The Official Star Trek Movie Forum

The Official Star Trek Movie Forum > Star Trek > Off Topic Discussions > New Space Shuttle returns from Secret Mission
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #191  
Old 12-13-2010, 11:18 AM
horatio's Avatar
horatio horatio is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 9,257
Default

Here is a short version: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America...Protection_Act

This is not invasion, it is the forceful retrieval of American citizens from foreign territory. As the Wiki article clearly says 'Hague Invasion Act' is not its literal name, it's a joke which refers to the hypothetical necessity to invade The Hague if the ICC had an American citizen in custody which would of course not happen in reality as such releases happen behind the scenes anyway.

Now we can calmly talk about the larger picture, that the US refuses to participate in the effort to establish better international law with the ICC. We can also talk about issues like the authority of the US president to kill American citizens abroad without the power of the third branch, without a trial.

These are serious questions and that's precisely why they deserved to be discussed seriously and not with such preposterous hyperbole as you do, BB.
Reply With Quote
  #192  
Old 12-13-2010, 11:29 AM
Livingston's Avatar
Livingston Livingston is offline
Admiral
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Along the Kessel Run
Posts: 4,962
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by horatio View Post
Here is a short version: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America...Protection_Act

This is not invasion, it is the forceful retrieval of American citizens from foreign territory. As the Wiki article clearly says 'Hague Invasion Act' is not its literal name, it's a joke which refers to the hypothetical necessity to invade The Hague if the ICC had an American citizen in custody which would of course not happen in reality as such releases happen behind the scenes anyway.

Now we can calmly talk about the larger picture, that the US refuses to participate in the effort to establish better international law with the ICC. We can also talk about issues like the authority of the US president to kill American citizens abroad without the power of the third branch, without a trial.

These are serious questions and that's precisely why they deserved to be discussed seriously and not with such preposterous hyperbole as you do, BB.
Yeah, I just read it and I tend to agree with Horatio. This is not an invasion it is an exercise of military force to free American nationals. I think the real debate here is who has the legal right and what courts hold true power to prosecute and hand down verdicts in the global theatre. And IMO it comes down to military power. The US is not going to acknowledge an international court if it rules in opposition to its interests simply because it has the luxury to do so but that certainly doesn't mean the US is going to invade and colonize or nation-build Europe, we're busy enough doing that in the middle-east. There are so many hypotheticals in that link and the nature of the act itself, it seems rather far-fetched to extrapolate invasion out of it.
__________________


"Death, delicious strawberry flavored death!"
Reply With Quote
  #193  
Old 12-13-2010, 11:30 AM
Botany Bay's Avatar
Botany Bay Botany Bay is offline
Captain
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Berlin
Posts: 2,112
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by horatio View Post
Here is a short version: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members'_Protection_Act

This is not invasion, it is the forceful retrieval of American citizens from foreign territory.
You are kidding, right? How does a military 'forcefully retrieve' a suspected criminal from another nations prison without entering this nations territory? With a teleporter? Where would be the application of force in that. How do you apply force without first invading?

If you now critizise me for not using politically correct Newspeek, then go ahead.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Livingston View Post
There are so many hypotheticals in that link and the nature of the act itself, it seems rather far-fetched to extrapolate invasion out of it.
But the threat is there, explicitly, and that was my point.

Last edited by Botany Bay : 12-13-2010 at 11:36 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #194  
Old 12-13-2010, 11:42 AM
horatio's Avatar
horatio horatio is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 9,257
Default

You never watch movies? You take some agents and special troops, get in and get your folks out.
Seriously, I guess that's more or less how it works. No governments toppled, no lives of ordinary Europeans citizens impacted, no "US invades Europe!" headlines. Anyway, the law won't be used as the US doesn't accept the ICC so nobody holds potential American war criminals in custody.

The bigger issue is international law. If you wanna focus on details and grotesquely distort and exaggerate them, go on. In your eyes we are only stupid wave-waging fools anyway who don't wanna hear the truth.

Why don't we talk about some real invasion history instead of your phantasized one in Eruope, e.g. in South America? And, guess what, I totally side with all the lefties who recently took power down there, be it more social democratic leaders like Lula or more Castro-style autocratic ones like Chavez. Power to the people!

Last edited by horatio : 12-13-2010 at 11:45 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #195  
Old 12-13-2010, 11:47 AM
Livingston's Avatar
Livingston Livingston is offline
Admiral
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Along the Kessel Run
Posts: 4,962
Default

"to protect United States military personnel and other elected and appointed officials of the United States government against criminal prosecution by an international criminal court to which the United States is not party".

To me this is the real issue here. The authority of the international court and its legitimacy as seen by the US. The US is not a member of this court, it doesn't recognize this court and it has the military prowess to extradite its officials, nationals from prosecution from that court.

There are so many hypotheticals here, I still don't see how you can call this invasion, unless you're restricting your definition of invasion to one country sending in a small military force to retrieve one of it's citizens from another country's courts. BB, your initial statement indicated an methodically planned invasion of Europe by the US that had been written into law. You could call this Service Members' Protection Act an invasion in the sense that one country is invading another to retrieve it's nationals, citizens, but that's a far cry from what you were initially suggesting, as I read it anyway.
__________________


"Death, delicious strawberry flavored death!"
Reply With Quote
  #196  
Old 12-13-2010, 11:50 AM
Botany Bay's Avatar
Botany Bay Botany Bay is offline
Captain
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Berlin
Posts: 2,112
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by horatio View Post
If you wanna focus on details and grotesquely distort and exaggerate them, go on. In your eyes we are only stupid wave-waging fools anyway who don't wanna hear the truth.
No, but any time I have the outrageous audacity to even imply that the US is anything but a benevolent force of truth and justice who has nothing but the worlds liberty and freedom at its heart your first reaction is to accuse me of siding with the enemy, support dictators or terrorists, or of being anti-american, anti-israel or any other form of nasty evil. You paint me as an ideological distorter and supporter of China-Russia-Iran-Nazi-Terrorist-Evil-Scum.

Then, when this doesnt work anymore, because I present some facts supporting my claims you go with ignoring it. You did it, Livingston did it, everyone of you did it. Then, when this is no longer possible you flat out deny the existance of these facts or try to spin them untill in the end one half of you leaves the discussion and goes silent while the other half goes with: Mmmhhh, may be, kind of, but its all not as bad as you paint it. Its a little bad, may be. We all have our perspectives.

Go back and take a look for yourself, if you dont believe me.

I dont know how to categorize such a behaviour.

Peace.
Reply With Quote
  #197  
Old 12-13-2010, 11:53 AM
Captain Tom Coughlin's Avatar
Captain Tom Coughlin Captain Tom Coughlin is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: USS Meadowlands
Posts: 10,985
Default

You painted me as some kind of anti-human rights monster and now you want to cry foul? Piss off
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #198  
Old 12-13-2010, 11:53 AM
horatio's Avatar
horatio horatio is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 9,257
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Livingston View Post
"to protect United States military personnel and other elected and appointed officials of the United States government against criminal prosecution by an international criminal court to which the United States is not party".

To me this is the real issue here. The authority of the international court and its legitimacy as seen by the US. The US is not a member of this court, it doesn't recognize this court and it has the military prowess to extradite its officials, nationals from prosecution from that court.

There are so many hypotheticals here, I still don't see how you can call this invasion, unless you're restricting your definition of invasion to one country sending in a small military force to retrieve one of it's citizens from another country's courts. BB, your initial statement indicated an methodically planned invasion of Europe by the US that had been written into law. You could call this Service Members' Protection Act an invasion in the sense that one country is invading another to retrieve it's nationals, citizens, but that's a far cry from what you were initially suggesting, as I read it anyway.
Precisely. Given that the US doesn't accept this court it is the duty of public institutions to protect American citizens from prosecution.
So if one wants to talk about the issue one has to debate the assumption and the whole issue of international law. I would be happy if the US would accept the ICC and closer connect to the international community but as long as it doesn't these kind of laws are pretty natural.
Reply With Quote
  #199  
Old 12-13-2010, 11:58 AM
Botany Bay's Avatar
Botany Bay Botany Bay is offline
Captain
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Berlin
Posts: 2,112
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by horatio View Post
Precisely. Given that the US doesn't accept this court it is the duty of public institutions to protect American citizens from prosecution.
So if one wants to talk about the issue one has to debate the assumption and the whole issue of international law. I would be happy if the US would accept the ICC and closer connect to the international community but as long as it doesn't these kind of laws are pretty natural.
Now what? The law does exist out of a sudden? But its not as bad as I painted it, because after all it is just 'natural' that the US threatens Europe with an invasion, sorry, a 'forcefull extradition'.

Back to topic: I said, that I dont want any nation to rule over my head, if I dont have democratic representation in its politics.

I showed you, that the US shifted its space program away from NASA to the Air Force, you cried foul. I showed you, that the Air Force expressed explicitly interest in the X-37 Project for military purposes, you cried foul. I showed you that the Air Force Space Command does have an agenda of militarizing space to the extend of weaponizing it, even shifting to 'ownership' of space. You called that a great thing....

Whatever, I will now take my pills and get over myself.
Reply With Quote
  #200  
Old 12-13-2010, 11:58 AM
horatio's Avatar
horatio horatio is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 9,257
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Botany Bay View Post
No, but any time I have the outrageous audacity to even imply that the US is anything but a benevolent force of truth and justice who has nothing but the worlds liberty and freedom at its heart your first reaction is to accuse me of siding with the enemy, support dictators or terrorists, or of being anti-american, anti-israel or any other form of nasty evil. You paint me as an ideological distorter and supporter of China-Russia-Iran-Nazi-Terrorist-Evil-Scum.

Then, when this doesnt work anymore, because I present some facts supporting my claims you go with ignoring it. You did it, Livingston did it, everyone of you did it. Then, when this is no longer possible you flat out deny the existance of these facts or try to spin them untill in the end one half of you leaves the discussion and goes silent while the other half goes with: Mmmhhh, may be, kind of, but its all not as bad as you paint it. Its a little bad, may be. We all have our perspectives.

Go back and take a look for yourself, if you dont believe me.

I dont know how to categorize such a behaviour.

Peace.
Who spinned facts? You present such a petty law which will never be used anyway as invasion and then you wonder that we protest?

I am a hardcore lefty like you, I just wrote about real American invasions in South America and said that I totally support all the left-wingers down there and then you claim that I would portray the US as incarnation of justice and goodness?

Nice try, BB, but you gotta try harder. I am not pro-US, just not as single-mindedly anti-US as you are. Everything you wrote in this thread is about the evil US or evil Israel whereas I also like to point out from time to time that there are also other nasty countries in this world, including our very own one.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Botany Bay View Post
Now what? The law does exist ozu of a sudden? But its not as bad as I painted it, because after all it is just 'natural' that the US threatens Europe with an invasion, sorry, a 'forcefull extradition'.

Back to topic: I said, that I dont want any nation to rule over my head, if I dont have democratic representation in its politics.

I showed you, that the US shifted its space program away from NASA to the Air Force, you cried foul. I showed you, that the Air Force expressed explicitly interest in the X-37 Project for military purposes, you cried foul. I showed you that the Air Force Space Command does have an agenda of militarizing space to the extend of weaponizing it, even shifting to 'ownership' of space. You called that a great thing....

Whatever, I will now take my pills and get over myself.
I called it a great thing in order to provoke a reaction and shift the attention to the larger question of deterrence. What are its advantages and its disadvantages? That's interesting and exciting, not some stupid details about a weapons test.
Same with the invasion, there have been plenty of real invasions and real political manipulations and you focus on an imaginary one. And no, for the umptenth time, there is a difference between an invasion and getting your folks out of a country with some special forces. Talk like this to a South American lefty and he would call you an ignorant, decadent, Western lefty who phantasizes about an American invasion of Europe (kinda like America phantasized about 9/11 in movies like Independence Day) while he ignores the folks who really suffer from American imperialism.

Typical Chomsky Left, obsessed with facts (as a way to convince yourself that they are in not in ideology?) and details but not interested in the larger picture and the big questions.

Last edited by horatio : 12-13-2010 at 12:10 PM.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:44 AM.


Forum theme courtesy of Mark Lambert
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2009 by Paramount Pictures. STAR TREK and all related
marks and logos are trademarks of CBS Studios Inc. All Rights Reserved.