This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
International Criminal Court and the 2003 invasion of Iraq article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Should the name of this article start with "The"? AndrewRT 14:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Please do not add content without citing reliable sources. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.
I'm genuinely reluctant to give you another warning, but you've deleted my previous comments here and you continue to insert controversial statements into articles without adequately referencing them.
When you cite a reference, you must ensure that your source actually states what you claim it states. You have added several controversial claims to The International Criminal Court and the 2003 invasion of Iraq, but the sources you cite do not explicitly support your claims. For example, neither Grossman nor the UN Charter states that “The United Nations however has jurisdiction over all citizens of all of the UN member nations, so there are no nation's citizens who are exempt from international law” or that “The key jurisdictional issue that would prevent the ICC from exercising jurisdiction over aggression is that the ICC Statute gives the ICC the authority to define and punish the crime of “aggression,” which is solely the prerogative of the Security Council of the United Nations under the U.N. Charter”.
You keep adding an outdated link to Grossman's speech. It's clear you haven't even read the speech, so it is inappropriate for you to use it as a source.
Please remove your claims or find a reliable source that explicitly supports them. Sideshow Bob Roberts 14:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
"Please stop. Continuing to add unsourced or original content is considered vandalism and may result in a block."
Having looked through the edits I'm afraid I agree that the current reverted version is more accurate than the amendments that were made. The amendments appear to have misunderstood and confused certain matters. A few examples:
If you have any particular amendments you still want to raise, please could you raise them here on the talk page first. AndrewRT( Talk) 22:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
On the particular point:
I cannot see how you can come to this conclusion from a reading of the chief prosecutors letter.
1. The prosecutor never considered whether the alleged crime of aggression was properly investigated as he concluded it was outside his jurisdiction
2. The prosecutor never considered whether alleged war crimes committed by US (or other non-State Party) soldiers were properly investigated - he only briefly considered whether nationals of state parties were indirectly concerned with any alleged war crimes
Perhaps you could reconsider your phrasing? AndrewRT( Talk) 23:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
To take up another of your points:
This is an odd statement on a few levels. The UN is an inter-governmental organisation. It is not a court so I don't really understand how it could have "jurisdiction". The only court associated with the UN - the Interntional Court of Justice - only has jurisdiction over UN member states, not individual people. Strictly speaking the ICC is not a part of the UN System, per se, although they do cooperate closely.
Secondly, international law is not like domestic criminal law - it cannot be enforced in the same way. It relies on national governments to enact legislation to criminalise the behaviour. It is a bit toothless in some respects - if you are a political leader you can choose to ignore it if you dont like it. AndrewRT( Talk) 23:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
This discussion highlights the real problem.
Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 07:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
This discussion highlights the real problem.
The US and its supporters claiming sole authority on democracy, a fair trial and human rights. Because of the previous point they assume the right the enforce their superior lifestyle on the rest of the world. Untrue Anyone opposing that by definition is anti-American because they are jealous. Untrue The US fail to acknowledge that their Constitution and judicial system is copied from European democracies. In deed, the perceived democratic values the US is spreading are effectively European in origin. What European democracy predates the US? The Presbyterian Book of Order was influential, the seeds were European, but they never could have grown within Europe then, or the Third Reich later. The previous points ignore the fact that in a certain dispute the US might be wrong and i.e. Europe is right. However, this thought is readily dismissed on account of point 1. Many conflicts in the world might be explained by the previous argument, i.e. people oppose the US for their undying support of undemocratice leaders (Saudi-Arabia, Pakistan, et cetera) Certainly the fact the US is currently blackmailing Iran with an armed invasion might explain its ambition to develop nuclear weapons. History has shown that when you have those (China, North-Korea) the US will leave you alone, when you have none (Iraq) you will be attacked. How this is advancing democracy is beyond me. It does create animosity and is the root cause of muslim extremism today. The double standard and hypocricy that is. The last point I would like to make is: the proof of the pudding is in the eating. We know the position of Europe and of the US. Just look around the world and we can see that the US actions (Iraq, Operation Condor, Vietnam, et cetera) have been counterproductive which Europe has been saying all along. Sticking to the rule of law is never inferior to sticking to the power of armed forces. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 07:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on International Criminal Court and the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:39, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on International Criminal Court and the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:03, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
International Criminal Court and the 2003 invasion of Iraq article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Should the name of this article start with "The"? AndrewRT 14:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Please do not add content without citing reliable sources. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.
I'm genuinely reluctant to give you another warning, but you've deleted my previous comments here and you continue to insert controversial statements into articles without adequately referencing them.
When you cite a reference, you must ensure that your source actually states what you claim it states. You have added several controversial claims to The International Criminal Court and the 2003 invasion of Iraq, but the sources you cite do not explicitly support your claims. For example, neither Grossman nor the UN Charter states that “The United Nations however has jurisdiction over all citizens of all of the UN member nations, so there are no nation's citizens who are exempt from international law” or that “The key jurisdictional issue that would prevent the ICC from exercising jurisdiction over aggression is that the ICC Statute gives the ICC the authority to define and punish the crime of “aggression,” which is solely the prerogative of the Security Council of the United Nations under the U.N. Charter”.
You keep adding an outdated link to Grossman's speech. It's clear you haven't even read the speech, so it is inappropriate for you to use it as a source.
Please remove your claims or find a reliable source that explicitly supports them. Sideshow Bob Roberts 14:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
"Please stop. Continuing to add unsourced or original content is considered vandalism and may result in a block."
Having looked through the edits I'm afraid I agree that the current reverted version is more accurate than the amendments that were made. The amendments appear to have misunderstood and confused certain matters. A few examples:
If you have any particular amendments you still want to raise, please could you raise them here on the talk page first. AndrewRT( Talk) 22:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
On the particular point:
I cannot see how you can come to this conclusion from a reading of the chief prosecutors letter.
1. The prosecutor never considered whether the alleged crime of aggression was properly investigated as he concluded it was outside his jurisdiction
2. The prosecutor never considered whether alleged war crimes committed by US (or other non-State Party) soldiers were properly investigated - he only briefly considered whether nationals of state parties were indirectly concerned with any alleged war crimes
Perhaps you could reconsider your phrasing? AndrewRT( Talk) 23:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
To take up another of your points:
This is an odd statement on a few levels. The UN is an inter-governmental organisation. It is not a court so I don't really understand how it could have "jurisdiction". The only court associated with the UN - the Interntional Court of Justice - only has jurisdiction over UN member states, not individual people. Strictly speaking the ICC is not a part of the UN System, per se, although they do cooperate closely.
Secondly, international law is not like domestic criminal law - it cannot be enforced in the same way. It relies on national governments to enact legislation to criminalise the behaviour. It is a bit toothless in some respects - if you are a political leader you can choose to ignore it if you dont like it. AndrewRT( Talk) 23:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
This discussion highlights the real problem.
Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 07:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
This discussion highlights the real problem.
The US and its supporters claiming sole authority on democracy, a fair trial and human rights. Because of the previous point they assume the right the enforce their superior lifestyle on the rest of the world. Untrue Anyone opposing that by definition is anti-American because they are jealous. Untrue The US fail to acknowledge that their Constitution and judicial system is copied from European democracies. In deed, the perceived democratic values the US is spreading are effectively European in origin. What European democracy predates the US? The Presbyterian Book of Order was influential, the seeds were European, but they never could have grown within Europe then, or the Third Reich later. The previous points ignore the fact that in a certain dispute the US might be wrong and i.e. Europe is right. However, this thought is readily dismissed on account of point 1. Many conflicts in the world might be explained by the previous argument, i.e. people oppose the US for their undying support of undemocratice leaders (Saudi-Arabia, Pakistan, et cetera) Certainly the fact the US is currently blackmailing Iran with an armed invasion might explain its ambition to develop nuclear weapons. History has shown that when you have those (China, North-Korea) the US will leave you alone, when you have none (Iraq) you will be attacked. How this is advancing democracy is beyond me. It does create animosity and is the root cause of muslim extremism today. The double standard and hypocricy that is. The last point I would like to make is: the proof of the pudding is in the eating. We know the position of Europe and of the US. Just look around the world and we can see that the US actions (Iraq, Operation Condor, Vietnam, et cetera) have been counterproductive which Europe has been saying all along. Sticking to the rule of law is never inferior to sticking to the power of armed forces. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 07:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on International Criminal Court and the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:39, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on International Criminal Court and the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:03, 21 January 2018 (UTC)