Saddam To Sue Uk

[danielf]

Originally Posted by punky

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

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.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by danielf

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.

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?

[Defiant]

Originally Posted by danielf

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.

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

[MovedGoalPosts]

This all seems to have moved rather 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.

Originally Posted by dilligaf1701

Will you two please get a room!!!

Incog.

[zovat]

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 ?

Originally Posted by MovedGoalPosts

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.

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?

[MovedGoalPosts]

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.

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by zovat

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 ?

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

[punky]

Originally Posted by danielf

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.

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.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by punky

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.

What military presence do the US have in Holland?

[punky]

Originally Posted by danielf

What military presence do the US have in Holland?

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.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by punky

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

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

Originally Posted by punky

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.

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.

Originally Posted by punky

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.

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

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

[Xaccers]

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

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

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

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