Saddam To Sue Uk
 

http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0...135099,00.html


I think we all know why he's trying this on with Britain and not the US. Everyone knows were the softest country in the world now. I do think its funny that it just happens to be a French lawyer too

Re: Saddam To Sue Uk
 

Unreal...... :disturbd:

Re: Saddam To Sue Uk
 

How exactly are we the softest country in the world if we went to war against him?

Re: Saddam To Sue Uk
 

Didn't the USA get immunity from warcrimes?

Re: Saddam To Sue Uk
 

ROFLMAO........
.
.
.
.
.
Gets wallet out to send in my share of his compensation....:(

Re: Saddam To Sue Uk
 

I don't think they have been granted anything, they just refuse to accept the authority of a permanent War Crimes court as they feared they would fall victim to politically-motivated prosecutions.

I wonder if there is another reason why they won't accept the authority of a war crimes court? :erm:

Re: Saddam To Sue Uk
 

Re: Saddam To Sue Uk
 

Would that explain why we are being sued and not the US? I would have thought the evidence against them would be stronger.

According to this they have or did have immunity: http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/...974968,00.html

Re: Saddam To Sue Uk
 

I've been looking for a link for this, but US soldiers are exempt (for now). I'll look further...


Edit:

http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/new...6072988.htm?1c

Not the beeb, but it wasn't that easy to find a link

Re: Saddam To Sue Uk
 

Americans are exempt from the ICC. http://news.scotsman.com/internation...?id=1088242002

So they can't be tried for war crimes, crimes against humanity, etc. Which is kind of funny considering the current president of the ICC is American. The theory behind it is actually that as America are the second most hated nation in the world (behind Israel), if they wern't exempt, they would get flooded with unfounded false accusations, just to cause them some grief. It would also lead to prioritising Americans beyond other. Noone would try and capture/convict, say, an itallian, when they could get an American. I suppose it is for the best. The trouble is, while in 2002 we wern't as universally hated (judging by our previous behavior in the Empire, that's saying something), now we stood behind the US in what it did, we are going to face the wrath for them. While unfounded accusations would summarily be dismissed, (like with Tim Collins), unfortunately, this costs time, money, manpower, as well as the human cost (marriage breakups, loss of respect etc). Also add to the fact, that everyone can rememeber who are accused, but not who are also aquitted, and it makes the situation even worse.

Re: Saddam To Sue Uk
 

If a guy who killed thousands can get away with this then I say balls to it

Re: Saddam To Sue Uk
 

The USA has actually passed a law that states that if there is an attempt to try one of its citizens in the Hague they have the authority to conduct a military invasion of The Netherlands in order to free the suspect.

http://www.iccnow.org/pressroom/cicc...ruCongress.pdf

Re: Saddam To Sue Uk
 

What has that got to do with anything?

Re: Saddam To Sue Uk
 

I very much doubt there army would think about taking on other trained army's

Re: Saddam To Sue Uk
 

:Yikes:

Re: Saddam To Sue Uk
 

You think the Dutch Army can take on 1000's of American troops? Dream on.

Re: Saddam To Sue Uk
 

Have you been in our armed force's. If you had you may have trained with them at some point. They have a life of riley compared with most European army's.

Re: Saddam To Sue Uk
 

Do you have infantry/armour figures for the Dutch army? I suggest you go research it and compare it to the US Army, even the most poorly trained soldier can still rack up kills.

Re: Saddam To Sue Uk
 

Seeing the Netherlands is a NATO member, they there is the option call on their allies (such as the US :rolleyes: ), to help kick the invaders out.

Re: Saddam To Sue Uk
 

I think personally I'd rather just avoid letting them dropping a large nuke on my country :D

Re: Saddam To Sue Uk
 

Brings a whole new meaning to the phrase 'friendly fire' :)

Re: Saddam To Sue Uk
 

I guess that's a no answer. You really dont know much about it do you

Re: Saddam To Sue Uk
 

Doh, Danielf beat me to it. :)

I suspect the whole invading The Netherlands is more of a strongly worded bluff than anything. They are allies by NATO, so it would probably be sorted diplomatically rather than a military rescue operation, but congress have reserved the right to sanction miltary action if it ever got that far. Even so I don't think it would happen, with NATO knowing the score about the US, they would ever try and defy them. Don't forget, if it ever happens, the enemy wouldn't be The Netherlands, nor NATO. The ICC is UN based, so all UN countries would liable to stop the American rescue operation. The UN would never do that. The world knows it needs the US more than the US needs everyone else, so it would all get settled somehow.

Re: Saddam To Sue Uk
 

No offense, but you're the one talking out of his behind, you're under some misguided impression that the USA is a force that can be stopped by a tiny European country, and unless you have ANYTHING at all to back up your claim (which you and I both know you don't) I suggest you move on to your next unresearched subject.

Re: Saddam To Sue Uk
 

Well, they could do some real damage to your shins with those bloody big clogs.:D

Re: Saddam To Sue Uk
 

They might hit them with a huge reefer/tulip/edam (delete as appropriate)

Re: Saddam To Sue Uk
 

NOPE. I'm under no impression. If what you say was going to happen it would be a skirmish because the US would not risk causing trouble in the EU. They know all the other EU country's would back Holland up including the UK:rolleyes:

Re: Saddam To Sue Uk
 

Right, and which other european country do you think would go to war against the US then ?

Re: Saddam To Sue Uk
 

Most would because they know what would happen if they got away with this. The US would have too much to loose also. Common sense really

Re: Saddam To Sue Uk
 

Or Bifta gave me a rep because I disagreed with him. Now everyone knows you dont just talk it:D

Re: Saddam To Sue Uk
 

Where.?????

Re: Saddam To Sue Uk
 

Has he actually got any chance of winning?

Re: Saddam To Sue Uk
 

The US knows most European countrys have well trained armys. The population of Europe also is much larger than the US so we should be able to build/arm much faster. They know all this plus know how much they would loose in $ and we all know this means more to the US than anything else

Re: Saddam To Sue Uk
 

Would not all NATO members be obliged to help when a member state is attacked?

Re: Saddam To Sue Uk
 

Quite correct, which means the US would have to attack itself.:D

Re: Saddam To Sue Uk
 

Obviously not if the USA is a member ;)

Re: Saddam To Sue Uk
 

Of course some of the US Nukes are based on UK/EU soil. "Friendly Fire" could go the other way for a change.

Re: Saddam To Sue Uk
 

I gave you a negative rep for talking persistant b*llocks, unfortunately it's had no effect as you're quite obviously incapable of posting anything but.

Re: Saddam To Sue Uk
 

Your talking it again. They would most likely be kicked out.


Now go play with your reps little boy

Re: Saddam To Sue Uk
 

Huh?

Re: Saddam To Sue Uk
 

The US is part of NATO (possibly the biggest part) - so would any treaty apply - would NATO still exist or would one NATO country attacking another make it cease to exist. I'm not going to guess - I simply don't know.

Re: Saddam To Sue Uk
 

No need to sulk because you lost a green pip :D

Re: Saddam To Sue Uk
 

ask your teacher to help you out with the reading

Re: Saddam To Sue Uk
 

Hey the mods are now aware that you hand them out to people you disagree with. I've always known your a ________ so there's not a problem there is there

Re: Saddam To Sue Uk
 

I don't need a teacher to help me read, unlike you I managed to concentrate in school, perhaps if you read your posts before actually clicking the 'submit reply' button and realised that most of them look like they were typed up by somebody who's literacy level matches that of the average 5 year old, I wouldn't need to question wtf you're talking about.

Re: Saddam To Sue Uk
 

God, I'd hate to think of myself as an ________

Re: Saddam To Sue Uk
 

Yea right why do you go on about things you know nothing about. its because your head is so big but nothing inside it. I've just checked the past history on the reps and you really are a child with a game. I'd love to meet you on person

Re: Saddam To Sue Uk
 

I'll bring a dictionary for you.

Re: Saddam To Sue Uk
 

Will you two please get a room!!!

Re: Saddam To Sue Uk
 

Yea you may need to look up a few words

Re: Saddam To Sue Uk
 

Sorry, I'll shut up now.

Re: Saddam To Sue Uk
 

Whilst we are talking of _________ <- This is where I draw the line, this heated discussion will cease now please. Thanks.

Re: Saddam To Sue Uk
 

I had a quick look. The members need to invoke article 5 which states that an attack on one country is an attack on the whole of NATO. I suppose there would be the option of not invoking article 5. I don't know if any members have a veto in this btw.

http://www.nato.int/docu/basictxt/treaty.htm


Reading article 5, I suppose they could also decide that no action is deemed necessary...

Re: Saddam To Sue Uk
 

Perhaps this idea of the USA invading Netherlands is one reason why Europe wants its own combined army?

Shudders at the thought: If the Brits and Yanks fighting alongside speaking a similar language can have friendly fire, imagine the chaos with multiple different languages and the time taken to translate "left a bit, right a bit, up a bit Fire" :disturbd:

Re: Saddam To Sue Uk
 

You forgot the Italians, with "back a bit"

Re: Saddam To Sue Uk
 

If France allows this Lawyer to represent Saddam then the EU should boot France out. No Trade etc.
We should ban Garlic and onions throughout the EU, wearing a beret should be punishable by stangling at the stake and we could offer a safe haven for all dem poor ickle snails.


Seriously though, the EU must intervene in this it must be against all that the EU stands for.

Let France try and gain by supporting a dictator, lets ban France from arms sales to other countries.

Actually lets invade the onion/garlic eating snail lovers, its about time they had their arses kicked again.



GHrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr


[/rant]

Re: Saddam To Sue Uk
 

How many times have they been invaded now lol

Re: Saddam To Sue Uk
 

As it says here

If this plonker defends you, the whole world knows you are guilty.

PS. His claim to have worked for Milosovic is untrue.

Re: Saddam To Sue Uk
 

You are all forgetting, the ICC is UN based. Any attack on the ICC would mean the US would face the other 190 countries as a join reactionary force. The court just happens to be in The Netherlands. The same would apply if any country staged a raid on the headquarters in NY.

It would still win though. Me and a couple of mates with pea shooters/elastic bands with rolled up pieces of paper would be able to probably defeat any UN army :D

Re: Saddam To Sue Uk
 

And the "whole world" (sweeping generalisation) "knows he's guilty" (breach of basic human rights) anyway.

So why shouldn't we at least *try* to prove that we're better than him by presuming he's innocent until *proven* guilty and *giving* him a fair trial...?

Re: Saddam To Sue Uk
 

The US would still have to invade Holland in order to get to the ICC. Regardless of what you think of the Dutch army. The Dutch are not going to take that lying down.

Re: Saddam To Sue Uk
 

Would be interesting, Holland's a member of NATO right?
And aren't NATO members supposed to come to the aid of any attacked members?
:D

Re: Saddam To Sue Uk
 

My point exactly however I ended up getting a rep for making it :erm:

Re: Saddam To Sue Uk
 

This all seems to have moved rather :notopic: from the original Saddam sues the UK, although the reasoning behind the drift is quite sound.

Bottom line here is that the UK, is too soft a touch and an easy scapegoat. Blair's penchant for signing up to Human Rights, and our holier than thou attitidue, in trying to do everything by the book, unlike most other countries (we have the most stringent Health & Safety Regulations, food laws, etc yet most of these are based on our interpretation of European directives which other EU countires draw a veil over), has left us wide open to this sort of abuse of our culture.

Re: Saddam To Sue Uk
 

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/cytherean1/Laughing.jpg


Incog.

Re: Saddam To Sue Uk
 

:idea: Does that mean I can counter Sue Saddam for the anguish and torment that my family went through when I got mobilised and sent to fight him ? :naughty:

Re: Saddam To Sue Uk
 

Nice bit of rhetoric you have there. The only problem with your argument is that it is totally flawed from the start. He is taking the UK to court in The Hague, not the European Court of Human Rights. Therefore it does not fall under the jurisdiction of the EU Convention of Human Rights, it falls under the jurisdiction of the ICC. The rules would be the same for any country that he attempted to sue, be that the USA or the UK.

The reason he isn`t attempting to sue the USA is because that country doesn`t actually recognise the authority of the ICC, so what good would that do?

Re: Saddam To Sue Uk
 

Ok, so human rights may be the wrong bit of legislation, but it's very much an example of how the UK seems to sign up for everything, like the ICC and get taken for mugs as a result. If the ICC is not good enough for the USA who after all are these days "the law" due to the Superpower status, then why is is good enough for everybody else?

Never was any good at politics stuff.

Re: Saddam To Sue Uk
 

That depends...how deep are your pockets m8? :D

Re: Saddam To Sue Uk
 

The US are already there, they wouldn't need to invade the country. But they would have to break into the ICC secure prison, and get the American guy out. That is the UN's responiblility, the dutch would have to deal with the UN says. It may be inside Holland, but the building belongs to the UN collectively.

Re: Saddam To Sue Uk
 

What military presence do the US have in Holland?

Re: Saddam To Sue Uk
 

http://www.military.com/Installation...tion_code=3370

It doesn't matter how strong, or otherwise the dutch army is. It wouldn't be their fight. As the ICC is run by the UN, the UN would take responsibilty for it. I don't even know how I got into this, because, if the US army wanted to break out a US prisoner, I doubt many countries would be able to stop them. And it is not just about sheer power, it is the about how tactics and methods of the Special Forces, that would deal with it.

Everyone kept talking about NATO, but I just wanted to say, that the ICC, is a UN court, and both countries are UN countries as well as NATO countries, so the UN would supercede NATO anyway.

Edit: You said before that the Dutch wouldn't take it lying down; But i'd doubt they even care, so long as no Dutch people/property got harmed in the breakout. As far as I always thought, the ICC, like the headquarters are UN buildings, and UN responsiblity. They just have to be in a country. In this case Holland or the US.

Re: Saddam To Sue Uk
 

Unless I'm mistaken, that's logistics and support, and not very many of them anyway.

It would be their fight as it would be a military operation in Holland the moment they leave the premises of the ICC, just as much as the Brits would be in trouble with Dutch authorities if they attacked the US embassy in The Hague. I'm sure the Dutch government (or any government) has an obligation to protect the places like embassies or UN buildings against raids, so it would be their fight.

Regarding your last point, I agree, but thing is, the US have passed this law which says they could invade.

Why would the UN supercede NATO? It would still be a military action by the US within Holland against an official body which the Dutch government/army should protect.

As for your edit: I can assure you they would care. I should know. I am Dutch :D

But, I agree that the whole thing is a bit academic, as I don't see it happening. :)

Re: Saddam To Sue Uk
 

Now, what if the dutch gave their agreement and support to the US? :D

Re: Saddam To Sue Uk
 

I suppose it wouldn't qualify as an invasion, but I think they'd be in serious trouble with the UN. ;)

Re: Saddam To Sue Uk
 

Would they be bothered that much though. The UN isn't much really is it

Re: Saddam To Sue Uk
 

Yes they would. It would never happen (Xacc's suggestion that is).

Re: Saddam To Sue Uk
 

The UN would supercede it, purely because it was formed first, and being world-wide, it considers itself all powerful. The whole point I was trying to make though, is that the building is UN, not NATO, so NATO shouldn't come into it.

About the Dutch response: If it was me, i'd turn to the UN and ask them what to do. If they want me to try and stop them, as suicidal as that sounds i'd mobilise the Dutch forces against them. Otherwise, if the UN wouldn't care, what is the point in risk lives, wasting resources, etc.

I never (or never meant to rather) cast aspersions upon the Dutch and i'm raiding the previous pages to try and find how/where I got dragged into it (you seemed to think I was in post #61, but I honestly wasn't/cant see it). The only thing I rememeber trying to say was the the ICC is UN controlled, not NATO. Hence it wouldn't be the US vs NATO, it would be US vs UN (which would be 190 countries). Like I said, u'm sorry if you thought I was, but it was not intentional.

But yeah, it is academic. If we know about the US policy to American war criminals in the ICC, then i'm sure the bloody UN should (although wouldn't suprise if they didn't), so this kind of thing would get headed off before this stage. And anyway, if the US didn't sign up to it, then I don't suppose the UN can legally hold any Americans anyway.

Re: Saddam To Sue Uk
 

Although this lawyer is apparently going to represent Saddam in his war crimes trial in Iraq, the story does not actually say that the lawyer is suing the UK on behalf of Saddam - the story says:

So, he does not appear to be doing this for Saddam - he just happens to also be Saddams lawyer (well, he claims to be. Others have also said they are going to represent Saddam.).

So it isn't really a case of "Saddam to sue UK" as far as I can tell. (Plus the actual story is titled "Saddam lawyer to sue UK" and not "Saddam to sue UK".)

IMO, this guy is probably just doing this for publicity.


Also, this will not be the first time that someone has attempted to go after the UK for war crimes - & it probably will not be the last.

IIRC, there was at least one other case recently where someone was trying to get the UK done for war crimes at the ICC.

Plus, the ICC only has jurisdiction if the accused country has made no effort to investigate (& if necessary prosecute) the allegations itself. So if the UK carried out its own investigation/inquiry/whatever then it would be safe from the same charges being brought at the ICC.


From: http://www.asil.org/insights/insigh86.htm

And we already know that the Government has said that the prisoner abuse allegations etc *are* being investigated. Plus, from the Sky story:

So I think the UK is most likely safe from this lawyer's attempt to sue it.





The US signed the treaty setting up the ICC, in the last days of the Clinton Administration.

However, the Bush Administration, in power soon after, plus the Republican-dominated Congress, were vehemently opposed to the ICC - and consequently the ICC treaty was never ratified by the US.

But, although the US never ratified the treaty, it still came into force in July 2002 once the 60th nation had ratified it - which meant that the US would have been under its jurisdiction anyway, despite not ratifying it itself.

And so the US subsequently used threats & bribery to obtain itself immunity from the ICC (as per the story link downquark posted) - immunity for its peacekeepers via a UN Security Council resolution, & immunity from various other countries via bilateral deals.

So the US is safe from the ICC with respect to anything it does in Iraq: because a) the US has got immunity and b) Iraq never even signed the Treaty, let alone ratified it.

Re: Saddam To Sue Uk
 

I thought it was only immunity for it's soldiers whilst on peacekeeping duties for the UN, but they aren't peacekeeping for the UN in Iraq.
So is it definitely all US forces that are immune?

Re: Saddam To Sue Uk
 

Not all.

It goes something like this:

- The UNSC resolution mentioned earlier gives US peacekeepers immunity.


- US forces have immunity in/from various countries due to bilateral deals with those countries' governments.


- The entire US forces in Iraq are effectively immune because Iraq has never signed the ICC treaty *and* because the US has "unsigned" the ICC treaty (something apparently completely unprecedented - a US President "unsigning" a treaty which a previous President signed):

For the ICC to have jurisdiction over the US forces in Iraq, a case must either be referred to the ICC by the Security Council (but the US would just veto it) -or- it must have been committed in a nation which has accepted the ICC (but Iraq hasn't) -or- it must have been committed by a citizen(s) of a nation which has accepted the ICC (but the US hasn't).


Therefore, US forces in Iraq are effectively immune from the ICC.

But not US forces everywhere.

The ICC could still have jurisdiction over US forces (not peacekeepers) over acts committed in other countries: but *only* countries which have signed up to the ICC, and even then it would *only* be ones which have not made a bilateral deal with the US re the ICC.


Lots of info here:

http://www.usaforicc.org/

http://www.usaforicc.org/facts_index.html

http://www.usaforicc.org/facts_faqs.html

http://www.usaforicc.org/facts_myths.html

and....

specific bit about Iraq:

http://www.wfa.org/issues/wicc/factsheets/iraq.html