Will The Netherlands be the new target for US Invasion?

Fiction, movies, alternate history, humor, and other non-research topics related to WWII.

Moderator: Commissar D, the Evil

r. burns
Member
Posts: 48
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2002 10:02 pm

Re: Well ....

Post by r. burns »

FanOfGermanMilitaryMight wrote: The civilized world should always be ready for these sorts of eventualities, and when it does happen, it's only because there's a serious problem, and the problem is endemic to the system.
How right you are...called an election year. Something the Iraqi people might enjoy someday. These abuses happened last year. The investigation began in January.
We can only hope that these poor souls can somehow survive this abuse and return to the normal lives they led. If they can't I suppose they can make a fortune in the next Jackass film. How about "G. I.s gone wild"?
User avatar
Christian
Patron
Posts: 1244
Joined: Fri Sep 27, 2002 6:24 am

Post by Christian »

Apart from the USA, none of the major powers have a "The Hague invasion act". Only Washington allows its military to attack fellow NATO country, one of the coalition forces in Iraq, to be attacked if the ICC tries an American for war crimes.
1. China did not sign the ICC treaty and its military has no global responsibilities.

2. Russia did not ratify the treaty into law and its military again has no global presence and operations.

3. The U.S. has not ratified the treaty either, however in 2002 it had military personnel in over 100 countries and in 2003 over 400,000 members served outside of the country (Afghanistan, Iraq, security treaty commitments, peace keeping missions, etc.). In short, Congress felt that US military personnel was a much greater risk from "politically motivated prosecutions".

Any of you who might be interested in details about the U.S. Policy Regarding the International Criminal Court, check out the following document:

http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/13389.pdf

Christian
User avatar
Christian
Patron
Posts: 1244
Joined: Fri Sep 27, 2002 6:24 am

Post by Christian »

How right you are...called an election year. Something the Iraqi people might enjoy someday. These abuses happened last year. The investigation began in January.
We can only hope that these poor souls can somehow survive this abuse and return to the normal lives they led. If they can't I suppose they can make a fortune in the next Jackass film. How about "G. I.s gone wild"?
That was bad! :D

Christian
Timo
Patron
Posts: 1056
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2002 4:32 am
Location: Former member

Post by Timo »

Christian wrote:3. The U.S. has not ratified the treaty either, however in 2002 it had military personnel in over 100 countries and in 2003 over 400,000 members served outside of the country (Afghanistan, Iraq, security treaty commitments, peace keeping missions, etc.). In short, Congress felt that US military personnel was a much greater risk from "politically motivated prosecutions"
And this is enough to threaten The Netherlands? :? And Americans still wonder why people all over the world dislike their attitiude.
Former member
User avatar
Stefan
Banned
Posts: 433
Joined: Fri Sep 27, 2002 3:54 am
Location: Deutschland

Post by Stefan »

Piet, Timo: just don't worry, Bush is way too stupid to find the Netherlands on a world map. He would end up invading the Vatican. :wink:
User avatar
Groscurth
Contributor
Posts: 332
Joined: Wed Oct 30, 2002 4:49 pm
Location: Couloir Gervasuti,east side of Mont Blanc du Tacul.

Re: Well ....

Post by Groscurth »

[quote="FanOfGermanMilitaryMight"]It's a good laugh on the Yanks; but he is essentially right, though maybe he lets off Bush a little too lightly. It's quite amazing how Bush and Blair expect people to believe that what has happened are freak occurrences by freak individuals. The civilized world should always be ready for these sorts of eventualities, and when it does happen, it's only because there's a serious problem, and the problem is endemic to the system. In other words, if the media hadn't got a hold of those pictures, neither the Americans or the British would have bothered to change their ways. It's only because they got caught ....[/quote]

Well said, shows us again the importance of a free press and a less BS press then the one that gives more attention to Hollywood-, rock- and sportcelebreties lousy lives then to the real things that matter.
-"Two things are unendless: the universe and human stupidity. But I am not so sure about the universe" Einstein
-Question: "Why do mountain climbers rope themselves together?" Answer: "To prevent the sensible ones from going home!" Anonymous
User avatar
Groscurth
Contributor
Posts: 332
Joined: Wed Oct 30, 2002 4:49 pm
Location: Couloir Gervasuti,east side of Mont Blanc du Tacul.

Post by Groscurth »

[quote="Christian"][.

3. The U.S. has not ratified the treaty either, [u]however[/u] in 2002 it had military personnel in over 100 countries and in 2003 over 400,000 members served outside of the country (Afghanistan, Iraq, security treaty commitments, peace keeping missions, etc.). In short, Congress felt that US military personnel was a much greater risk from "politically motivated prosecutions".


Christian[/quote]


So you think that bringing the responsables of torturing in Iraq,+the killing of people tortured to death, (don't forget that the real "specialists" don't take videotapes, we only see the bodies of their victims afterworths in plastic) before UN justice in the country of the US best allie and friend: Holland (in fact the US poodle or dominion, that friendly!) is a "politically motivated prosecution". Wow kiddo you are so naive and such a Bush fan that you forget the meaning of civilasation and humanity for your own agenda. So the red cross is politicaly motivated (they made with H.R.Watch and Amnesty the first repports about torturing and killing and gave the number of 90% innocents in the US torture camps) and anti Bush following your opinion?

Ridiculous...join the ones that defend the concentration camps and support camp gard annimals like Ilse Koch and her superiors. Your opinion belongs there and is in fact the same.. They also found torturing of innocents legal and "ordered by their superiors" for the greater Reich just like the US does this for the greater US.

It is obvious why they did not ratifie: because they have torturing as a standard, not as a exaption and know that they violate, just like China and on the same level, the human rights. Don't you ever take the worth freedom or democracy in your mouth because you don't have a clue of what you are talking about, just like the Nazi party member on his farm in Bavaria...:D
-"Two things are unendless: the universe and human stupidity. But I am not so sure about the universe" Einstein
-Question: "Why do mountain climbers rope themselves together?" Answer: "To prevent the sensible ones from going home!" Anonymous
User avatar
Christian
Patron
Posts: 1244
Joined: Fri Sep 27, 2002 6:24 am

Post by Christian »

Code: Select all

And this is enough to threaten The Netherlands?[quote]

When did a U.S. administration ever threaten the Netherlands with an invasion?  While I doubt that you actually read the law, there is no specific reference to invading The Hague.  In fact, the description of this law as the "Hague Invasion Act" was coined by opponents with the clear intention to embarass the U.S.

While commons sense seems to be in very short supply with many contributors on this forum, the fact remains that no U.S. administration would ever consider such an act.

Cheers

Christian

[/quote]
Timo
Patron
Posts: 1056
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2002 4:32 am
Location: Former member

Post by Timo »

That's supposed to be a relief? "Well, we've got an act that specifically allows our armed forces to attack you if you prefer to follow international rules and agreements instead of the rules we want to force upon you, despite the fact that we're both NATO members and have always been close political friends. But don't worry, we've got the act but we'll never use it. We've got the very sensible Bush administration."

You don't get the point, do you? The problem is not if the act will be used or not. The problem is that it exists in the first place! But that's just typical. More and more people dislike Americans for their international politics and still most Americans wonder why.

What, in your opinion, will the Bush administration do when somewere in the future an American serviceman is held in custody in The Hague?
Former member
User avatar
Christian
Patron
Posts: 1244
Joined: Fri Sep 27, 2002 6:24 am

Post by Christian »

Groscurth,

I am most certainly not going to get into a game of denying things which I have never stated in the first place. I already condemned the abuses in Iraq and support 100% the prosecution and punishment of perpetrators. If the U.S. military would have been smart they would have listened to the Red Cross and addressed such concerns right away.

From a point of view of comparing these abuses with some of the horrific acts carried out by Nazi Germany, sorry I can't agree.


Salutations,

Christian
User avatar
Piet Duits
Associate
Posts: 726
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2002 1:51 pm
Location: Oudenbosch, Nederland

Post by Piet Duits »

Christian,

About the last thing you mentioned: you are totally right. WW2 and the current actions can not be compared with each other, and has nothing to do with the topic I started.

Like Timo mentioned above it is more about the rediculous act the US had made. I suspect very "wise" men have made the act, and thus are responsible for it. If the US has no intention to invade us, why do they have written the act in the first place.

In my personal opinion there's also no need for readers to start defending themselves with "Proud to be this, or proud to be that" phrases.
OK, I am known for the fact that I am not a very pro-USA person. Not because I hate the US, more because I very dislike the fact that the USA rules the world as if it is property of the US.
Remember the phrase: if you are not with us, you are against us?
That would implify that if the USA would crash into the sea, the complete world should crash into the sea as well -that is, all who are with the USA.
I can only speak for us dutchies, and we are not that stupid to crash into the sea :D

So, to get back on topic: I have not read the actual act. I admit that. But I stand by my point that the position the USA has taken against this act is rediculous.
Nur für den Dienstgebrauch
User avatar
Christian
Patron
Posts: 1244
Joined: Fri Sep 27, 2002 6:24 am

Post by Christian »

You don't get the point, do you? The problem is not if the act will be used or not. The problem is that it exists in the first place! But that's just typical. More and more people dislike Americans for their international politics and still most Americans wonder why.
Please don't start lecturing Timo.

The fact remains that the U.S. administration is not supporting the ICC and the core reasons motivating this position are not without merit. I already provide numerous links and information about this issue and if you care to discuss a specific point, I would be interested in your views.

In respect to the ASPA it is without a doubt a controversial piece of legislation however Congress felt the need to put it in place. While I can appreciate the impact this law might have on some countries where U.S. servicemen are involved in operations, I also view this continued issue about "invading The Hague" as empty rhetoric.
What, in your opinion, will the Bush administration do when somewere in the future an American serviceman is held in custody in The Hague?
First of all, I doubt that we will ever see this day. The ICC has no enforcement power and its role can only be considered as marginal. None of the big military powers today support/ratified the ICC treaty (China, Russian Federation, U.S.). However, let's assume that this might happen one day, I believe that the U.S. would have no other choice than to work through diplomatic channels to secure the release of a U.S. citizen.

Cheers,

Christian
User avatar
Christian
Patron
Posts: 1244
Joined: Fri Sep 27, 2002 6:24 am

Post by Christian »

I suspect very "wise" men have made the act, and thus are responsible for it. If the US has no intention to invade us, why do they have written the act in the first place.
Piet,

Good comments.

Like any piece of legislation, I believe that there is some good and some bad in it. How is that for a diplomatic answer? :D

Here are the key provisions:

* The act restricts U.S. participation in any peacekeeping mission and prohibits military assistance for those nations that ratify the ICC Treaty, with the exception of NATO member countries and other major allies (Australia, Egypt, Israel, Japan, the Republic of Korea, and New Zealand were cited as members of this category). In addition, it authorizes the President to use "all means necessary and appropriate" to bring about the release from captivity of U.S. or Allied personnel detained or imprisoned against their will by or on behalf of the Court.

* The President may waive this restriction for countries that ratify the treaty if he reports to Congress that such cooperation is in the national security interest of the U.S. and the country has entered into an agreement with the United States protecting U.S. personnel from extradition to the Court.

* The U.S. may not participate in any peacekeeping mission unless the President certifies to Congress that the Security Council has exempted U.S. Armed Forces members from prosecution and each country in which U.S. personnel will be present is either not a Party to the ICC or has an agreement with the U.S. exempting U.S. Armed Forces members from prosecution; or that the U.S. has taken other appropriate steps to guarantee that U.S. Armed Forces members will not be prosecuted.

* No governmental entity in the United States, including State and local governments or any court, may cooperate with the International Criminal Court in matters such as arrest and extradition of suspects, execution of searches and seizures, taking of evidence, seizure of assets, and similar matters.

* No agent of the ICC may conduct in the US any investigative activity. The President should use the U.S. voice and vote at the Security Council to ensure that each resolution authorizing any U.N. peacekeeping operation permanently exempts members of the U.S. armed forces from prosecution by the ICC.

* No classified national security information can be transferred directly or indirectly to the ICC or to countries that are Party to the Rome Statute.

* The President is required to transmit two reports on allied command arrangements. The first must describe the degree to which members of Armed Forces may be placed under the command or operational control of foreign military officers subject to ICC jurisdiction and evaluate the degree of risk in such arrangements. The second must describe modifications to command and operational control arrangements with allies to reduce such risk.


In my opinion Piet, the key problem comes from the fact that the previous administration signed on to the Treaty and at the same time issued recommendations against presenting it to Congress for ratification. This combined with the fact that the U.S. is involved in operations around the world, seems to have pushed lawmakers into action. Unfortunately, as it is always the case, lawmakers produced a legislation that leaves many questions unanswered. They were very careful not to define the meaning of "all means necessary and appropriate", however I am confident that invading The Hague does not fit the bill.

Christian
Locked