Will Iran Be Next?

[rmnunez]

Giuliano, the details are unclear, but it appears the claims are not verified before the court accepts them and once filed must act on the presumption they are valid. This is just like under Anglo commonlaw, but there is a significant difference. Under commonlaw if one intentionally misuses legal procedings, there are sanctions and the falsely accused or wrongfully prosecuted can bring an action against the unlawful claimant -there is no provision for this under traditional codified legal systems (like the ICC´s). The effect was seen a couple of years ago when Belgium modified its criminal code to confer upon themselves "universal jurisdiction" for war crimes, there was a flood of claims, none verified, naming every tin-pot dictator and their alleged gringo masters since about WW2. They had to suspend the process temporarily while they set up a special court to examine the claims for their validity. The ICC procedure calls for the immediate issuance of a warrant for the accused, its not until he is hauled to court that a determination can be reached as to the validity of the claim. It is a troublesome problem because the ICC doesn't establish some international prosecutor, rather its the aggrieved who must fill this function. This could result in accused individuals trying to settle matters paying blackmail or eliminating their accusers. Someone falsely accused would get arrested, shackled, held in jail, and brought before the court, with all the attendant public scandal, then quietly released. Additionally there is a problem with former heads of state where governments may refuse to defend them in order to maintain their rejection of the claim's validity.

The US demands for immunity seem outrageous until we consider the degree of their international involvement. With such extensive economic, diplomatic and militay ties everywhere, it stands to reason government's like the US would be more likely to get accused than smaller countries with negligible international ties. The net effect could be disengagement and isolationism.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: Scribbler1 To tell you the truth, I can acvcept mistakes. I don't hold my leaders to any higher standard of perfection than I hold anyone else. What I object to is the lack of accountability. In Bush's case, for example, he can go and make all the mistakes and GROSS errors in judgement he wants. He HAS to know he will never be held accountable for his actions. I believe this knowledge leads to more mistakes due to this protection. This holds true for a lot of other presidents as well.

You seem to indicate that Bush made a mistake to enter Iraq.
Bush used political manouvers in order to "acquire" Iraq on U.S. future allies list. Some people may feel frustrated - put it very mildly - by Bush's decisions.
The point is : U.S. needs a (future) ally in the Middle-East, in order to stabilize that whole region, especially since Iraq can offer "something" in return, like :
- economy
- intelligence and military
- oil
These are key elements in politics, and listed as "priceless".

Back to the topic
It is not that important whether Iran will be the next, as what it brings.
Are we ready for new pro-democratic Iran ?
If "yes", who is going to control events in that state ? and how ?

[giuliano]

rmunez,

that's just not true. any claim made against a US citizen would be forwarded to the US itself, who would have the option to verify its credibility and either pursue or dismiss it as it saw fit.

only in cases where a sovereign govt *ignored* the claims or did not treat them seriously would the ICC gain jurisdiction.

what the ICC's proposed power would do, is prevent the US from ignoring or stonewalling claims against its officials, such as henry kissinger. now we all know kissinger was involved in what would be considered under international law highly illegal and just plain enethical activities. the US response to this day has been "tough, you want him, bring your army and come get him"

by ratifying the ICC, they would lose the ability to use that tactic. and a good thing it would be too.

[RickSp]

If our own government violates both domestic and international laws, such as those related to the treatment of prisoners or torture, and our so called "Justice Department" acts as co-conspritators, I have no problem if the cases are taken up by international courts. I would much prefer if justice were done within our boundaries, but if not, some justice is better than none.

Bottom line, if our government acts illegally, I am happy to see the guilty officials treated as pariahs or even fugitive criminals. Not so far from the truth, actually.

[giuliano]

abu ghraib is a good example of how the ICC would work. the perpetrators were dealt with swiftly by the US govt. the ICC would never have had jurisdiction over anyone there at all.

[RickSp]

Quote by: giuliano abu ghraib is a good example of how the ICC would work. the perpetrators were dealt with swiftly by the US govt. the ICC would never have had jurisdiction over anyone there at all.

I think the cover-up was dealt with swiftly by the US government. Blame a few reservists. Sweep everything else under the rug.

[rmnunez]

Giuliano, if I falsely accused you of a crime and filed a criminal complaint, under typical US law the prosecutor's office would investigate first, determine whether there was probable cause to believe a crime was committed and that you did it, if they found this was the case a warrant would be issued for your arrest, you would be seized, charged and delivered to some court to defend yourself. If I brought my charge to the ICC instead, with no prosecutor the court would simply presume the claim is valid and issue the warrant for your arrest. If you ever came within their jurisdiction, you would be arrested and brought before the court to defnd yourself. Since you didn't commit any crime, you would be released. Under typical US law you would have recourse against me or even the authority arresting you for filing a false claim (malicious prosecution or abuse of process), under the ICC you have no recourse.

How likely do you think it is some angry anti-war or globalophobic hot-head would be held back by ethics from bringing a false charge against someone like Rumsfeld or Cheney? Absent any chance the falsely accused could be held liable for fraudulent use of the courts, what is there to hold them back? Might this explain the flood of cases seen when Belgium conferred upon its courts universal jurisdiction for war crimes?

[giuliano]

you're just plain wrong on that point rmunez.

the individual nation has the option to investigate - and convinct OR clear - the accused perpetrator first.

only if they refuse to conduct a meaningful investigation does the ICC have *any* jurisdiction to do anything.

[RickSp]

I can't tell you how perversely funny I find it to see someone arguing due process for government officials who think it is just fine to hold detainees, under torture, without charges, trial or access to council. I guess due process only applies to old white men in positions of power.

Of course it isn't funny, but better to laugh than cry.

[rmnunez]

How amusing do you think it might seem to me to find people so strenously decrying lack of due process in terrorism cases are also unconcerned over the lack thereof for "old white men"?

[MerlinsByte]

"Will Iran Be Next? "


Mexico or Canada or NYC will be next if it is the last area that has the oil. I do see more invasions to take oil coming our way. Call it "manifest oil destiny. Of course the administration will vehemently deny that any invasion was prompted for money, oil, land (just call it what it is GREED) Any questions? ask the Native Americans if we Americans will keep any promise. or for a fresher view on American honesty ask the President Thieu
(Southeast Asia) about our honor. All governments are corrupt and are a construct for the benefit of extracting the essence from its citizens, peacefully, "like leading sheep to slaughter". if possible.

MB

[Hazzard]

What are you lot on about, why is there even a discussion about whether Iran is next!

1) There has already been american agents working on Iran for a few years now!

2) Iran is a must for linking the afghan pipelines to Iraq, and from there the pipelines can connect to Indo-china which is underneath NK. Indo-china is also having a serge of "terrorist" cells developming.

Sheesh talk about obvious.

[rmnunez]

Ah, another pipeline freak, how is the line through camp Bondstell in Kosovo coming along?

[bishop]

what's that familiar sound i hear? a bushista slowly beating the drums of war again.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe...ice/index.html

BRUSSELS, Belgium (CNN) -- U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said on Wednesday that Iran must live up to its international obligations to halt its nuclear program or "the next steps are in the offing." "And I think everybody understands what the 'next steps' mean," Rice told reporters after a meeting with NATO foreign ministers and European Union officials. "It's obvious that if Iran cannot be brought to live up to its international obligations that, in fact, the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) statutes would suggest that Iran has to be referred to the U.N. Security Council," she said.

and if that should actually happen, the next step after that will be another illegal invasion.

[rmnunez]

No, proper protocol would call for a round of inspections first, then an inconclusive report on their compliance and calls for more time, this would be followed by about 3 months of dickering (gringoes in the background bribing and bullying governments to support their initiative) and then a surprise military action by just some of the Council's members (France voicing strong obections and denying any transactional conflicts of interest).

[Nono]

I think the mullahs might respond best to a dose of the nice-cop-nasty-cop treatment, the former from the Europeans and the latter from the Americans. If nothing else, Condi's swing through Old Europe might have set the stage for coordination of that type.

Of course, the mullahs might laugh the whole thing off given the US's current military credibility problem, what with being bogged down in WMD-Irrelevance-Land and all.

[rmnunez]

I don't think the US military has a credibility problem at all. What matters from a military standpoint is destructive power and they sure have lots of that (aim or motive is irrelevant).

Problem with the good-cop-bad-cop scenario is that the bad-cop has to do some saber rattling and this is both risky (if its adequate provocation it has to be) and in due course reaches a point where its own inertia moves it inexorably forward into confrontation. Look at the Iraqi process towards intervention. They started with an early call for 687 compliance, then went for a new fortified resolution, then deployed inspectors for verification, delivered reports and negotiated intervention -all the while the gringoes had to be agitating, saber-rattling and deploying more and more troops, ships and jets. At some point they are fully extended and ready to go, can't just sit there forever rattling those sabers waiting for the mullahs to get the idea.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: rmnunez I don't think the US military has a credibility problem at all. What matters from a military standpoint is destructive power and they sure have lots of that (aim or motive is irrelevant).

If you mean hardware, yes we have a lot of destructive power. But in general you are dead wrong. Calling up National Guard units and reservists on the verge of retirement is what we are doing and the whold world knows it. We are SAYING we can fight on more than one front but are proving we can't even handle ONE. The world also knows of the numerous problems on the ground in Iraq, which continue despite us throwing vast amounts of money at them.

Huge missiles and large nukes are a holdover from the cold war. They don't work in situations we are in now, and won't work in situations we are likely to find ourselves in again. On the grouns we are showing the world we can be picked off just as easily as any lesser military force.

[rmnunez]

I'm not impressed with the resistance, if they are confronting a bunch of almost retired old men and rookies still wet behind the ears I'd have expected to see the gringoes running in fear by now. Terrorists and insurgents claim a couple of gringan lives a day, but nearly always its at a greater loss to their own and they have a smaller number to sacrifice. The insurgency should have put on a much better show for election day if they enjoy such dominance on the ground.

Would things go remarkably different in Iran? I doubt it, I think the gringoes would roll over the Iranian military, take Teheran and install a puppet with no trouble, about 20 thousand troops and within 2 or 3 weeks, but they'd find 'resistance' afterwards just like in Iraq.

The question comes down to this; is it preferable to double the size of the theatre of operations and spread forces half as thick, or reach an accomodation so Iran can have nukes?

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: rmnunez I'm not impressed with the resistance, if they are confronting a bunch of almost retired old men and rookies still wet behind the ears I'd have expected to see the gringoes running in fear by now. Terrorists and insurgents claim a couple of gringan lives a day, but nearly always its at a greater loss to their own and they have a smaller number to sacrifice. The insurgency should have put on a much better show for election day if they enjoy such dominance on the ground.

You're not impressed by the resistance? Would you be moreso if the casualty rate was tripled perhaps? Sometimes your cold-bloodedly analytical view of all this can be positively inhuman.

The question comes down to this; is it preferable to double the size of the theatre of operations and spread forces half as thick, or reach an accomodation so Iran can have nukes?

That's an either/or proposition that likely has more than two possible answers. But in either case we have shown we CAN'T spread ourselves out too thin. Despite your callous "a couple of gringan lives a day" reference, we can't afford to waste lives on an utterly unjustified war. To invade Iran would double the mistake and cost all the more in lives lost.