Blair and the ICC

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

The international criminal cout appointed its 18 judges today. It is up and running despite the best efforts of Bushco. Of course its highly unlikely that Bush will ever end up their having bullied most of the signatories into bilateral agreements sayignthat US citzen cannot be extradited to the ICC from their soil.

However Blair might if he goes to war without UN backing. Can anyone with a legal mind shed some light on this.

Its a great day for humanity when things like this get off the ground.

― Ed (dali), Tuesday, 11 March 2003 20:58 (twenty-three years ago)

one year passes...

I thought you meant the Internet Chess Club.

― Robbie Lumsden (Wallace Stevens HQ), Tuesday, 13 April 2004 13:03 (twenty-two years ago)

I thought it was this

― Dadaismus (Dada), Tuesday, 13 April 2004 13:09 (twenty-two years ago)

All you really need to know about political apathy is right here in this thread. Ed waits a year and then gets two flip answers about chess and cricket.

Bush and Blair are counting on people being this indifferent to their war crimes.

― Momus (Momus), Tuesday, 13 April 2004 15:12 (twenty-two years ago)

I never thought I'd say this, but Momus OTM. Hey, if Bush and Blair were actually held accountable to anyone other than the voters every four or five years they'd have been taken down several times in the last year alone.

It's a nice idea but if only the playing field were actually level.

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Tuesday, 13 April 2004 15:18 (twenty-two years ago)

Momus - sad but true.

I pass the current ICC building in The Hague on my way to work - a military barracks. The US haven't signed + are prepared to use force if any US citizen is brought before it ('Hague Invasion Act'). IIRC Michael Mansfield + some 'radical' lawyers were trying to get Blair prosecuted but the chances must be near zero. I would imagine the ICC needs to establish itself first and inditing Blair would be suicide.

― stevo (stevo), Tuesday, 13 April 2004 15:27 (twenty-two years ago)

should I feel guiltier for not clicking on this thread until now than I should had I not clicked on it at all?

― stevem (blueski), Tuesday, 13 April 2004 15:29 (twenty-two years ago)

All you really need to know about political apathy is right here in this thread. Ed waits a year and then gets two flip answers about chess and cricket.
Bush and Blair are counting on people being this indifferent to their war crimes.

I'm indifferent to yr pomposity but impressed by yr telepathic powers.

― Dadaismus (Dada), Wednesday, 14 April 2004 14:36 (twenty-two years ago)

I am irritated by your pomposity, Dada.

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Wednesday, 14 April 2004 14:44 (twenty-two years ago)

I'm going to write my Defense of Apathy.

It's really the only valid choice for the modern ~~loafer~~ intellectual.

― Robbie Lumsden (Wallace Stevens HQ), Wednesday, 14 April 2004 14:46 (twenty-two years ago)

OK so I'm pompous and flippant. Nice one.

― Dadaismus (Dada), Wednesday, 14 April 2004 14:46 (twenty-two years ago)

Not really.

― Tim (Tim), Wednesday, 14 April 2004 14:46 (twenty-two years ago)

Not really what?

― Dadaismus (Dada), Wednesday, 14 April 2004 14:48 (twenty-two years ago)

Not really a nice one.

― Tim (Tim), Wednesday, 14 April 2004 14:48 (twenty-two years ago)

Thank you for your contribution

― Dadaismus (Dada), Wednesday, 14 April 2004 14:50 (twenty-two years ago)

I wish I could say the same to you.

― Tim (Tim), Wednesday, 14 April 2004 14:53 (twenty-two years ago)

I can't compete with this rapier wit

― Dadaismus (Dada), Wednesday, 14 April 2004 14:54 (twenty-two years ago)

which war crimes? the UN authorized use of force. i suppose mugabe and kim jog il will be indicted tomorrow then? oh wait. we need to get the serious criminals first like tommy franks and rumsfeld and wolfowitz. it is funny that it is in belgium, one of the more brutal colonial powers in history.

― keith m (keithmcl), Wednesday, 14 April 2004 23:55 (twenty-two years ago)

we need to get the serious criminals first like tommy franks and rumsfeld and wolfowitz.

I'd be perfectly up for those last two in particular being taken down a peg.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 15 April 2004 01:18 (twenty-two years ago)

According to the US.gov page on UN resolution 1441, the resolution threatened 'Serious consequences' and stated that if Iraq failed to comply the Security council would 'convene immediately ... in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security'.

The council did reconvene but no authorisation for the use of force was obtained.

Any notion that the UN gave specific authorisation for the use of force is seriously deluded.

― Ed (dali), Thursday, 15 April 2004 06:24 (twenty-two years ago)

what are "serious consequences" supposed to entail?
the world will never know the outcome of a UN vote.

― duke year, Thursday, 15 April 2004 06:37 (twenty-two years ago)

What do Hans Blix and Richard Perle, the Pentagon and various MoD and Whitehall spooks, have in common? They are all now admitting that the Iraq war was fought illegally.

― Momus (Momus), Thursday, 15 April 2004 06:55 (twenty-two years ago)

who knew the pentagon was in britain? or that bushco aren't internationalists? thanks for the revelations momus!

― cinniblount (James Blount), Thursday, 15 April 2004 06:58 (twenty-two years ago)

harbinger of what i don't know, but that athens daily paper's top of the fold headline today (er, yesterday) was Bush: "Not Another Vietnam" which managed to provoke guffaws from even my more devout republican classmates/coworkers.

― cinniblount (James Blount), Thursday, 15 April 2004 07:01 (twenty-two years ago)

The Pentagon view is represented by Perle. My bad.

― Momus (Momus), Thursday, 15 April 2004 07:05 (twenty-two years ago)

the honest view is represented by perle, as the columbia professor notes there

― duke clam, Thursday, 15 April 2004 07:08 (twenty-two years ago)

"the honest view" apparently = "whatever adnan khashoggi pays me to say"

― cinniblount (James Blount), Thursday, 15 April 2004 07:12 (twenty-two years ago)

It's only 'honest' in the way it lays bare the atavistic vileness of the current US administration's mindset. You would be similarly 'honest' if you killed someone in a hit and run and said 'To be honest it doesn't really matter that much to me'.

― Momus (Momus), Thursday, 15 April 2004 07:13 (twenty-two years ago)

the equation of an avuncular appraisal of a legal situation to one of the value of a human life is very blankly ad hominem, and somewhat too expected for me to be offended.

anyways
"(Perle has a vacation home in the South of France)"

might be the real scoop there

― duke goodnite, Thursday, 15 April 2004 07:22 (twenty-two years ago)

an avuncular appraisal of a legal situation

Why 'avuncular', Dan? The Columbia professor quoted is an anti-war campaigner. Out of all the evidence in that article, you grasped at his adjective 'honest' as though it were some sort of vindication of the Bush regime. Now you're using this word 'avuncular' like the prof was offering Bush a cigar and patting him on the back.

― Momus (Momus), Thursday, 15 April 2004 07:34 (twenty-two years ago)

Or perhaps you meant that Richard Perle is your uncle?

― Momus (Momus), Thursday, 15 April 2004 07:37 (twenty-two years ago)

Widdle Dukey just saw the word written somewhere by clever people who knew its use and thought 'wow, one day I might be able to use this on an inteweb message board and my sheer effrontery will shock them all and win the day!' If indeed the series of chemical reactions inside the sack of meat and bones which is Dukey adds up to a common definition of 'thinking'.

(See dear, that's an ad hominem attack. Chiz for playing)

― suzy (suzy), Thursday, 15 April 2004 09:20 (twenty-two years ago)

you're right suze, i also said "equation," which i think is wrong. "equating"? help me out, brits. i don't know "chiz" either, but once i learn it i'll file it away for strategic sheer effrontery on inteweb message boards in the future

― duke bones, Thursday, 15 April 2004 16:37 (twenty-two years ago)

o wait is it "cheers"? must be. yeah with 'avuncular' i was referring to perle, who i think deserves the titular adornment. yet what we really have here is an instance of epistemological iteration, colored by the onset of drowsiness on my part, and thus my abject failure in winning the day. chiz.

― duke meat, Thursday, 15 April 2004 17:38 (twenty-two years ago)

twelve years pass...

http://www.wsj.com/articles/gambia-says-it-is-leaving-international-criminal-court-1477483387

― Mordy, Wednesday, 26 October 2016 14:08 (nine years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.