Neutrality in History IS a bias.

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Sat Dec 17, 2011 4:22 am

Zine, being called a war criminal doesn't make you an expert on war crimes. It just means you're probably a bad person.

And given you've never seen a post by Frank that you couldn't argue with, ever since [some event where he presumably crushed your dreams by saying something mean on the Internet], do you really expect people to take your arguments with him seriously at all? It's just a case of making noise for the sake of doing so, and sends stupidity back in time to invalidate anything you said before he posted.

Neeeek · Post by **Neeeek** » Sat Dec 17, 2011 5:43 am

RadiantPhoenix wrote:
Zinegata wrote:And I know for a fact that you're full of shit on this issue because you should know damn well that the basis for applying laws is precedence.
I'm pretty sure this is only true in nations based on common law (as opposed to civil law). The USA is, however, a nation based on common law.

Sort of. There is no such thing as a common law crime in the US for all realistic purposes. For something to be a crime there must be a statute prohibiting the behavior or mandating the behavior that the accused failed to be performed. A non-statutory basis for a creating a new crime was found to be unconstitutional about 200 years ago. The bicentennial anniversary is actually next year. So you could theoretically have a common law crime violation that was established before 1812, but virtually all of those have a statutory basis at this point anyway or are no longer crimes.

Precedent comes into criminal law almost exclusively as a guide to interpret statutes, when dealing with procedural issues, and various Constitutional protections for defendants. A way to look at this is a lot of states have anti-sodomy statutes in the books. None are valid due to Lawrence v. Texas. A prosecutor who could charge someone with committing the crime of sodomy, it just would result in the defense asking for an immediate dismissal based on Lawrence v. Texas, and would likely result in sanctions for the prosecutor for attempting to try a crime s/he ought to know was a Constitutionally protected action.

Regarding whether or not genocide is a crime in the US, Wikipedia doesn't have a fucking clue what it is talking about, as is obvious if you do the utterly simple task of following the link they use as a reference. Genocide law in the US applies to anyone who is in the US. "There is jurisdiction over the offenses described in subsections (a), (c), and (d) if...(2)regardless of where the offense is committed, the alleged offender is...(D) present in the United States." subsections (a), (c), and (d) define genocide. Subsection (b) covers the punishment, in case you were curious.

The law on the issue is crystal clear. The US might not (doesn't, in fact) reach outside their borders to prosecute genocide, but it absolutely can and will put people to death for the crime if they decide to enter the country and are discovered. It doesn't happen a lot (or ever, I'd guess), because people who are guilty of genocide typically don't spend time in countries where having done so is a capital offense.

The ICC handles most genocide cases largely because the countries who respect it's rulings refer the cases to them rather than try them themselves. However, the ICC could never make a ruling if the countries who send war criminals there didn't already have the crimes the ICC tries as crimes in their countries. Otherwise, they would have no basis for incarcerating the war criminals in the first place.

...You Lost Me · Post by **...You Lost Me** » Sat Dec 17, 2011 5:44 am

Bad Koumei. Ad hominem is the reason we have shitposts. So stop it.

Also, read Zine's stuff. Like, his post actually makes sense. I don't know anything about history or politics outside of the US, but even I can look at those articles and see his reasoning.

Gx1080 · Post by **Gx1080** » Sat Dec 17, 2011 5:50 am

Stop sucking Frank's cock, he's a raving lunatic.

Neeeek · Post by **Neeeek** » Sat Dec 17, 2011 5:55 am

Gx1080 wrote:Stop sucking Frank's cock, he's a raving lunatic.

I know Frank. He is neither raving, nor a lunatic of any sort.

PhoneLobster · Post by **PhoneLobster** » Sat Dec 17, 2011 7:30 am

...You Lost Me wrote:Also, read Zine's stuff.

Don't click through the ignore! It's a trap!

Like, his post actually makes sense. I don't know anything about history or politics outside of the US, but even I can look at those articles and see his reasoning.

Considering everyone who DOES know anything about history, politics and international law outside AND inside of the US regards everything he has posted as lies, gaping inaccuracies and outright irrelevant gibberish at best. Perhaps touting your "I don't know dick but I know what I like!" as a qualification for recommending we click through the mighty ignore shield to a series of posts less rewarding than the average Rick Roll is not such a good idea.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Sat Dec 17, 2011 7:51 am

Ow. That Zinegata argument actually hurt my brain. What the hell does the US prosecuting genocide or not have to do with Crimes Against Peace as applied by the ICC? They aren't the same body or the same crime. What does precedent in the US have to do with the ICC? The ICC is a hybrid Civil Law / Common Law system and not only does the precedents of any particular state completely not apply to the international body, but you'd have to be a lot more familiar with the workings of that body of law to say whether any precedent of any kind would apply in any particular situation. Because in Civil Law, it fucking doesn't and the ICC is a Civil Law hybrid.

But that's all deep into the rabbit hole of Zinegata not making any fucking sense. Let's start at the top of the rabbit hole: "Crimes Against Peace" is a crime that punishes first aggression. Period. Poland attacked the Soviet Union before the invasion, and therefore whatever other crimes the Soviet Union might have (and did) perform, that one wouldn't apply.

Like if someone knew what they were talking about at all, they could tell you what crime the Katyn Massacre was (because I'm pretty sure you're not allowed to execute 22,000 prisoners of war and police officers). But it certainly isn't Crimes Against Peace, because that literally only applies to invading a country that has not already attacked you. This is not a case of whitewashing the Soviet Union, this is a case of Zinegata very clearly not knowing what the fuck he is talking about and connecting random factishoids together like A Beautiful Mind.

-Username17

Zinegata · Post by **Zinegata** » Sat Dec 17, 2011 5:12 pm

Koumei wrote:Zine, being called a war criminal doesn't make you an expert on war crimes. It just means you're probably a bad person.

Not really. I'm generally called a "war criminal" by my friends as a term of endearment, because I play mainly with a wargaming crowd. Not just 40K wargames (every faction in that game is a war criminal), but also historical wargames involving World War 2 (i.e. Squad Leader), Napoleonics, etc.

Admittedly though, we do have a rather black sense of humor.

=====

Moreover, I would rather not be immodest about my own credentials, nor of the credentials of my gaming group. This is why I deliberately picked an unflattering adjective to describe myself.

However, if you must insist on remaining blind to Frank and Neeek's patent dishonesty on this matter, then let me drop a bit of immodesty. Because it gets tiring when all Trollman and Neeek can say in their defense is "Zinegata doesn't know what he's talking about!" and yet not present a shred of evidence in their defense.

Me and my circle of wargaming friends are very well versed in both history and international affairs. Our ranks include lawyers and PhD holders in history. I do not have a law or history degree, but I will say that my college grades were good enough to earn some pretty high honors.

Now, one of my friends in particular is a defense analyst for the Department of Defense, with six years of experience. He has a degree in history, and his masters was on International Relations. He is also a liberal Democrat.

I normally wouldn't bother consulting with my friends on matters of international relations and law (most of them think Internet arguments are silly), but by chance we were playing this wargame:

http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/8373 ... -the-eagle

Which coincidentally was on the Russian-Polish war. This is the war Frank was talking about when he was making wild claims that Poland totally deserved to be invaded by the Soviet Union.

So I took the opportunity and asked my friend this question:

"Did the Soviet Union have a casus belli on Poland in '39 because of what happened during the Russian-Polish War?"

His answer (in an incredulous tone), was this: "In '39?! Hell no! They had no cause to invade Poland whatsoever"

Now, let's set aside the fact that somebody with a Masters in International Relations agreed with me.

Instead, notice how he:

1) Knew what the Polish-Russian War was without needing to look in any history book.

2) Knew what a casus belli was.

3) Knew exactly that I was talking about the Soviet invasion of Poland in partnership with Germany by simply saying ''39"

Really, you CANNOT get an expert on this matter better than that. This is a guy who specializes in studying obscure wars and their wide-reaching effects. And his answer to Frank's argument? In succint terms: "Hell no"

So before you dismiss what I say, like how you habitually do, consider this: If Zinegata knew nothing, then how could he get real experts to agree with him? If he was such an asshat, why can he converse with real experts in complicated and sensitive issues like genocide and be friendly with them, to the point that he can even take being called a "war criminal" as a term of endearment?

Perhaps you should not simply rely on the words of others to judge the character of a person, because you may discover that a lot of that shit could be just made up.

=====

Finally... Just because Frank says it doesn't make it right. He's pretty damn good when it comes to game design, but he's a lunatic when it comes to world history.

It's easier to pretend person XYZ is crazy (i.e. Zinegata) than to admit you're wrong. It's easy to call other people evil than to admit you're the one who's doing wrong. So if you want to judge the arguments based on who made them instead of their validity, that's your loss.

But if you want to know the reality of the Soviet-Polish fracas in 1939, scroll down to my reply to Frank. Even the Soviet Union itself admits they plotted against peace.

Zinegata · Post by **Zinegata** » Sat Dec 17, 2011 5:26 pm

Neeeek wrote:Regarding whether or not genocide is a crime in the US, Wikipedia doesn't have a fucking clue what it is talking about, as is obvious if you do the utterly simple task of following the link they use as a reference. Genocide law in the US applies to anyone who is in the US. "There is jurisdiction over the offenses described in subsections (a), (c), and (d) if...(2)regardless of where the offense is committed, the alleged offender is...(D) present in the United States." subsections (a), (c), and (d) define genocide. Subsection (b) covers the punishment, in case you were curious.

You accuse Wikipedia of not knowing what it is talking about...

The law on the issue is crystal clear. The US might not (doesn't, in fact) reach outside their borders to prosecute genocide, but it absolutely can and will put people to death for the crime if they decide to enter the country and are discovered. It doesn't happen a lot (or ever, I'd guess), because people who are guilty of genocide typically don't spend time in countries where having done so is a capital offense.

And yet you explicitly agree with what Wikipedia said, which is that the United States will only prosecute war criminals who committed crimes within the borders of the United States. Not "no matter where you are in the world".

The United States, does not, as you originally said, do this:

Let me be clear on this: The United States government can, if they can get you into custody, prosecute you for genocide (or attempting to genocide) or slavery no matter where you are in the world.

Rather, the truth is far closer to what I said:

The reality is much more simpler: In more cases than not, the United States and many countries simply lets evil prevail as long it's not happening within their own borders.

For the rest of the world, they allow evil to prevail even within their own borders.

It's a damn sad truth, but that's a shame that the United States has to bear.

=====

The ICC handles most genocide cases largely because the countries who respect it's rulings refer the cases to them rather than try them themselves. However, the ICC could never make a ruling if the countries who send war criminals there didn't already have the crimes the ICC tries as crimes in their countries. Otherwise, they would have no basis for incarcerating the war criminals in the first place.

Not exactly. The ICC handles now handles most genocide cases because most countries are signatories of the Rome Statute:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rome_Statu ... inal_Court

This statute is the first real treaty that defines genocide as a crime that can be prosecuted anywhere by the International law. If you're a country is a signatory of the Rome Statute, then they are treaty-bound to hand over war criminals and extradite them to the Hague.

Significantly, the United States has withdrawn from this treaty, along with Israel and Sudan, which is another shameful example of the United States failing to actually do anything about people who have committed genocide.

Zinegata · Post by **Zinegata** » Sat Dec 17, 2011 5:45 pm

FrankTrollman wrote:What the hell does the US prosecuting genocide or not have to do with Crimes Against Peace as applied by the ICC?

Despite your constant and valiant attempts to muddle the issue, it's extremely easy to see I am arguing about the two things:

1) The United States has a shitty record on prosecuting genocide, despite Neeek's fanciful claims.

2) Frank Trollman is insane for claiming that the Soviet Union had a casus belli against Poland in 1939, and is thus not innocent of Crimes Against Peace.

The previous post addresses #1. This post addresses #2.

Poland attacked the Soviet Union before the invasion, and therefore whatever other crimes the Soviet Union might have (and did) perform, that one wouldn't apply.

Wrong. Again, the Peace of Riga was concluded by the Soviet Union and Poland in 1921. While Poland was the aggressor during the Russo-Polish War, the treaty abrogates any casus belli because both parties agreed to peace and a specific territorial border.

Again, a quick and simple history lesson:

- The Poles started a fight with the Soviet Union in the 1920s.

- The Poles and Soviets decided war was a bad thing. They decided to sign a peace treaty called the Peace of Riga in 1921. They promised to be friends and respect each other's territory. As part of the treaty, Poland gave back the land they conquered from the Soviets

- The Germans plotted to destroy Poland in 1939, which was eighteen years later. The Soviet Union agreed to join the plot if Germany would give half of Poland to them.

Again, these are the facts. If you think that the Soviet Union is an honorable nation by violating a peace treaty they signed in 1921 for a simple land grab in partnership with Hitler in 1939, you're simply crazy.

The exact quote from the wiki, just to show what a bunch of treacherous assholes the Soviets really were:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_o ... t_invasion

From the beginning, the German government repeatedly asked Vyacheslav Molotov whether the Soviet Union would keep to its side of the partition bargain.

...

By 17 September, the Polish defence was already broken and the only hope was to retreat and reorganize along the Romanian Bridgehead. However, these plans were rendered obsolete nearly overnight, when the over 800,000 strong Soviet Red Army entered and created the Belarussian and Ukrainian fronts after invading the eastern regions of Poland in violation of the Riga Peace Treaty, the Soviet-Polish Non-Aggression Pact, and other international treaties, both bilateral and multilateral.[Note 6] Soviet diplomacy claimed that they were "protecting the Ukrainian and Belarusian minorities of eastern Poland since the Polish government had abandoned the country and the Polish state ceased to exist".[61]

Italics mine. Frank claims that the Soviet Union was justified in invading Poland, because the Poles attacked the Soviet Union.

Yet even the Soviet Union - at the time of the invasion - made ZERO claims that they were attacked by the Poles. They only gave BS excuses about protecting minorities.

=====

Like if someone knew what they were talking about at all, they could tell you what crime the Katyn Massacre was (because I'm pretty sure you're not allowed to execute 22,000 prisoners of war and police officers). But it certainly isn't Crimes Against Peace, because that literally only applies to invading a country that has not already attacked you. This is not a case of whitewashing the Soviet Union, this is a case of Zinegata very clearly not knowing what the fuck he is talking about and connecting random factishoids together like A Beautiful Mind.

-Username17

Frank, stop trying to delude the audience. Lots will be duped, but some people do in fact take the the time to actually read what I wrote; and I suspect fbmf will be one of them - I'm going to this level of detail particularly because of his request.

The Katyn Massacre was never used as an argument to support the fact that the Soviet Union committed crimes against peace. The Katyn Massacre is a different kind of war crime, and pretending I brought it up (I never did) for this topic is dishonest.

In simple terms, "crimes against peace" is plotting to make war on another country; often to conquer that country. Katyn is not evidence of this.

Instead, the evidence for this is the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, which again had secret provisions wherein Germany and the Soviet Union agreed to divide Poland between them. I have mentioned this treaty at least twice now.

You have not addressed the Pact at all, because you know damn well that this is ironclad proof that the Soviet Union was in fact guilty of plotting to dismember Poland. How ironclad?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2 ... viet_Union

After years of denials, even the Soviet Union eventually admitted that the secret protocols were real in 1989.

In December 1989, the commission concluded that the protocol had existed and revealed its findings to the Soviet Congress of People's Deputies.[209] As a result, the first democratically elected Congress of Soviets passed the declaration confirming the existence of the secret protocols, condemning and denouncing them.[214][215]

Yes, even the Soviet Union itself does not agree with Frank's fantasy view of history. And in 1989 they condemned and denounced the fact that their leaders in 1939 had agreed to such a shameful deal.

Neeeek · Post by **Neeeek** » Sat Dec 17, 2011 6:46 pm

Zinegata wrote:
The law on the issue is crystal clear. The US might not (doesn't, in fact) reach outside their borders to prosecute genocide, but it absolutely can and will put people to death for the crime if they decide to enter the country and are discovered. It doesn't happen a lot (or ever, I'd guess), because people who are guilty of genocide typically don't spend time in countries where having done so is a capital offense.
And yet you explicitly agree with what Wikipedia said, which is that the United States will only prosecute war criminals who committed crimes within the borders of the United States. Not "no matter where you are in the world".

You are wrong, AND you have trouble with reading comprehension, I see. The US can and will prosecute anyone for genocide that happens anywhere if the PERSON who COMMITTED the genocidal act, WHEREVER THAT HAPPEN TO BE is physically inside the US at anytime. They simply won't send the Army to the Sudan or wherever to arrest them. Which is pretty standard for every country in the world.

To put it simply: Any person who has engaged in genocidal acts anywhere in the world that is found within the US can be prosecuted and even put to death for the crimes that took place elsewhere.

Zinegata · Post by **Zinegata** » Sat Dec 17, 2011 7:00 pm

Neeek->

So in closing, rather than admit you are wrong you hurl ad-hominems. So I will just remind everyone of the facts.

Your original statement was this:

Let me be clear on this: The United States government can, if they can get you into custody, prosecute you for genocide (or attempting to genocide) or slavery no matter where you are in the world.

But in your statement NOW, you said this:

The US can and will prosecute anyone for genocide that happens anywhere if the PERSON who COMMITTED the genocidal act, WHEREVER THAT HAPPEN TO BE is physically inside the US at anytime

"no matter where you are in the world" is not the same as "physically inside the US at anytime."

=====

This argument is concluded, as your revised position is in fact a concession that my argument is correct. As I said:

The reality is much more simpler: In more cases than not, the United States and many countries simply lets evil prevail as long it's not happening within their own borders.

Which is shameful for the United States, particularly since they decided to withdraw from the ICC Rome Statute and further reject prosecuting war criminal across borders.

Moreover...

For the rest of the world, they allow evil to prevail even within their own borders.

It is even more shameful for places like Serbia who actively hid war criminals like Radovan for twelve years.

It's that simple, no need to make 98% vs 99% distinctions like Neeek is trying to do, to avoid having to admit he was wrong.

(The 98% vs 99% distinction? Neeek is trying to argue that the US is "better" than what I'm portraying because it will still prosecute any war criminals caught within US borders. But as he himself admits, it's a useless law - no war criminal is going to seek refuge in the United States. They can just hide in places like Serbia to avoid justice. There have been zero war criminals caught and prosecuted by the United States government - not a great record - and a major reason why genocide keeps happening again, and again, and again)

Neeeek · Post by **Neeeek** » Sat Dec 17, 2011 7:10 pm

Zinegata wrote:Neeek->

So in closing, rather than admit you are wrong you hurl ad-hominems. So I will just remind everyone of the facts.

Your original statement was this:

Let me be clear on this: The United States government can, if they can get you into custody, prosecute you for genocide (or attempting to genocide) or slavery no matter where you are in the world.
But in your statement NOW, you said this:

The US can and will prosecute anyone for genocide that happens anywhere if the PERSON who COMMITTED the genocidal act, WHEREVER THAT HAPPEN TO BE is physically inside the US at anytime
"no matter where you are in the world" is not the same as "physically inside the US at anytime."

This argument is concluded, as your revised position is in fact a concession that my argument is correct. As I said:

The reality is much more simpler: In more cases than not, the United States and many countries simply lets evil prevail as long it's not happening within their own borders.
It's that simple, no need to make 98% vs 99% distinctions like Neeek is trying to do, to avoid having to admit he was wrong.

Actually, you are simply unable to read very well. If you commit genocide, you've committed a crime in the United States. The United States' ability to prosecute you for your genocide is limited to their being able to have custody of you. You not getting the difference between jurisdiction and enforceability doesn't make me wrong, it makes you not a very good source for legal issues.

Zinegata · Post by **Zinegata** » Sat Dec 17, 2011 7:19 pm

Neeeek wrote:Actually, you are simply unable to read very well. If you commit genocide, you've committed a crime in the United States. The United States' ability to prosecute you for your genocide is limited to their being able to have custody of you. You not getting the difference between jurisdiction and enforceability doesn't make me wrong, it makes you not a very good source for legal issues.

Actually, I do get it. See the edit. I will now ignore any further ad-hominem content from you

Gx1080 · Post by **Gx1080** » Sat Dec 17, 2011 7:26 pm

Small interruption of this cockslap fight:

*Laws are meaningless without the capability to enforce them.
*There's absolutely nothing wrong with the US "allowing evil" outside their borders. The military of a country exists to protect said country from external threats, not to be a world police. Want that, join the Peacekeepers.
*Do you mean that the Soviet Union *gasp* attacked a weaker country because they could? No wai. Standard for most European countries, but still unsurprising.

Now, please continue.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Sat Dec 17, 2011 8:06 pm

Gx1080 wrote:Small interruption of this cockslap fight:

*Laws are meaningless without the capability to enforce them.
*There's absolutely nothing wrong with the US "allowing evil" outside their borders. The military of a country exists to protect said country from external threats, not to be a world police. Want that, join the Peacekeepers.
*Do you mean that the Soviet Union *gasp* attacked a weaker country because they could? No wai. Standard for most European countries, but still unsurprising.

Now, please continue.

All of these are true. The thing with Poland is that they were at the time occupying 250 miles of Ukrainian territory that they had taken in 1921 when they were stronger and had attacked the Soviets because they could. Irony and all that.

If you want to talk about Soviet Aggression, why the fuck aren't you talking about their invasion of Finland? Or their annexation of Moldavia? Finnish secession from the Russian Empire was all internationally ratified and shit before there even was a Bolshevik government. Bessarabia had entered into free association with Romania. Whining about the Soviet invasion of Poland is just stupid, because Poland was a first aggressor and literally conducting a military occupation of Soviet territory at the time. Russia had various trumped up causus beli on Finland and Romania as well (Romania better than Finland), but you'd be on way better ground bitching about those invasions. The Winter War was straight illegal by most plausible interpretations.

The devil is in the details. And Zinegata simply refuses to get his details right when he is ranting about law. It's extremely embarrassing to watch.

-Username17

name_here · Post by **name_here** » Sat Dec 17, 2011 8:34 pm

Uh, the US doesn't persecute war criminals who are not in the united states because that would involve arresting a citizen of a sovereign country on its territory and against its will. This is otherwise known as an act of war.

Datawolf · Post by **Datawolf** » Sat Dec 17, 2011 9:07 pm

Neeeek wrote:Actually, you are simply unable to read very well. If you commit genocide, you've committed a crime in the United States. The United States' ability to prosecute you for your genocide is limited to their being able to have custody of you. You not getting the difference between jurisdiction and enforceability doesn't make me wrong, it makes you not a very good source for legal issues.

If you are saying what I think you are saying, that is very disturbing.

I think you are saying that if I commit genocide anywhere in the world outside of the United States they can arrest, charge, try and execute me for it if I ever set foot on U.S. soil. Of course, that's only bad if that applies to all acts that are considered crime in the U.S., although I think I would prefer that they hand such people over the the International Courts rather than trying them in the U.S.

Am I simply reading this wrong? Or does this apply only to particularly nasty large scale crimes like mass murder, genocide, human trafficking and the like?

EDIT: Since you seem to know your shit, I am going to give you and the American Justice System the benefit of the doubt here and assume that neither one is batshit insane enough to advocate actually hunting down and "arresting" criminals outside of the U.S. for crimes that were not committed within America's borders.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Sat Dec 17, 2011 9:41 pm

If you ever show up in the US, then yes, it would totally arrest and prosecute you. It might also hunt you down and prosecute you if what you did is bad enough, like say, conspiracy to commit murder on important US citizens or whatever.

Turns out, you can also be sued in the US for stuff you did not in the US, if you are in the US.

So yeah. Don't be in the US if you don't want to be subject to US laws applied to actions you took elsewhere.

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Sat Dec 17, 2011 10:38 pm

Wait, so "Shit, I'm looking at the friggin US prison system for [some crime, real or imagined], ESCALATE TO WAR CRIMES, GET A HAGUE TRIAL AND EUROPEAN IMPRISONMENT" wouldn't actually work?

Damn, there goes my idea for a novel.

name_here · Post by **name_here** » Sat Dec 17, 2011 10:50 pm

Since you seem to know your shit, I am going to give you and the American Justice System the benefit of the doubt here and assume that neither one is batshit insane enough to advocate actually hunting down and "arresting" criminals outside of the U.S. for crimes that were not committed within America's borders.

That is specifically what he is saying the US will not do. That would probably constitute an act of war, and in fact the US will not hunt down people outside the U.S who were already convicted and sentenced inside the U.S. for crimes committed inside the U.S and escaped. What the US will do is arrest and prosecute people who committed crimes outside of US borders and later entered said borders. Though I think it's typical to turn over criminals to the government of wherever they actually committed the crime unless said government is unable or unwilling to prosecute them. There's some standing treaties with certain governments to that effect.

Zinegata · Post by **Zinegata** » Sun Dec 18, 2011 1:29 am

FrankTrollman wrote:All of these are true. The thing with Poland is that they were at the time occupying 250 miles of Ukrainian territory that they had taken in 1921 when they were stronger and had attacked the Soviets because they could. Irony and all that.

Again, since Frank Trollman cannot be bothered to actually honor International Peace Treaties:

1) The Poles did indeed invade Soviet territory during the Polish-Soviet War. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish%E2%80%93Soviet_War

2) In 1921, both sides decided that war was a terrible idea and signed the Peace of Riga. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_of_Riga

Part of the treaty is both sides recognizing the new border between Poland and the Soviet Union, and the Soviet Union therefore surrendered its claim to the territory past the Curzon line (250km worth, not 250 miles worth too BTW).

3) In the period of 1921-1939, peace reigned between Poland and the Soviet Union. In fact, they even signed a Non-Aggression Pact:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet-Pol ... ssion_Pact

(So the Soviet Union was a Pact-breaker and if this was a Dominions game Frank would have rage-quit.

)

4) In 1939, Germany plotted to invade Poland. They concluded talks with the Soviet Union, and they signed a treaty promising not to attack each other and split Poland between them:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2 ... ntrop_Pact

5) Poland is invaded in 1939. Lots of Poles die. The Soviet Union invades claiming that they were entering to "protect minorities". Again, they NEVER even claim that they are entering the war because Poland attacked them OR because Poland was holding "Ukranian land"). The official Soviet line is as follows:

Soviet diplomacy claimed that they were "protecting the Ukrainian and Belarusian minorities of eastern Poland since the Polish government had abandoned the country and the Polish state ceased to exist"

And just in case Frank claims delusionally that the Polish state ceased to exist by this point, that's simply not true. The Polish Government-in-Exile persisted until 1990:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_government-in-exile

6) World War 2 is fought and won. The Allies hold the Nuremberg trials, and charge certain Nazis (including Ribbentrop) with "Crimes against Peace". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Trials

One of the criticisms of the trial?

One of the charges, brought against Keitel, Jodl, and Ribbentrop included conspiracy to commit aggression against Poland in 1939. The Secret Protocols of the German-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact of 23 August 1939, proposed the partition of Poland between the Germans and the Soviets (which was subsequently executed in September 1939); however, Soviet leaders were not tried for being part of the same conspiracy)

7) Largely due to the above, the Soviet Union denied that there were any Secret Protocols in the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. That was until 1989:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2 ... viet_Union

When the Soviet Union finally admitted they indeed existed, and condemned is being a shitty decision made by their government.

======

These are the facts. Judge the facts, especially since Frank isn't actually refuting any of them and instead keeps repeating ourtight wrong claims like "The Poles had 250 miles/km of Ukranian territory!" (No it's not. It's Polish territory. The Soviets signed the fucking treaty in 1921). It's almost like debating Michelle Bachman in a Republican debate.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... -and-said/

I will refrain from repeating myself because Frank isn't actually addressing any of this, but is waddling around with side issues like this:

=====

If you want to talk about Soviet Aggression, why the fuck aren't you talking about their invasion of Finland?

Because the Soviet Union did not conspire with Germany to invade Finland. They did in Poland, and the Germans were convicted of conspiracy against peace (under crimes against peace) while the Soviets were not.

It's really that simple, and it's bluntly shocking you cannot comprehend this, or are attempting to pretend not to comprehend this.

Discussions about Soviet's shitty actions in other countries - including Finland, the Baltic States, etc can be discussed seperately.

But not mentioning them doesn't invalidate anything that has already been said about the Soviets backstabbing the Poles; it only shows how you have completely failed to refute the actual historical timelines and are now trying to move the conversation elsewhere because even the Soviet Union has stated definitively that you are wrong in 1989.

Zinegata · Post by **Zinegata** » Sun Dec 18, 2011 1:33 am

name_here wrote:That is specifically what he is saying the US will not do. That would probably constitute an act of war, and in fact the US will not hunt down people outside the U.S who were already convicted and sentenced inside the U.S. for crimes committed inside the U.S and escaped. What the US will do is arrest and prosecute people who committed crimes outside of US borders and later entered said borders. Though I think it's typical to turn over criminals to the government of wherever they actually committed the crime unless said government is unable or unwilling to prosecute them. There's some standing treaties with certain governments to that effect.

Yep, they're called extradition treaties.

While the law has never been tested (because again, no war criminal is gonna go to the US), it is generally standard practice for the United States to NOT prosecute foreign nationals unless they committed crimes against Americans. They are instead arrested on US soil and then handed over to their home country via extradition treaties. The crime need not even be genocide.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition_treaty

If the United States had not withdrawn from the ICC Rome Statute, then they could also extradite war criminals to the International Criminal Court.

BTW, you are absolutely correct in saying that attempting to arrest a foreign national in a foreign country can be construed as an act of war. As I initially said:

America in fact has a terrible record when it comes to stopping genocide, and the US doesn't really do much to help catch war criminals, largely because the US does not have jurisdiction where these people are hiding. For instance:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radovan_Ka ... _and_trial

This bastard was hiding in Serbia, and was hidden by his fellow Serbs. If America tried to arrest him, they'd be committing what is arguably an act of war against another state.

But hey, if I say it, it's apparently crazy talk. So I'll let you champion this one

Zinegata · Post by **Zinegata** » Sun Dec 18, 2011 1:47 am

Gx1080 wrote:*There's absolutely nothing wrong with the US "allowing evil" outside their borders. The military of a country exists to protect said country from external threats, not to be a world police. Want that, join the Peacekeepers.

I again find it hilarious that I was being criticized for "giving ammunition to revisionists trying to justify evil", and yet when I point out the United States is okay with allowing people to get away with genocide as long it's done outside the United States, people turn around and go "That's okay!".

Really, it's okay for war criminals to evade justice for twelve years for genocide?

It's okay for the United States to get out of an organization who IS trying to be the world police (the ICC) and prosecute these war criminals?

Actually, no. It's not funny. It's sad as hell.

=====

Also, BTW, I wasn't the one who was advocating this initially. Neeek was:

Let me be clear on this: The United States government can, if they can get you into custody, prosecute you for genocide (or attempting to genocide) or slavery no matter where you are in the world.

But apparently, what he actually meant to say was this:

Let me be clear on this: The United States government can, if they can get you into custody, prosecute you for genocide (or attempting to genocide) or slavery no matter where you committed the crime.

Which is a pretty big difference. And as name_here also pointed out, trying to do the former can be construed as an act of war.

Zinegata · Post by **Zinegata** » Sun Dec 18, 2011 2:17 am

Koumei wrote:Wait, so "Shit, I'm looking at the friggin US prison system for [some crime, real or imagined], ESCALATE TO WAR CRIMES, GET A HAGUE TRIAL AND EUROPEAN IMPRISONMENT" wouldn't actually work?

Damn, there goes my idea for a novel.

Nope, sorry. The United States got out of the ICC, so they generally can't extradite directly to the Hague.

Your character could just escalate to doing crimes against European nationals though. Have him kill Tintin for instance and traumatize all the Belgian children.

Then the Belgian government will demand that your character be extradited from the US to Belgium, and thus enjoy EUROPEAN IMPRISONMENT.