuba and North Korea. The out come would be obvious....

Veritech · « **Reply #22 on:** June 23, 2004, 05:47:51 PM »

No matter if we don't break international laws, our military would be said to have done it any way, even if we haven't. That’s way we don't what to sign.

Nilsen · « **Reply #23 on:** June 23, 2004, 05:56:34 PM »

Then they would be taken to court like everyone else who has signed and that court is made up of judges, not fundamentalists. If no proof was found then nothing would happen. If you have nothing to hide then there is nothing to be scared off is it?

-tronski- · « **Reply #24 on:** June 23, 2004, 06:04:08 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Otto
I agree, but it would only take one nation to bring charges for that action as a 'War Crime' and the U.S. would have to defend it's self in front of a panel of Judges possibility from Syria, Sudan, Cuba and North Korea. The out come would be obvious....

International court judges do not represent single states, but are elected from regional groups and are judges of high repute. More so, none of those countries are states parties to the Rome statute of the International Criminal Court.

Quote

Originally posted by Nilsen
Then they would be taken to court like everyone else who has signed and that court is made up of judges, not fundamentalists. If no proof was found then nothing would happen. If you have nothing to hide then there is nothing to be scared off is it?

I would think if the US would want to defend itself if credible charges were layed.

Tronsky

Captain Virgil Hilts · « **Reply #25 on:** June 23, 2004, 06:07:49 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by xrtoronto
what credibility?

We have no need for credibility with regards to alot of people. Who needs to have credibility with people like our enemies?

Otto · « **Reply #26 on:** June 23, 2004, 06:14:36 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by -tronski-
International court judges do not represent single states, but are elected from regional groups and are judges of high repute. More so, none of those countries are states parties to the Rome statute of the International Criminal Court.

Tronsky

You know more about International Law than I do. But, I agree with most. If we just stop the 'Peace Keeping' adventures it shouldn't be a problem.

Unless of course we have to 'Nuke' somebody. Then we'd probablity get a Ticket.