I thought that Israel did not sign the treaty -- how can it be prosecuted?

As you recall, we were told millions of times how the US had nothing to fear from this international Star Chanmer since we did not sign the treaty. Gee, were we lied to?

Actually, as the article says, Israel signed the treaty but never ratified the signature -- which makes it worthless.

And I was under the impression that the ICC extends jurisdiction over all countries, not just signatories. That's part of what makes it such an utterly repulsive idea. (Otherwise, it'd be totally pointless, since a country could withdraw the moment its people were accused. Oh, wait. It is totally pointless.)

Actually this is a wonderufl event! A golden opportunity!
Now the US and Israel will be fully vindicated in how stupid and one-sided the court is. So the "convict" Israel. Then what?
This may well open a floodgate so that Iraq can accuse the US, and Iran can accuse Iraq, and on and on--

War is now illegal. So is name calling.

Mr, E.

I believe, that ICC jurisdiction extends only to signatories. As for that being pointless -- is taht a surprise? From the perspective of realpolitik, this treaty was concieved and designed to gain some control over the US and selected allies (Israel). The trick, for the proponents, was to exert moral pressure on Americans to join. The trap would then have been shut.

Like many other treaties before this (Chemical and Bilogical, for example) frocing compliance over countries who do not want to comply is impossible. The enforcement then becomes one sided -- only against the countries who actually are trying to comply. The countries that have no intention of complying (the USSR, in the prior example) are never questioned.

Everybody knows this dynamic, yet time and time again we are forced to sign these ridiculous treaties.

Is anyone really surprised? Sovereignty is moot as far as the ICC is concerned. The treaty means nothing. What the Court will need however is an enforcement mechanism. Who will round up those falsely accused by the court (since the court is illegitimate in my eyes all accusations are false), will one nation invade another to capture a criminal in the eyes of this court? The U.N.? This court could lead to more war, not less.

I'm confused... is it called a 'criminal court' because it is run by criminals?... for the benefit of criminals?...to protect criminals? and I guess the "International" means they plan on prosecuting Americans and Israelis.

Who's going to press a case against the Arab nations for their support of terrorism?

Eric the CR,

Yep.

(a) What proportion of the signatories of the ICC are EU members? There are 76 parties and 15 EU members, other ratifying countries include Australia, Canada, New Zealand...do the maths.

(b) Since when has the possibility that one group will seek to bring an action against a nation in a court that has no jurisdiction over that country is to "violate sovereignty"?

(c) If the we Euros are so fucking "weeny" why has my brother just got off a 'plane from Kabul helping to lead a peacekeeping force for 4 months? And as I can see no complaints in our "weeny" country (the UK) about joining the court when we take more than our share of peacekeeping, and peacemaking duties, then what are you so frightened of?

Let's be honest -- this is Sharon's fault. The attack on a residential area of Gaza with a one-ton bomb was MORONIC. And then to call it "one of Israel's great successes" immediately afterwards??? To put it bluntly, does the man have shit for brains? What did he hope accomplish? The death of one measly terrorist? What world does he live in? He just handed the Islamofascists their greatest victory. What an idiot!

Who is afraid of Court and trial?
Answer: It is Obvious. Criminal and guilty.

Martin the answers to your questions are:

A) the EU members are the only claim to crediblity that the criminal court has. No one would argue that the U.S. should subject itself to a court run by Sudan and Tunisia

B)since always

C)babysitting duty does not unmake weeny status, War does. You guys will most probably join us on our little trip to Iraq, and we promise to stop calling you sissies at that point. No, really, we will.

rob writes:

War is now illegal.

That's because it's bad for children and other living things.

Robert Crawford writes:

Who's going to press a case against the Arab nations for their support of terrorism?

Nobody, because to prosecute Arab nations for their support of Palestinian resistance against pizza-eaters, dance-club partiers, and sleeping five-year-olds would be an unfair imposition of our imperialist western values on the Arab Peoples. If you want peace in the Middle East, you have to stop the Cycle of Violence, have Israel withdraw to its 1947 borders (which are Internationally Accepted by Everyone except Israelis, whose opinion doesn't count, and give the Palestinians their own state, which will accomplish nothing but receive aid from every country on earth, because the Palestinians are the only people on this planet who are suffering, which is due to the 35 year illegal military occupation by Israel, which is the Longest Military Occupation in the World™. I know you don't agree, which only proves that you are a Bloodthirsty Warmongering Imperialist Stars-and-Stripes-Waving Neanderthal who could never appreciate intellectual masterpieces like Edward Said's Orientalism or Poetry of the Resistance. Free Mumia!

Rodger

That bomb should have been 15 kilotons.

Martin and Moe,

Generally, when referring to Euro-weenies, the reference applies to countries on the Continent, and primarily to their governments.

The UK is specifically excluded.

roger - this "measly terrorist" was directly responsible for the death of 100's of israeli civilians. he was in jail until he was released as part of oslo - for the past 4 yrs israel has been asking the PA to put him back in jail (to no avail) and for the past 2 yrs they have been actively pursuing him. lastly, he was described as a "ticking bomb" planning larger and more deadly terror attacks. so was sharon insensitive? ok. was it worth the bad press? yes (and besides that if not for bad press israel wouldn't get any press.)

ap - your trolling is getting tiring, but a kangaroo court (which is what this is) should be feared by any but the most simple minded people out there. the world has shown israel (and for that matter the west and in particular the USA) that it is incapable of treating her fairly. either you are willfully ignorant or just doing your trolly best to get a rise out of people. which is it?

Who is afraid of Court and trial?
Answer: It is Obvious. Criminal and guilty.

This has got to be the stupidest thing I've read all week.

Martin-

We in the US are grateful for the support rendered by the British, Canadians, Kiwis and Australians. We will never forget how you people came through for us on 9/11 and during the Afghan campaign.

The derision shown for "euro-wimps" is generally not directed toward the UK.

As far as not being afraid of the ICC, you may yet have reason to be. Understand that by signing the ICC, the UK has made itself vulnerable to the sort of mischief that Israel is now suffering at the hands of the Arab world.

Anybody can mistakingly kill civilians during wartime. If you put yourself in harm's way, eventually it will happen.

If the judges appointed to the ICC are personally opposed to the war, then you can hardly expect a fair trial.

Americans are not opposed to holding members of the military accountable for their actions. We simply do not trust the motives of those who refuse to put themselves in harm's way but see themselves fit to judge those who do. We will judge these incidents ourselves.

We are especially distrustful of a treaty that presumes authority over nonsignatories.

We hope that neither your brother nor those who fight with him ever have to face this situation. But if they do, I think you will understand why we will not permit our military to be subject to the ICC.

Let's be honest -- this is Sharon's fault. The attack on a residential area of Gaza with a one-ton bomb was MORONIC. And then to call it "one of Israel's great successes" immediately afterwards??? To put it bluntly, does the man have shit for brains? What did he hope accomplish? The death of one measly terrorist? What world does he live in? He just handed the Islamofascists their greatest victory. What an idiot!

Why is this in this thread? Your singleminded trollness is getting tiresome.

In any case, to address your concern Sharon did what a responsible leader does; he protected his people. It was indeed one of Israel's greatest successes, and insofar as there is no such thing as a publicity coup for Israel outside of many dead Jews this was an out and out success from top to bottom. Israel's international stature can't diminish one iota from "shit". Big bad evil murderer guy is dead. Seems like Israel lost nothing and gained quite a bit the other day.

The civilians? Wars suck, yep. Maybe the Palestinians can ask Egypt if they can use a barren stretch of the Sinai Desert to wage war against Israel and the IDF can meet them there. No more civilian casualties.

The derision shown for "euro-wimps" is generally not directed toward the UK.

This is correct, except for Britain's defeatist, antisemitic left wing press and the odd bonehead MP.

The terrorists target civilians. We target terrorists. Keep it in perspective.

If the Palestinians want to court a real war, I'm sure Israel will gladly oblige.

re: Roger Dodger #11

That one measly terrorist is responsible for the deaths of many, many, many Israelis. I think someone else has shit for brains.

FUCK THE ISLAMOFASCISTS!

And Kiss MY Yasser!

50 more of those strikes should do the trick!

bossman - for a guy that likes the repulsive chumpsky you're not half bad

E., give it time, it's only Wednesday...

The ICC and EU should take a quick look at the Geneva Convention they love to quote so much. Accordingly, they might discover a pesky little category that states if a "combatant", (in this case the Hamas scum now writhing in hell), knowingly takes cover amongst civilians, (which I think we can all agree he did), then HE is responsible for the deaths of any civilians which result in an operation to take him out. And by the way, did anyone see Israelis dancing in the streets or planning to name plazas after the pilots of the F-16? No. It's regrettable that others died with this scumbag, but if Osama were in an apartment building and we knew, I'd be apalled if we didn't make the same choice.

Martin,

The reference to Euro-weenines generally implies the EU government and certain Continentals. We had a whole discussion about this before.

In general, how can any liberal stand for this court? It is nothing less than a Star Chamber (look it up). The structure violates every single precaution that we in States (and in common law jurisdictions) value in our court system.

It is not responsible in any way to any democratic institution. (US judges are appointed or elected)

It can make and interpret its own laws (ie, there are no limitations to its power)(US courts interpret laws passed by a democratic legislature)

The prosecutorial and judicial functions are baked into one. (The prosecutor is just a party to teh proceedings)

I know that this is common on the Continent (and in the Soviet Union), but here in the States, I'm terrified of such an institution.

And, oh yeah, John Podhoretz expalins that under the Geneva Convention (which everybody loves, right?), Hamas is responsible for the death of the civilians.

[Link: www.nypost.com...]

Sorry to keep posting, but:

Who is afraid of Court and trial?
Answer: It is Obvious. Criminal and guilty.

In the Soviet Union, where I was born, many innocent people feared the courts. Just because you name it a "court" does mean it delivers justice. Not if it's run by criminals.

Yes, the ICC declares it has the right to seek criminal prosecution of all people in all nations, even ones that have not ratified it.

They will seek an indictment against Israel, because, as powerful as they are, even Israel can't face down the combined militaries of the EU and the Arab Nations. (Or at least the Euros think they can't. I'm willing to bet they'll be grievously wrong in this assumption.)

They will not seek an indictment against the USA, though, because we DO have the military might to rip the whole lot of them apart, even without our nuclear arsenal.

Just more proof that there is no right or wrong in the world today... there is only power and weakness.

Roger
The only bad that comes of these acts is Bad Press, which we get anyway. These evil men (if they can even be called men) use their own women and children as shields to protect their own worthless lives. What Israel has accomplished, therefore, is to show once and for all, that they can run, but they can't hide. (or they can, but they'll live in fear). Perhaps this will convince the equally worthless "innocent palestinian civilians" not to provide cover for these terrorists.
As for the civilian deaths, I can honestly say that I couldn't give a toss. They don't respect their own, not in life and not even in death, so why should I?
From the BBC:

A man held aloft the tiny body of a dead two-month-old baby wrapped in a flag, while masked men chanted: "Death to Israel! Death to America!"

Look at the full article and see the photo.
gives me the creeps!

I can't wait until the Bush Administration declares the ICC a "Terrorist Supporting Organization" under US Law.

This would enable any ICC judges and support staff in American jusrisdiction for any reason to be 'disappeared' into Camp X-Ray.

The ICC and EU wants to play 'Star Chamber' games.

We can too.

and our reach is much farther than their's is.

Moe and James,
The Brits are the US's most reliable supporters and friends. The US can be sure that the first nation to give its support will be the Brits. I would not call them wimps at all. Their troops have a mental toughness and loyalty to their country which should never be underestimated by any foe.
My Brit friends may not be too fond of Americans, but they DESPISE the terrorists. also the Brit left and some of their press may be anti american, but it seems the same with some of the lefties over here too.

Indeed, the Geneva Convention rules are conveniently forgotten when the time to denounce Israel comes along.

In that same vein, I am appalled at the idea of a foreign court indicting an American for as much as a traffic ticket.

This court would never come close to bringing an Arab to trial because the Arab League bloc that can justify anything in the name of being anti-Jew, I mean anti-Zionist, would stick together to block it. Another reason it wouldn't try an Arab is that we Westerners are at the point where we expect Arabs to act like animals, and there wouldn't be anything they could do to rouse a court to a trial.

This court would actually hold an Arab leader to an even lower standard then a pit bull that attacks a neighborhood child. We don't get mad at those dogs, we just have them put down. Arabs act like wild animals and we all tolerate it.

Re: Brits as weenies

Not true. Patently false, in point of fact. Plus, some of the Brit Marines are real babes...

But ya done went and got mixed in with the frogs, you poor schmucks. EU my left one...

I'm waiting for a bunch of murderous, drunken micks to drag Tony-boy before the ICC.

Lots o' fun, you damn betcha!...

They will seek an indictment against Israel, because, as powerful as they are, even Israel can't face down the combined militaries of the EU and the Arab Nations.

Actually right now the combined forces of LGF could probably defeat the military of the EU. ERRF is still a dream and most EU countries have laughable militaries by US or Israeli standards. None of them would give Sharon much problem except from fits of laughing.

The concept of Arab military might gives *me* fits of laughing - Saddam's "elite" Republican Guard (which sounds like it should be Jonah Goldberg's deodorant) were surrendering to CNN infobabes during Gulf War I, and I doubt the Saudis or Egyptians are gonna come up with anything better organized.

mojo:

"But ya done went and got mixed in with the frogs, you poor schmucks.
EU my left one."

English translation please.

The concept of Arab military might gives *me* fits of laughing - Saddam's "elite" Republican Guard (which sounds like it should be Jonah Goldberg's deodorant) were surrendering to CNN infobabes during Gulf War I, and I doubt the Saudis or Egyptians are gonna come up with anything better organized.

I don't think so. The Republican Guard was held back from the front as a reserve and for use in any emergencies (uprisings, for example) back in Baghdad. The troops up at the front were conscripted grunts with minimal training, minimal supplies, and, I suspect, officers ordered to shoot anyone who wanted to retreat.

From what I gather -- and, again, I could be completely wrong -- the biggest problems with Arab militaries are the same ones most Third World militaries have: too little education, too much concentration on status, poor maintenance, poor training, and no discipline. In essence, too many warriors and not enough soldiers.

Fay,
I think she means we shouldn't confuse the brits with the French.

(See the South Park Dodgeball episode)

Look, I'm very aware of what a bad guy Shadeh was and he certainly deserved to die. But the moethod of killing him was brainless and self-destructive. Israel lost more than it gained. You can thumb your nose at "bad press" but that kind of dumb macho thinking will lead to the extinction of the State of Israel. In fact, people who use that kind of tactic are terrified losers. The idea is to win the war against terrorism and Islamofascism, not prove you have an F-16 capable of blowing up a few buildings. Everyone knows Israel has weaponry capable of blowing up millions of people at once. The question is how you use your power. This was a dumb use by dumb leadership and set back the cause. You can thumb your nose at world opinion all you want, but you are behaving like an ostrich.

The learned jurists of the ICC will of course do what's best for humanity, and will reason as follows:

Sheikh Salah Shehada was the head of an organization that had developed and executed methods for killing civilians at a maximum number of victims per month. He (and his assistant who died with him) was what are called 'key personnel' to the organization.

Losing him, the organization's production rate of murders is likely to decrease significantly. Meaning that, on balance, fifteen have died from the airstrike, but many times that number, including infants, will be spared through Hamas inefficiency.

For maximizing the world survival rate, therefore, Israel is awarded a humanitarian medal and goes free.

Only criminals and the guilty fear the courts.

And the only people who would have a problem with being randomly stopped and questioned by the police are those who have something to hide.

Back in the good old days (which as far as I can tell, never really happened) these sayings might have held a grain of truth. Today, however, the fact of innocence is no longer protection against punishment or judicial and legal harrassment.

When you add to that a court system like the ICC, which has declared itself empowered to prosecute anyone it wants to (signatory country or not), any person with any involvement in foreign affairs has reason to fear the ICC.

Thanks Nigel, I have never seen South Park so I guess the cultural reference was lost on me.

But, as a Brit, I can tell you that there is no love lost between us and the French.

"Who is afraid of Court and trial?
Answer: It is Obvious. Criminal and guilty."

And how do you define "criminal and guilty"?
Simple: those who are afraid of Court and trial.

As any good Soviet judge would have it: "If you are really innocent, how comes you're standing trial?"

Has anybody who backs the ICC ever read Lewis Carrol?

Has anybody who backs the ICC ever read Lewis Carrol?

"Apes do read philosophy. They just don't understand it."

Dear Roger Dodger,

After Durban, "world opinion" was shown to be the sickening cesspool that it is. I take pride in thumbing my nose at it. Just as I take pride in the US ignoring "world opinion" when it comes to Iraq.

#34

Moe and James,
The Brits are the US's most reliable supporters and friends. The US can be sure that the first nation to give its support will be the Brits. I would not call them wimps at all. Their troops have a mental toughness and loyalty to their country which should never be underestimated by any foe.
My Brit friends may not be too fond of Americans, but they DESPISE the terrorists. also the Brit left and some of their press may be anti american, but it seems the same with some of the lefties over here too.

I believe I acknowledged this. I said that when we refer to Brits at all we mean the leftwing press ala Robert Fisk and some of the MPs. We've got our own versions of those and we unhesitatingly call them on their crap too. Most of us realize that the appaling lack of moral compass and wimpiness that is currently afflicting the Continent (at least among their intellegentsia) is much less prevalent in Britain and that Britain is a good friend and ally of the United States and we take that seriously. When the term "Euroweenie" is used it is mainly directed at the EU types.

Re #12: Who's afraid of a court and trial?

I suppose A.P. still believes that the show trials during the Great Terror of the '30s were legitimate. I mean, who could object to those except the guilty and criminal? I am confident that the ICC will be every bit as fair, impartial and unbiased as that.

Look, I'm very aware of what a bad guy Shadeh was and he certainly deserved to die. But the moethod of killing him was brainless and self-destructive. Israel lost more than it gained. You can thumb your nose at "bad press" but that kind of dumb macho thinking will lead to the extinction of the State of Israel. In fact, people who use that kind of tactic are terrified losers. The idea is to win the war against terrorism and Islamofascism, not prove you have an F-16 capable of blowing up a few buildings. Everyone knows Israel has weaponry capable of blowing up millions of people at once. The question is how you use your power. This was a dumb use by dumb leadership and set back the cause. You can thumb your nose at world opinion all you want, but you are behaving like an ostrich.

You haven't made your case at all.

Why is it that "that kind of dumb macho thinking will lead to the extinction of the State of Israel" and how did it set back "the cause"?

I love the notion of "international law." It should give the shivers to anyone who gives a damn about democracy...

Did you ever notice that the Amnesty types are the first to talk about how bad capital punishment is in our country? Of course- the other countries don't like it, so it must be a bad thing. The fact that 60 -70% of Americans are in favor of it has no bearing whatsoever.

Any country (or groups of countries, like the ICC) should compare themselves against the U.S. on moral terms, if they dare.

These same Eurotrash were killing babies 50 years ago because of their religion. I don't think the U.S. needs to take any lessons in law or morality from ANYONE else in the world.

If they don't like it, they should refrain from using all American consumer products and medical innovations, and please, for fuck's sake, stop coming here to visit.

Although I pity Isreal for being the first to suffer under the ICC(probably), what concerns me more is the current administration's backtracking on it's original refusal to sign. Here in Tennessee we call that Bullshit. Next Kyoto. Hell, let's just let the UN run our country. Why have any soveregnity if we're going to give it away. I don't think the ICC would ever be ratified, but it is very dissapointing that GWB would ever consider agreeing to the ICC. George Will had an excellent article in the WaPo last month worth reading.

Quick question for any expat Brits, how widely read/respected is a rag like the Gaurdian? How would it compare to something in the US, SF Chronicle, The Nation, Boston Globe, more obscure? That would help me understand our friends across the ocean a bit more.

Rodger Dodger:

Israel should start caring about world opinion when all the people who (a) condemned them for the "jenin massacre", (b) "bravely" boycotted their products and/or academics, (c) attended Durban and (d) believe that Arafat is a partner for peace, collectively admit they were wrong and apologize. All together now, let's hold our breath.

It's not "macho" for a leader to protect one's citizens, it's a responsibility.

Actually right now the combined forces of LGF could probably defeat the military of the EU.

So we've got our own armed forces now? Damn, miss one day...!

i've been gone awhile, so I could be hopelessly out of date, but I think the Guardian and the Independent in particular are read by your typical embittered, former 60's pseudo radical (ie, university professors, etc., and therefore probably a fair percentage of university students.) Pilger's Daily Mirror is more of a rag (one up on the rung from The Sun), though popular. But a lot of people read a couple of papers to mitigate the crap quotient. All other ex-pats, please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong!

An ICC prosecution for the Shehadeh attack isn't going to happen.

According to Article 13 of the Rome Statute (which is the enabling statute for the ICC), a case can be referred in one of three ways: (1) by a state that is a party to the treaty, (2) by the Security Council, or (3) by the prosecutor. However, Article 12 specifies that the first and third of these methods can only be used if the crime occurred on a state party's territory or if the accused is a national of a state party. Since neither Israel nor any other nation that might have a claim on Gaza is a state party, this means that the only way the Shehadeh attack could be referred to the court is by the Security Council. In other words, the United States would have to sign off on the prosecution - which is, to say the least, unlikely, and would be hypocritical in light of the United States' opposition to the court.

Also, Article 17(1) of the Rome Statute precludes the ICC from acting when the state in which the alleged crime occurred is conducting its own investigation. At the moment, the IDF and Shin Bet are investigating the incident, so an ICC case would be impossible at this time unless the investigation can be proven to be a mere whitewash. The Palestinians can certainly talk about referring the case to the ICC, but it isn't going to go anywhere.

Those interested in the Rome Statute can find it at [Link: www.un.org...]

(This is not a comment on the morality or legality of the attack, only on the possibility of a criminal prosecution in the ICC.)

Actually right now the combined forces of LGF could probably defeat the military of the EU.

Well, we're not a real army. We do, however, have a well staffed political and intel brigade (we're waiting for the airborne qualification), a crack hacking team and, don't forget, an elite shock bicycle-mounted unit lead by Mr. LGF himself, Charles.

Pete:
Some other ex-pats may correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that the Guardian and the other left wing rag, The Independent, do not have enormous circulation numbers. When I lived in the UK, I always considered the Guardian to be a paper read by ivory tower left wingnut academics.

Sorry, I can't do the comparison to the US papers because I'm in Canada. What I think you should worry about more than the Guardian is the BBC which, I can say with some assurance, is still held in high esteem by a great number of Brits (this one not included).

Jonathan,

Article 17(1) is:

(a) The case is being investigated or prosecuted by a State which has jurisdiction over it, unless the State is unwilling or unable genuinely to carry out the investigation or prosecution;
(b) The case has been investigated by a State which has jurisdiction over it and the State has decided not to prosecute the person concerned, unless the decision resulted from the unwillingness or inability of the State genuinely to prosecute;

As you can see, the term "genuinely" is up for the court's interpretation. This court, primarily a political animal, may choose to interpret the term against a party when politically neccesary.

Come on, anything anyone manages to utter after such a missile attack can't be taken seriously. This unreal cry for help by the palestinians has nothing to do with the ICC. There is just one immediate lesson after this attack: No goings about town in Israel. It will get worse. And how will it end?

Actually right now the combined forces of LGF could probably defeat the military of the EU

EU-Military Contributing Forces:

The Franco-German Brigade
French contribution: EMF2 (Etat-Major de forces Nr2)
German contribution: 10th Armoured Division
Spanish contribution 1st Mechanized Division
Belgian contribution: Operational Command Land (includes a Luxembourg Recce Company of 180 soldiers)

Happy slaughter!
Don't overdo it.

What, no fearsome Lichtensteinian and Andorran armies?

Damien Penny posted the circulation figures for various U.K papers on his blog a couple of weeks ago. If I remember correctly, the Daily Telegraph and the London Times have the best numbers, while the Independent and the Guardian were at the bottom. So Fay's right on this one. The paper with the biggest circulation by far was one of the tabloids, which makes sense when you remember they run pictures of topless ladies on Page 3. Boobs will win out over politics any day of the week.

As regards the LGF army, I'm ready to go, folks, except that if we invade Paris in August, no French will be there to surrender to us. Can we raid and pillage? I'd really like to loot Chanel:)

Robert Crawford writes:

From what I gather -- and, again, I could be completely wrong -- the biggest problems with Arab militaries are the same ones most Third World militaries have: too little education, too much concentration on status, poor maintenance, poor training, and no discipline. In essence, too many warriors and not enough soldiers.

Yep. Add to that the way generals are selected: rarely for merit (too dangerous), mostly for loyalty and "good standing" with the dictator-du-jour. Also, the concentration on status means that underlings are afraid to disagree with superiors or take initiative.

Arab armies today are mostly for domestic consumption: parades and repression. Having been deprived of their main benefactor -- the U.S.S.R. -- they couldn't last against any competent army. For the U.S. (especially backed by the "Anglosphere"), it wouldn't even be a contest.

Donna writes:

Boobs will win out over politics any day of the week.

You make it sound like they are mutually exclusive.

That is one thing I've wondered about the ICC. Exactly what "international law" will be enforced? UN resolutions? Treaties like the Geneva Convention?

*Whose* laws? Ones that our elected representatives voted for or our judicial branch vetted? Laws written with what rights in mind?

Any chance that the accused will get a Miranda warning? Legal counsel? Any APPEALS??

The ICC is just such a fscking joke, with the US and Israel as the literal punch lines.

An ICC prosecution for the Shehadeh attack isn't going to happen.

No surprise there. It appears to be a permanent war-crimes tribunal that purposefully removed the most common war crimes from its jurisdiction.

When it comes to international bodies, the law has never been an inpediment for targetting Israel.

The "I" will stand for Israel when this thing finally has its say. Like the UN, so long as the Arabs and Europe have control there will be no other actions worthy of their time.

If you disagree, check out CitCUN's site which has been catalouging allegations about the UN's abyssmal record of policing the world

E. Nough:
You're right. When you look at, say, James Traficant and Le Pen, for instance, it becomes clear that boobs and politics are not mutually exclusive. In fact, in the case of those two (and many others) they're actually synonymous. Although I wasn't thinking of those kinds of boobs when I wrote my first post.

On a related note:

United States to Block U.N. Vote on Torture Convention

[Link: www.washingtonpost.com...]

The states need to guard their sovereignty carefully in these times.

Wow.

The United States wants negotiations on the plan reopened, a move human rights groups say could kill the proposal, which they believe is essential to ending torture around the world. . .

The protocol, which has been under negotiation for a decade, would be an optional, supplementary document.

(emphasis mine)

What &^%$ing planet do these "human rights groups" live on, exactly?

...NPR reported tonight that the move to forestall the treaty was unsuccessful. I eagerly look forward to the day some UNinvited guests try to do a "visitation" of an American prison.

It looks like Europe is itching for a power showdown with the U.S. Oh, this ought to be lots of fun. I can hear the hysterics now.

EU-Military Contributing Forces:

The Franco-German Brigade
French contribution: EMF2 (Etat-Major de forces Nr2)
German contribution: 10th Armoured Division
Spanish contribution 1st Mechanized Division
Belgian contribution: Operational Command Land (includes a Luxembourg Recce Company of 180 soldiers)

Unfortunately, these boys will have to fly commercial since Europe has absoluttely no transport ability of its own. But. I'm sure that Cannes is very well protected...

I suggest we refer to it in future as the:
International Criminals' Court
The apostrophe makes all the difference.

By the way, in the context of extremely violent warfare, while it is appropriate to feel regret and even sorrow for the deaths of innocent non-combatants, surely sitting down and waiting for the enemy to knock on your door is simply not an option.

Re: #60, #67

Eric, if the Israeli investigation of the Shehadeh attack is anywhere near as thorough as the investigation of Sabra and Shatila - and indications at this point are that it will be - then it will be difficult for even a politicized court to credibly rule that it is not genuine. Also, given the recent controversy, the ICC will probably bend over backwards during its first few cases to show that it _isn't_ politicized.

At any rate, Article 17 isn't even necessary to prevent an ICC prosecution. As I mentioned in #57, Articles 12 and 13 will preclude the ICC from prosecuting alleged Israeli war crimes unless the Security Council refers the case - which means that the United States has to agree. The latest from Ha'aretz is that the US intends to oppose a Security Council _resolution_ concerning the attack, and if it won't agree to a resolution then it certainly won't permit a prosecution.

DZ - yes, the ICC statute does provide a right to counsel and an appeal process. The procedural safeguards of the ICC actually aren't that bad, although I don't think the pretrial screening process is as good as what the American military justice system has. The main problem with the ICC is that the elements of the prosecutable crimes are vaguely defined, which means that it will largely be up to the judges to decide what's criminal and what isn't. I don't think that a panel of judges ought to unilaterally define international law.

Bossman, I just don't understand how someone can be both for the American-Israeli War on Islamists and a Chomsky fan at the same damn time!
Chomsky is anti-US, anti-War, Blame America First, Marxism rules, etc.etc.etc.

You'd better make up your mind, because idealogically, you can't have it both ways!

There's been a lot of Israeli babies killed, and I don't see the Israelis waving their dead bodies around in the air for a photo op. Nor do I see the media interested in publishing grisly front page photos of dead Israeli children.
It is a shame those people were killed. But it's also a shame Shehada has masterminded the deaths of over a hundred Israelis in suicide bomb attacks that targeted innocent civilians. If he hadn't done that, he and those other people would be alive today. Taking him out will almost certainly save more lives than it cost. You don't let a serial killer walk free because he might not kill again.
I remain baffled as to why we are supposed to feel especially sorry for the Palestinians crying over their dead children--children killed by accident--when they've been killing Israeli children by the dozens, even deliberately shooting them in their beds.
It's sad those Arab children died, but it's just not the same.
As for this "coming in the middle of talks," there have been "talks" going on for forty years. Yes, the PA claims they were "about to stop the attacks and now they cannot promise this will happen." I respectfully suggest they are lying sacks of shit and they had no intention of promising any such thing, and even if they had, Hamas has flat out said they would never, ever stop until "all the Jews are dead and the the Zionist state is destroyed." Period.
Bottom line--this is war, the Israelis have had a staggering amount of patience, and there is nothing special about this attack--except the media likes dead Arab kids and the Palestinians never miss a PR opportunity. This ICC threat is just more revolting PR, and the media are delighted to snap at the bait.

28 suicide bombing attacks, not counting the ones that failed or were prevented, against civilian targets in less than seven months.

This is an unprecedented phenomenon in the history of warfare. (Don't mention the Tamil Tigers suiciders--they average about two attacks a year, and theirs are primarily against military and government targets, not ice-cream parlors.)

This is not much of a contribution to the history of civilization.

But guess who's screaming to the ICC?

Can the ICC prosecute for mind-numbing hypocrisy?

Eric the CR writes:

"an elite shock bicycle-mounted unit lead by Mr. LGF himself, Charles."

Can I volunteer as his Roberto Heras? I CAN climb, you know!

Can the ICC prosecute for mind-numbing hypocrisy?

No, that's what Israel and the U.S. are for. We'll prosecute with daisy cutters if necessary.

What about Saddam Hussain (Halabja in 1988), Suharto (East Timor 1975 - 2000) and late Hafez Assad of Syria (Hama in 1982). And what about Alia Izetbegovic, whom Bosnian Serbs try to indict for war crimes in former Yugoslavia ? All above darlings are moslem. As far as I know nobody ever bothered them.

Too late for those, not that anybody would have cared anyway.

Article 11: [i]The Court has jurisdiction only with respect to crimes committed after the entry into force of this Statute. [/i]

Jonathan: The Crimes described in the Statute of Rome will and are definited democratly by the Chamber of Member States.

Jonathan,

I'm not sure why you believe that the courrt will be basically fair. Other international institutions have never been fair wrt Israel or the US. What makes you think that this one will be different?

Tim,

The crimes are NOT defined democratically. For tha you need, at least some sort of proportional representation, and the voting members have to be democracies themselves. A buch of dictatorships voting on a law will not get you the same result.

The idea is to win the war against terrorism and Islamofascism, not prove you have an F-16 capable of blowing up a few buildings.

You seem to be "dodiging" the issue. War isn't a "mine-is-bigger-than-yours" pissing contest. To paraphrase Patten, the purpose of war is to make the other son-of-a-bitch die for his country. Mr. Shit-head-a died for his. Mission accomplished.

As for the civilians killed in the strike, the Geneva Convention is very clear. If you are a combatant hiding among civilians, you are responsible for their safety. Actually, I hope the ICC reviews this case. If they throw it out, it will indicate that they may possibly follow international law. If they accept it, it will prove they are corrupt out of the starting gate.

Mr. Shit-head-a is responsible for those deaths. Of course if you apply Palestinian logic in reverse, Israel would have been justified in striking that building even if Mr. Shit-head-a was not present

definitely not surprised. Just as each Security Council or other UN condemnation is predetermined by those refuting Israel's existence, this script was written before the ICC's official launch on July 1, 2002.

For my money, one Australia is worth the entire effete, IslamoFascist-pandering European continent:

[Link: theaustralian.news.com.au...]

re: Jennie Taliaferro

Re suicide attacks:

the Tamil Tigers (LTTE) have committed over 230, or over double that of the "palestinians".
Of course, that is a dubious achievement.

What happened to my post #88?

The Tamil Tigers have indeed launched more suicide attacks than the Palestinians, but they've been doing it for 20 years, and they almost always target military and government targets. The difference is the rate and the objective: nobody--NOBODY--has ever executed 28 (at least) suicide bombings against civilians in less than seven months, or anything that even approached that rate.

Also, the Tamil Tigers were not financed and protected by the European governments... (just India)

Meanwhile, back on the continent, the European Court of "Human Rights" leaves no stone unturned in its quest to free Jew-killers.

"Nazi Collaborator Wins Court Challenge on French Trial"

[Link: www.nytimes.com...]

I assume that we can expect the same attitude from the ICC.

Great-

Arent those the same froggies that still hate Capt Dreyfus?

The French are collaborators, pure and simple. Yesterday they got on their knees for the Germans, today they bend over for the Arabs.

The biggest myth is that they are simply cowards. If only that was the case.

Donna V/Pete/Julie

Here's the answer to who really reads the Guardian:

[Link: www.spectator.co.uk...]

Amy writes:

For my money, one Australia is worth the entire effete, IslamoFascist-pandering European continent.

Well, Australia is itself a continent. :-) But I second that. Give me the U.S., Canada, Britain, Australia, and Israel vs. the mob of Arabs and their patrons in Euro parliaments any day. No contest. Having Russia and India on our side is a bonus. Talk about piling on.

What is interesting (especially in light of the article Amy referenced) is just how much of European foreign policy seems to be dictated by plain ol' greed. Policies towards Iraq and Iran, for example, seem to be dictated mostly by access to oil and large markets for European corporations, human rights violations be damned.

Now I don't mean to imply that U.S. policy is all principle -- Saudi Arabia nixes that argument pronto -- but wasn't Europe supposed to have built a socialist paradise, where they have reigned in the Evil Influence of Big Corporations? Isn't it the U.S. where there is Too Much Corporate Power? So why is it that Euro governments seem to be their corporations' bitches? Why did the Iraqi government even think that lowering Australian wheat imports by $400 million would get the Aussies to roll over? Where did they get this idea? Maybe from the French, who helped Iraq build that nuclear power plant at Osirak? (Way to go on that, by the way, France.) Or the Russians, now building one in Iran?

Just sayin', is all.

At least the Russians are denoucing prejudice...

"Putin, Denouncing Prejudice, Meets With Victim of Bombing"

[Link: www.nytimes.com...]

(Unfotunately, this episode will be troublesome if Russia ever wants to join the EU, since it goes against every concievable European standard)

BTW, Australia has its own peace-loving muslims - and lefties eager to tongue-polish their anuses (ani?).

Interesting story, Q.

On a related note, James Taranto quotes something equally appalling on his site:

One reason for the high number of rapes by Muslims, explained the professor, was that in their native countries "rape is scarcely punished," since Muslims "believe that it is women who are responsible for rape." The professor's conclusion was not that Muslim men living in the West needed to adjust to Western norms, but the exact opposite: "Norwegian women must realize that we live in a multicultural society and adapt themselves to it."

Unbe-fucking-lievable. (No @^%! symbols this time.)

Fay: (re #95)

Figures! After I've read an article in the Guardian I usually feel like killing someone too. The author.

E.Nough:
Yes, it really is fucking unbelievable! We're supposed to adapt to Muslim culture and wear bedsheets in our own countries to avoid rape? I'll bet Professor Jackass is a real hit with the ladies.

To me, it's another sign that multiculturism is collapsing under the weight of its own illogic. The all-cultures-are-equal stance inevitably crashes with
1: The conviction of other cultures (no prizes for guessing which one I'm thinking of) that their own beliefs should be the lodestar of all humanity.
2. Feminism. Look at what a fool Gloria Steinem has made of herself denouncing a war against a regime where women were executed in stadiums for committing adultery. Apparently lighting candles and praying to the Earth Goddess are much better ways of helping the Afgan women.

P.S. Fay, thanks for the link to the Spectator. Made me wonder what our mass murderers are reading. If Charles Manson has access to a computer, I'll bet he's a big fan of Indymedia. And if Hannibal Lechter was real, he'd undoubtably subscribe to the NYT!

Julie,

I'll be your accomplice. Have you ever found a way to e-mail the editor?

I would love to send him some thoughts.

I got into a whole e-mail thing with Jamie Gold at LA Times. The lamest responses you've ever seen. I was complaining about the bias, and he (or she, I don't know), replied, citing 3 examples of possible misrepresentation of facts. They don't get it because, try as the might (example: CNN) they just can't keep the pretense up for very long.

I love this...

[Link: story.news.yahoo.com...]

It's totally unrelated, by the way, but it made me somewhat happy.

Well, we're not a real army.

We're the folk song army. Every one of us cares. We all have poverty, war and injustice, unlike the rest of you squares!

zulubaby:
Here is the contacts page for the Guardian:

[Link: www.guardian.co.uk...]

Zulubaby: I've started going straight to the LA Times crossword. It's the only way to avoid being pissed off first thing in the morning. Between Scheer, Huseein Ibish, and the gang of pro-pal gals, they're on the fast track to being Guardian wannabees. (I'm surprised they didn't photo-shop some halos around their beloved Palestininan terrorists in the recent sunday magazine homage. Too bad the photographer didn't feel the need to photograph the hostages, or the empty booze bottles and trashed quarters the terrorists left behind. So. Can we add Mr. Scheer, Tracy Wilkerson, et al to the list?

Fay, thank you. Not that I imagine I will have much impact on those pieces of crap at The Guradian, but I may want to share my thoughts with them anyway.

Julie,
I will not buy the LA Times ever again. I used to buy it every day - no more.

And as far as lists go, Wilkenson is a definite, as is Ashleigh Banfield, Sheila McVicar, the War Slut Amanpour...it goes on but those are my favorites.

Re: #83, #84

Eric, there are several reasons why I think the ICC would be basically fair, or at least not too blatantly unfair, to an Israeli accused of war crimes.

First, the ICC is a court rather than an overtly political forum. Courts - unlike, say, NGO forums -have rules and procedures, and judges have to justify their conclusions with law and evidence rather than being free to rule as their biases dictate.

Now, I'm not naive enough to believe that courts always follow their own rules, or that judges never let their politics influence their decisions. However, if they do so too blatantly, they lose all credibility. Does anyone accept, for instance, the verdicts of the Soviet purge trials or the Nazi courts as credible? The ICC, as a new and controversial court, is very concerned with credibility, and its members certainly don't want to give the United States a reason to say "I told you so." Thus, I doubt that the ICC would accept a case that is obviously beyond its jurisdiction, or rule in a manner that is obviously inconsistent with the evidence.

Second, the majority of countries that have ratified (as opposed to signed) the ICC instrument are democracies with a strong tradition of the rule of law. Also, the people they appoint to the court will probably be distinguished judges and lawyers with long careers behind them. Some of these judges - maybe even most of them - will no doubt be biased against Israel. However, as lawyers who have been educated and trained in democratic legal systems, they will also have an ingrained judicial ethic that will incline them away from making political rulings. Not all of them will be guided by this ethic - there's always a Baltasar Garzon somewhere - but the majority will. If you don't believe this, remember that the courts of Belgium - which is arguably a more anti-Israeli country than France - threw out a war crimes indictment against Ariel Sharon on jurisdictional grounds. If Belgian judges can do this, then so can the ICC.

Third, the experience of other international courts, starting with Nuremberg, has generally been a positive one. The tribunals for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia have done a pretty good job within the limits of their resources, and they've ruled in favor of some pretty unsavory characters when the evidence dictated. I don't see why the ICC would be different.

There's certainly a risk of bias in the ICC, and there's a risk that judges might let their opinions slant their view of the evidence in close cases. I doubt, though, that the ICC would issue blatantly political rulings in cases that _aren't_ close.

Tim, the elements of war crimes in the Rome Statute have _already_ been decided in a "democratic" manner. The draft elements available at the ICC web site were developed by a Preparatory Committee at which all the nations that signed the treaty were represented. Despite this democratic decision-making process, the committee came up with some very vague definitions - so vague that it's nearly impossible in some cases to tell what is a war crime and what isn't. In fact, the vagueness of the draft elements may be precisely _because_ of the "democratic" character of the drafting process - it's unlikely that so many countries with such diverse conceptions of human rights would be able to agree on more specific elements. I doubt the assembly of state parties will make things any more specific in the future - which will leave it up to the judges. This, rather than the potential for bias (which is present in all criminal justice systems) is my major problem with the ICC.

Re: the Guardian subthread

I'm amazed at the way the Guardian has somehow become a symbol of anti-Israeli bias in the British press, given that the Independent and the BBC are much worse. The two most anti-Israeli figures in British journalism - Robert Fisk and Phil Reeves (of Jenin malreporting fame) - both work for the Intifada ^H^H^H Independent. The hard news coverage of the Independent and the BBC also leads the pack in uncritical acceptance of Palestinian assertions as fact.

The Guardian doesn't do this nearly as often - their articles are frequently critical of Israel, but they also take a critical view of Palestinian claims. During the Jenin battle, for instance, several Guardian articles portrayed Israeli soldiers sympathetically, an a post-battle analysis concluded that many of the early Palestinian accounts were facially incredible and should never have been believed. There have been complaints about the Guardian's coverage from the pro-Palestinian side as well as the pro-Israeli side.

Sure, the Guardian publishes lots of pro-Palestinian op-ed pieces. So fucking what? The op-ed pages are speaker's corner; access to them shouldn't be restricted by point of view. There have been pro-Israeli op-ed pieces in the Guardian as well.

Those who haven't completely made up their mind about the Guardian might be interested in reading the recent three-part series by the readers' editor, in which he analyzes the paper's Middle East coverage. Several of the reporters who answered his survey clearly believe that the Palestinians have a case (which they do, let's not kid ourselves) and that Israeli policies are sometimes heavy-handed and counterproductive (which is also true). These views probably incline these reporters to be critical of Israel. However, it's equally clear from their responses that the reason for their criticism is that they want Israel to be a better place, not that they want it to disappear. IMO Israel is a mature enough country to take that sort of criticism, and the motivations of the Guardian staff aren't the same as what motivates the likes of Robert Fisk.

You're kidding, right?

Re Johnathan Edelstein #98

The tribunals for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia have done a pretty good job within the limits of their resources

I guess that depends how you define what a "good job" is. If you define it as standing by and doing nothing while hundreds of thousands are butchered and then when the killing is over waving your finger with a shame-on-you smugness, then maybe they did a pretty good job. I would define a "good job" as actually stopping the genocide.

You people still don't get it. Only military intervention will stop a genocide. The EU did nothing about Yugoslavia until the US stepped in. Likewise the ICC will not save a single life. How can they without an enforcement mechanism? I doubt the Rwandans would have given any thought about the ICC as they hacked and clubbed each other to death.

Here's a hint of what we can expect from the ICC based on its idealogical predecesors:

[Link: www.pbs.org...]

April 21, 1994 The U.N. cuts its forces from 2,500 to 250 following the murder of ten Belgian soldiers assigned to guard the moderate Hutu prime minister, Agathe Uwiliyingimana. The prime minister is killed and the Belgians are disarmed, tortured, and shot and hacked to death. They had been told not to resist violently by the U.N. force commander, as this would have breached their mandate.

April 30, 1994 The U.N. Security Council spends eight hours discussing the Rwandan crisis. The resolution condemning the killing omits the word "genocide." Had the term been used, the U.N. would have been legally obliged to act to "prevent and punish" the perpetrators. Meanwhile, tens of thousands of refugees flee into Tanzania, Burundi and Zaire. In one day 250,000 Rwandans, mainly Hutus fleeing the advance of the RPF, cross the border into Tanzania.

As I've asked before, when is a genocide not a genocide? When you have to do something about it.

Re: #111

HA, read my post again. What I said was that the international _courts_ for Rwanda and Yugoslavia have done a decent job dealing with the aftermath of war crimes, not that the UN as a whole did a good job of stopping them. It is not the job of an international court to stop genocide before it happens, any more than it is the job of a domestic court to prevent crime. Stopping crime from happening is the work of the police - or, on the international scale, military forces. The courts are there to clean up afterward, and I stand by my statement that the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda tribunals haven't done badly given their limited budgets and jurisdictional issues.

Jonathan #112

I understand your point. However a court without an enforcement mechanism has no utility. The US military is the only force in the world that can stop a genocide. There is a big difference between the Yugoslavian tribunal which has a specific mission, and a standing tribunal such as the ICC which will eventually be a court in search of a crime. We have seen the nature of international bodies such as the UN and we know they will become politicized and corrupted. If the US is subject to the ICC, I believe this will actually increase the likelihood of genocide because the US will be less inclined to intervene in situations where national interests are not at stake. What do you think it is that keeps Saddam Hussein from invading his neighbors or gassing his people. The US military or the ICC?