Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Leafsnail]

I'm sure George Bush pulling out of the ICC had nothing to do with him starting an illegal war one year later.  Suggesting anything like that would just be cynical.

[Kogan Loloklam]

We aren't talking about soldiers, which are allowed in foreign countries with elaborate treaties that soldiers who enter those countries get day long briefings on.
We are also not talking about some kangaroo court from some two-bit power with an anti-American leaning.

We are talking about international courts convened under internationally recognized norms.

Laws exist for a reason, and exemptions for certain groups is always bad. If the law isn't good enough to apply to everyone, then there isn't a need for that law. Celebrities and powerful countries shouldn't be above the law, they should instead be reversed, no special warnings or exemptions because others who are thinking of the consequences for following a law look towards them, the role models, first.

I deplore us deploying troops to Libya. They don't want or need them. Like I said earlier, 30 years was too long for them. From what I can tell, only France is sending in an appropriate response. Medical teams and equipment, No soldiers.

The protesters already defeated the best Qaddafi have. I expect to see reports that he was killed sometime in the next 10 hours. If troops land in Libya from any other country, it won't be to help the protest, but to install a puppet government. The Benghazi intern government has been saying to everyone to stay the hell out of it, so it really shouldn't be taken any other way.

(Edit: By the way, I have recently discovered that the Libyans really, really hate being called rebels. The reason for this appears to be related to the fact that Qaddafi's government is sold as the "revolution". It has negative connections. As such, I have edited my statements to be a bit more respectful.)

[Sir Pseudonymous]

We aren't talking about soldiers, which are allowed in foreign countries with elaborate treaties that soldiers who enter those countries get day long briefings on.
We are also not talking about some kangaroo court from some two-bit power with an anti-American leaning.

We are talking about international courts convened under internationally recognized norms.

Laws exist for a reason, and exemptions for certain groups is always bad. If the law isn't good enough to apply to everyone, then there isn't a need for that law. Celebrities and powerful countries shouldn't be above the law, they should instead be reversed, no special warnings or exemptions because others who are thinking of the consequences for following a law look towards them, the role models, first.

And it is the responsibility of governments, first and foremost, to protect and care for their own people, not to sell them out to foreign powers. Regardless of guilt, it is the responsibility of the government to shield their citizens from a foreign court. If they are a weak country, than they are simply unable to apply the sort of pressure necessary, and so are unable to hold up their moral obligations to their people.

I deplore us deploying troops to Libya. They don't want or need them. Like I said earlier, 30 years was too long for them. From what I can tell, only France is sending in an appropriate response. Medical teams and equipment, No soldiers.

We're what? I thought the decided stance was "we don't care, we're not wasting resources deploying troops"?

The protesters already defeated the best Qaddafi have. I expect to see reports that he was killed sometime in the next 10 hours. If troops land in Libya from any other country, it won't be to help the protest, but to install a puppet government. The Benghazi intern government has been saying to everyone to stay the hell out of it, so it really shouldn't be taken any other way.

(Edit: By the way, I have recently discovered that the Libyans really, really hate being called rebels. The reason for this appears to be related to the fact that Qaddafi's government is sold as the "revolution". It has negative connections. As such, I have edited my statements to be a bit more respectful.)

They can call themselves whatever the hell they want, they're still revolutionaries. "Protesters" don't carry out an armed revolution.

[PTTG??]

A nation also has a duty to protect it's citizens from criminals. Just because a crime took place in a different country doesn't mean it didn't happen. And ultimately, all people are made safer when an international criminal is captured. Co-operating with a neighboring country just makes sense.

[olemars]

If only that was his one error.  The world works in the way he tells us, he is permanently schooling his fellow ignorant b12ers and telling them what the facts really are and why everyone falls into a very simple category/stereotype he can sum up in 2 paragraphs. 

Anyway, I'm back to work and I need to figure out a non invasive, sober and not too distracting way to keep up with the news.

IRC clients don't work so I might just have to use a browser, which sucks, twitter is now working, but it's too flashy, I'd be better of with a plaintext feed with no images. Ideas?

Both the Guardian and BBC News have fairly unobtrusive and frequently updated live feeds on their webpages.

[Kogan Loloklam]

And it is the responsibility of governments, first and foremost, to protect and care for their own people,

Correct

not to sell them out to foreign powers. Regardless of guilt, it is the responsibility of the government to shield their citizens from a foreign court. If they are a weak country, than they are simply unable to apply the sort of pressure necessary, and so are unable to hold up their moral obligations to their people.

Here is where you run into where you are wrong. Protecting some people, regardless of guilt, can and does come back and bite the ass of the majority. The government is not answerable to an individual. By protecting everyone in defiance of common practices for the rest of the international community, you set a precedent that your people can be judged differently. While you remain on top, this causes no problem. HOWEVER, nobody has ever remained on top. Furthermore, by complying to a set of international standards, you also create a framework with which to deal with other things that might be a threat to the safety of your own people.

We're what? I thought the decided stance was "we don't care, we're not wasting resources deploying troops"?

I guess they changed their minds. Perhaps it's just redeployment to enforce the no-fly zone. We'll see what they are doing soon.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Well, it finally happened. Gadaffi got remixed.

[Phmcw]

Intriguing development in Iran : http://www.irteb.com/unen.htm

Ho yes, another thing : no country have any right to act militarily in Libya. It's UNO decision alone.
By the way the protesters, revolutionary at this point, seems very confident right now.

[olemars]

What's with the dark grey playdough skin?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

What's with the dark grey playdough skin?

Gaddafi may or may not have made a pact with the devil to become an immortal zombie overlord. I imagine Pat Robertson could tell us for sure.

[Virex]

Intriguing development in Iran : http://www.irteb.com/unen.htm

Ho yes, another thing : no country have any right to act militarily in Libya. It's UNO decision alone.
By the way the protesters, revolutionary at this point, seems very confident right now.

In a case of military action, you don't ask for permission, you scare the hell out of anyone disagreeing with you... Plus if the revolutionary government or it's successor shows an unhealthy interest in "guided minarets" then I think it's in the best interest of the whole Mediterranean to intervene.

[SalmonGod]

And what if an American is falsely accused of such things abroad? They cannot be guaranteed a fair trial in some kangaroo court that just wants the distinction of lynching an American. If there is actual evidence against them, they should be tried in the US, or at the very least in another prominent country that's not just out to say "fuck you" to "the imperialist pigs." Anywhere else and it can only be a travesty of justice for the poor bastard. If you're talking about a soldier, then they're under the exclusive jurisdiction of the military, and believe it or not, those soldiers who actually committed crimes, are tried for them, and face harsher sentences than they would in a civilian court. Whatever backwater they're stationed in shouldn't have the authority to charge them with anything, nor should an international court, especially not if they're being charged for carrying out their orders.

Hey Pseudo.  I think people would have had less issue with your sentiments if you had started out like this.  Instead, you launched your disagreement with everyone else in the thread by calling the likes of Blackwater "petty criminals."

I also agree with you that it's ok (assuming one accepts the pretenses of war, which I don't, but still...) to prefer that soldiers be tried by military court in their own country, assuming the integrity of that court.  The problem is we're not talking about soldiers, or even U.S. citizens.  We're talking about mercenaries which were specifically hired to take advantage of the loophole that they are neither civilians nor soldiers and not legally held to any court at all, and can be made to do whatever we want no matter how horrible and get away with it.  As I understand, the majority of them were not U.S. citizens either, but, for example, people who formerly participated in Pinochet's death squads.  Blackwater, specifically, I know to have travelled all over the world seeking out unscrupulous but disciplined individuals to work for them. 

These kinds of operations are absolutely unforgivable, and your arguments do not apply to them.

[Phmcw]

In a case of military action, you don't ask for permission, you scare the hell out of anyone disagreeing with you... Plus if the revolutionary government or it's successor shows an unhealthy interest in "guided minarets" then I think it's in the best interest of the whole Mediterranean to intervene.

Only if you are a tyrant.
And pretty stupid : no legitimacy, take all the blame alone, destroy international justice, support all cost alone, and loose support everywhere.
To make that kind of move, you must be trying to pursuit an unfair objective that wouldn't be sanctioned by international community (such as stealing oil).

What the hell are you all talking about "justice". Since Iraq, America has fucked international justice like a cheap whore : the war was illegal in itself, torture has been widespread, the right of enemy fighters was never respected...  And Vietnam was pretty infamous too ("business as usual" for those who remember that).
So what are you talking about? Mercenary won't be judged for war crime in Libya? Did you fail to notice that they have near complete impunity in Iraq?
So yes, US enforce their impunity there to keep the precedent and justify the way they do things in Iraq. It's not a loophole, it's a feature.
International justice have been destroyed, and every countries waning to enforce it have been told to get lost.

[Virex]

You're grossly overestimating the willingness and abilities of the international community. If Italy would intervene in Libya to prevent a forced exodus across the Mediterranean or if Morocco would intervene to stabilize the region they may catch some flak but in the end trade relations are more important that the fate of a random country that is already useless to everyone. Plus, if one of them would need to wait for official permission they can wait till the Mediterranean has evaporated...


I also think you have a twisted sense of "justice." The amount of suffering caused by the American forces in Iraq is in no way comparable to the suffering that was caused by Saddam Hussein or the Islamists that are trying to blame every last drop of blood they shed themselves on the US and get their way because reporters who think differently have a tendency of finding their cars riddled with bullets. The problems in Iraq are due to rabidly violent groups who think they're going to heaven if they kill and maim as many people as possible. There is not even a political point to the bloodshed, it's just unguided genocide against everyone and no one in particular. And don't think it's just Iraq that's a problem, because Pakistani are about as likely to get violently murdered by random people who have a slightly different view on "justice" then most. It's just that in Iraq it's most visible because the US doesn't have a "bureau of covering suspect and inconvenient deaths up"

[Bouchart]

That link isn't working.