by Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States » Thu Mar 05, 2020 3:05 am
by Nakena » Thu Mar 05, 2020 5:10 am
by Krasny-Volny » Thu Mar 05, 2020 5:15 am
by Rojava Free State » Thu Mar 05, 2020 5:34 am
Rojava Free State wrote:Listen yall. I'm only gonna say it once but I want you to remember it. This ain't a world fit for good men. It seems like you gotta be monstrous just to make it. Gotta have a little bit of darkness within you just to survive. You gotta stoop low everyday it seems like. Stoop all the way down to the devil in these times. And then one day you look in the mirror and you realize that you ain't you anymore. You're just another monster, and thanks to your actions, someone else will eventually become as warped and twisted as you. Never forget that the best of us are just the best of a bad lot. Being at the top of a pile of feces doesn't make you anything but shit like the rest. Never forget that.
by Nakena » Thu Mar 05, 2020 5:37 am
Rojava Free State wrote:I'm sure both the United States army and the Taliban committed crimes against humanity in Afghanistan. I'm also sure no one will actually be arrested for them
by The East Marches II » Thu Mar 05, 2020 5:58 am
by Loben The 2nd » Thu Mar 05, 2020 6:32 am
by The of Korea » Thu Mar 05, 2020 7:14 am
Loben The 2nd wrote:is It really a war crime when the Taliban are the victims?
by Luziyca » Thu Mar 05, 2020 7:19 am
Rojava Free State wrote:I'm sure both the United States army and the Taliban committed crimes against humanity in Afghanistan. I'm also sure no one will actually be arrested for them
by The of Korea » Thu Mar 05, 2020 7:20 am
by Thermodolia » Thu Mar 05, 2020 7:26 am
by Crockerland » Thu Mar 05, 2020 7:27 am
Nakena wrote:Oh boy this is going to be fun. I am sure Bensouda from The Gambia™ (yes its actually named like that) will deliever an most excellent performance; after all Bensouda was the solicitor general and legal adviser of gambian President Yahya Jammeh before becoming his Minister of Justice in August 1998 and being dismissed in March 2000.
Former gambian President Yahya Jammeh is renoved and internationally well known, amongst other things for declaring that he would rule a billion years if necessary. Which didn materialized as he was toppled in 2017 in a shortlived civil war inside The Gambia™.
He had also an most outstanding record in gay rights, too.
The legalities of Afghanistan are in experienced hands for sure. The best people after all. Exactly as promised by Trump.
by Aclion » Thu Mar 05, 2020 7:49 am
by Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States » Thu Mar 05, 2020 8:45 am
Aclion wrote:The United States is not a signatory of the Treaty of Rome, so it is impossible for US personnel to be legally subject to the the ICC. The ICC courts can disagree all it wants, but one of the basic tenants of international law is that no nation is sovereign over the others, which means the signatories of the treaty of Rome have no legal basis to impose it on third parties., so the the ICC's disagreement is only evidence of it's disregard for international law.
Additionally, I'll remind everyone that the under the American Service-Members' Protection Act the US president is authorized to use "all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release of any U.S. or allied personnel being detained or imprisoned by, on behalf of, or at the request of the International Criminal Court". I'm sure US troops will enjoy going to the Hague rather then another sandbox.
Crockerland wrote:Nakena wrote:Oh boy this is going to be fun. I am sure Bensouda from The Gambia™ (yes its actually named like that) will deliever an most excellent performance; after all Bensouda was the solicitor general and legal adviser of gambian President Yahya Jammeh before becoming his Minister of Justice in August 1998 and being dismissed in March 2000.
Former gambian President Yahya Jammeh is renoved and internationally well known, amongst other things for declaring that he would rule a billion years if necessary. Which didn materialized as he was toppled in 2017 in a shortlived civil war inside The Gambia™.
He had also an most outstanding record in gay rights, too.
The legalities of Afghanistan are in experienced hands for sure. The best people after all. Exactly as promised by Trump.
Reminds me of how Yemen is on the UN Women executive board and Saudi Arabia is on the UN Human Rights Council.
These international organizations aren't sending their best.
Nakena wrote:Rojava Free State wrote:I'm sure both the United States army and the Taliban committed crimes against humanity in Afghanistan. I'm also sure no one will actually be arrested for them
Given that Chief Investigator Fatou Bensouda worked previously for Yahya Jammeh as his personal legal advisor and Minister of Justice, the former batshit insane President of The Gambia, we can be sure that procedures will be the best.
Krasny-Volny wrote:Institutions like the ICC and ICJ lack the authority to enforce their own rulings, are routinely ignored by national governments, and their jurisdiction is not widely respected. Maybe someday that will change, but for now they are useless.
One recalls when the ICC ordered South Africa’s government to arrest the president of Sudan for Darcie war crimes when he was there on a state visit. Of course South Africa declined. Detaining another head of state while he’s on official business would upend a country’s foreign policy and obliterate their preexisting relations with that state. But that’s just one example of how little the ICC counts for.
by Aclion » Thu Mar 05, 2020 9:45 am
Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States wrote:Aclion wrote:The United States is not a signatory of the Treaty of Rome, so it is impossible for US personnel to be legally subject to the the ICC. The ICC courts can disagree all it wants, but one of the basic tenants of international law is that no nation is sovereign over the others, which means the signatories of the treaty of Rome have no legal basis to impose it on third parties., so the the ICC's disagreement is only evidence of it's disregard for international law.
Additionally, I'll remind everyone that the under the American Service-Members' Protection Act the US president is authorized to use "all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release of any U.S. or allied personnel being detained or imprisoned by, on behalf of, or at the request of the International Criminal Court". I'm sure US troops will enjoy going to the Hague rather then another sandbox.
Just read article 12 of the Rome Statute, that would be quicker.
by Loben The 2nd » Thu Mar 05, 2020 9:47 am
by The East Marches II » Thu Mar 05, 2020 10:04 am
Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States wrote:Aclion wrote:The United States is not a signatory of the Treaty of Rome, so it is impossible for US personnel to be legally subject to the the ICC. The ICC courts can disagree all it wants, but one of the basic tenants of international law is that no nation is sovereign over the others, which means the signatories of the treaty of Rome have no legal basis to impose it on third parties., so the the ICC's disagreement is only evidence of it's disregard for international law.
Additionally, I'll remind everyone that the under the American Service-Members' Protection Act the US president is authorized to use "all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release of any U.S. or allied personnel being detained or imprisoned by, on behalf of, or at the request of the International Criminal Court". I'm sure US troops will enjoy going to the Hague rather then another sandbox.
Yeah, enjoy invading a NATO member...
Also, like you said, no nation os sovereign over another. This means that Afghanistan has total jurisdiction over its territory, and it has decided that the ICC has jurisdiction within its territory. So, any crime committed within Afghanistan is subject to ICC jurisdiction, whether the US agrees or not. US agreement is not required for Afghanistan to invoke its territorial jurisdiction. Just read article 12 of the Rome Statute, that would be quicker.
by Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States » Thu Mar 05, 2020 10:05 am
by The East Marches II » Thu Mar 05, 2020 10:10 am
Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States wrote:Aclion wrote:You do understand the futility of referencing the Rome Statute in a dispute with a nation that does not recognize the Rome Statute? Yes?
But you understand that Afghanistan can determine the law in their own country, yes? Or do you think that Americans can bring their guns wherever?
If Americans are arrested in another country, that arrest is lawful. Afghani sovereignty over their own territory is paramount, and they decided that the Rome Statute applies to their territory.
by Aclion » Thu Mar 05, 2020 10:14 am
Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States wrote:Aclion wrote:You do understand the futility of referencing the Rome Statute in a dispute with a nation that does not recognize the Rome Statute? Yes?
But you understand that Afghanistan can determine the law in their own country, yes? Or do you think that Americans can bring their guns wherever?
If Americans are arrested in another country, that arrest is lawful. Afghani sovereignty over their own territory is paramount, and they decided that the Rome Statute applies to their territory.
Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States wrote:Aclion’s claim was one of international law. I responded.
by Crockerland » Thu Mar 05, 2020 10:19 am
Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States wrote:Aclion wrote:The United States is not a signatory of the Treaty of Rome, so it is impossible for US personnel to be legally subject to the the ICC. The ICC courts can disagree all it wants, but one of the basic tenants of international law is that no nation is sovereign over the others, which means the signatories of the treaty of Rome have no legal basis to impose it on third parties., so the the ICC's disagreement is only evidence of it's disregard for international law.
Additionally, I'll remind everyone that the under the American Service-Members' Protection Act the US president is authorized to use "all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release of any U.S. or allied personnel being detained or imprisoned by, on behalf of, or at the request of the International Criminal Court". I'm sure US troops will enjoy going to the Hague rather then another sandbox.
Yeah, enjoy invading a NATO member...
Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States wrote:Also, like you said, no nation os sovereign over another. This means that Afghanistan has total jurisdiction over its territory, and it has decided that the ICC has jurisdiction within its territory. So, any crime committed within Afghanistan is subject to ICC jurisdiction, whether the US agrees or not. US agreement is not required for Afghanistan to invoke its territorial jurisdiction. Just read article 12 of the Rome Statute, that would be quicker.
by Thermodolia » Thu Mar 05, 2020 10:24 am
The East Marches II wrote:Loben The 2nd wrote:
But muh international law
How many divisions does the ICC have?Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States wrote:
Yeah, enjoy invading a NATO member...
Also, like you said, no nation os sovereign over another. This means that Afghanistan has total jurisdiction over its territory, and it has decided that the ICC has jurisdiction within its territory. So, any crime committed within Afghanistan is subject to ICC jurisdiction, whether the US agrees or not. US agreement is not required for Afghanistan to invoke its territorial jurisdiction. Just read article 12 of the Rome Statute, that would be quicker.
The Dutch government is made up of cowards and weaklings who bend under pressure. There is no real fear when we have the Invade the Hague Act :^)
Edit: Smart move by both Bush and Obama for once.
by Alvecia » Thu Mar 05, 2020 10:26 am
Crockerland wrote:Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States wrote:
Yeah, enjoy invading a NATO member...
If they engage in hostility against us by illegally arresting US troops, we can invoke article 5 against them. Them being a member of NATO themselves doesn't give them any special privilege.Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States wrote:Also, like you said, no nation os sovereign over another. This means that Afghanistan has total jurisdiction over its territory, and it has decided that the ICC has jurisdiction within its territory. So, any crime committed within Afghanistan is subject to ICC jurisdiction, whether the US agrees or not. US agreement is not required for Afghanistan to invoke its territorial jurisdiction. Just read article 12 of the Rome Statute, that would be quicker.
It's illegal to be gay in Afghanistan, doesn't mean gay US soldiers get arrested if they go there. This is not how the law works.
by Thermodolia » Thu Mar 05, 2020 10:26 am
Crockerland wrote:Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States wrote:
Yeah, enjoy invading a NATO member...
If they engage in hostility against us by illegally arresting US troops, we can invoke article 5 against them. Them being a member of NATO themselves doesn't give them any special privilege.Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States wrote:Also, like you said, no nation os sovereign over another. This means that Afghanistan has total jurisdiction over its territory, and it has decided that the ICC has jurisdiction within its territory. So, any crime committed within Afghanistan is subject to ICC jurisdiction, whether the US agrees or not. US agreement is not required for Afghanistan to invoke its territorial jurisdiction. Just read article 12 of the Rome Statute, that would be quicker.
It's illegal to be gay in Afghanistan, doesn't mean gay US soldiers get arrested if they go there. This is not how the law works.
by Thermodolia » Thu Mar 05, 2020 10:27 am
Alvecia wrote:Crockerland wrote:If they engage in hostility against us by illegally arresting US troops, we can invoke article 5 against them. Them being a member of NATO themselves doesn't give them any special privilege.
It's illegal to be gay in Afghanistan, doesn't mean gay US soldiers get arrested if they go there. This is not how the law works.
Yet a crime committed by a tourist in a foreign country can get them arrested, even if said thing is not illegal in their home country. See PDA in the UAE.
So there is at least some degree of jurisdictional crossover. Unless visiting troops get diplomatic immunity, I don't actually know.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Americanium, Ancientania, Asgardian butt, Celritannia, Elejamie, Erythrean Thebes, Fahran, Floofybit, Free Stalliongrad, Gaybeans, Juansonia, Nu Elysium, Port Carverton, Soviet Haaregrad, The Black Forrest, The Huskar Social Union, The Two Jerseys, Turenia, Valentine Z, Valrifall, Zurkerx
Advertisement