US "bullies" countries into giving immunity to US forces - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Aborted · 12-10-2004, 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebell

But the US didn't sign this particular one.

Apologies, I should have been clearer.

As I understand it, the US has abstained from signing this treaty because it doesn't want it's soldiers to be accountable to a foreign body that supercedes it's authority. What I'm saying is that the same applies to the countries who have signed, it's not like different rules apply to them or their soldiers are any less subject to the terms of the treaty. I just get the impression that a lot of people's opinions are unecessarily influenced by delusions of underlying anti-american motives when, frankly, they just don't exist.

Mephisto2 · 12-10-2004, 05:33 PM

Well said Aborted.

Mr Mephisto

roachboy · 12-10-2004, 05:39 PM

fill me in please on exactly how the bill posted above functions to obviate the question of rightwing political biais at every level of the debate in this thread on the question of internationa law with reference to crimes against humanity? it seems rather to simply write that political logic into a different register...a republican dominated congress passes a bill written on the basis of exactly the kind of john birch society-style "logic" about international law i complained about earlier--this changes things how exactly?

given that a war crime is a crime against humanity, i do not see how teh question of national sovereignty enters into consideration here. folk who are supporting the american refusal to accept the jurisdiction of the incr seem to be bent on pretending that the issue is sovereignty and not the prsecution of war crimes. i think that is false. what, then, is the basis for refusing to accept the notion that americans can and should be prsoecuted for war crimes? nothing about being prsecuted assumes guilt....

alansmithee · 12-11-2004, 12:27 PM

But crimes against humanity is not the issue, the issue is crimes against some disgruntled country being used to punish American servicemen. It's really remarkable that many people only see evil and self-intrest coming from America and fail to ignore it from elsewhere. Take the much maligned Iraq war-France opposed it, but does anyone now really believe they opposed the war based purely on ideological reasons? Or was it the kickbacks they were getting from the oil-for-food program? My point being that America (as the world's reigning superpower) should not allow it's sovernity to be undercut by other countries who might arbitrarily and unjustifiably use the ICC to attack America's soldiers/leaders.

sprocket · 12-11-2004, 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

given that a war crime is a crime against humanity, i do not see how teh question of national sovereignty enters into consideration here. folk who are supporting the american refusal to accept the jurisdiction of the incr seem to be bent on pretending that the issue is sovereignty and not the prsecution of war crimes. i think that is false. what, then, is the basis for refusing to accept the notion that americans can and should be prsoecuted for war crimes? nothing about being prsecuted assumes guilt....

This statement actually makes a good case for the war in Iraq.

Mojo_PeiPei · 12-11-2004, 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

fill me in please on exactly how the bill posted above functions to obviate the question of rightwing political biais at every level of the debate in this thread on the question of internationa law with reference to crimes against humanity? it seems rather to simply write that political logic into a different register...a republican dominated congress passes a bill written on the basis of exactly the kind of john birch society-style "logic" about international law i complained about earlier--this changes things how exactly?

given that a war crime is a crime against humanity, i do not see how teh question of national sovereignty enters into consideration here. folk who are supporting the american refusal to accept the jurisdiction of the incr seem to be bent on pretending that the issue is sovereignty and not the prsecution of war crimes. i think that is false. what, then, is the basis for refusing to accept the notion that americans can and should be prsoecuted for war crimes? nothing about being prsecuted assumes guilt....

Did you not read what the treaty would do? How is this not an issue of sovereignity???

Quote:

B) The treaty known as the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, adopted in Rome, Italy on July 17, 1998, by the United Nations Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court (hereinafter referred to as the `ICC Treaty'), by claiming the unprecedented power to investigate and try citizens of any nation--even the citizens of nations that are not party to the treaty--based upon events taking place in the territory of a nation party to the treaty, is entirely unsupported in international law.

(2)(A) Under the terms of the ICC Treaty, an institution, to be called the International Criminal Court (hereinafter referred to as the `Court'), is to be established upon the ratification of the ICC Treaty by 60 nations.

(B) The creation of this permanent, supranational Court, with the independent power to judge and punish elected officials of sovereign nations for their official actions, represents a decisive break with fundamental United States ideals of self-government and popular sovereignty.

(C) The creation of the Court would constitute the transfer of the ultimate authority to judge the acts of United States officials away from the people of the United States to an unelected and unaccountable international bureaucracy.

(3)(A) In its design and operation, the Court is fundamentally inconsistent with core United States political and legal values.

(B) For example, a defendant would face a judicial process almost entirely foreign to the traditions and standards of the United States and be denied the right to a trial by a jury of one's peers, reasonable bail, a speedy trial, and the ability to confront witnesses to challenge the evidence against the defendant.

(4)(A) A prosecutor under the ICC Treaty would be able to appeal a verdict of acquittal, effectively placing the accused in `double jeopardy'.

(B) Such appeals are forbidden in the law of the United States and have been inconsistent with the Anglo-American legal tradition since the 17th century.

(5) Because the guarantees of the Bill of Rights in the United States Constitution would not be available to those individuals prosecuted by the Court, the United States could not participate in, or facilitate, any such court.

(6)(A) If the United States were to join the ICC Treaty, United States citizens could face removal to jurisdictions outside the United States for prosecution and judgment, without the benefit of a trial by jury, in a tribunal that would not guarantee many other rights granted by the United States Constitution and laws of the United States, and where the judges may well cherish animosities, or prejudices against them.

RB aren't you one of those on this board who is greatly opposed and frightened by the patriot act? Seems awfully hypocritical to me...

djtestudo · 12-11-2004, 01:42 PM

There is a flip-side to this, though. If we were to join up and a nation like France were to "unjustly" go after our troops, we could then go after THEM. Fair's fair, right?

whocarz · 12-12-2004, 03:14 PM

That's assuming France has it's soldiers doing something outside of driving around in Land Rovers in some insignificant African country, or sipping latte in a Parisian cafe.

roachboy · 12-12-2004, 03:33 PM

mojo: what you dont seem to understand if that i do not care about the notion of the nation-state. i understand nationalism as a form of collective mental disorder. the nation-state is an outmoded relic of a particular period of capitalist development. it is already effectively obsolete in significant areas of economic organization, for example.

the bush administration itself is proof that some kind of international law is required. insofar as this law is at the moment being debated across the question of how crimes against humanity should be prosecuted, it is a tactically disadvantageous position for the right--so of course they would prefer to reframe the question as one of national sovereignty---because otherwise you would find yourself arguing against the idea of war crimes, or against the idea that americans should be prosecuted for war crimes, that somehow or another there was some "essence" to being-american that made the commission of war crimes impossible.

which is pretty funny, given the close relation between the american nation-state and genocide (remember the native americans?)
or is the matter really that a genocide that you approve of is not a genocide? a war crime that you approve of on political grounds is not a war crime?
or are you saying that what really matters is how the people who carry out a genocide--or other war crimes---understand their actions?
only in cases where you politically approve of the action, of course.
if you did not approve politically, i expect you would be appalled at the same action.

as for the patriot act: i saw it as a logical consequence of the particular, cynical response on the part of the bush administration to 9/11.
whatever positions i have argued here about it are logically and politically unrelated to this question.

Mojo_PeiPei · 12-12-2004, 04:02 PM

Genocide isn't the issue though RB, I honestly hope you don't think that I'm somehow allowing for it. This particular treaty however isn't about genocide. There are already many instances of international law, more importantly genocide, that we have signed accords too.

I don't equate a Marine shooting an illegal combatant as genocide, nor do I consider it a war crime. It might be immoral, it could be illegal in some other sense has held by our own laws. All I'm saying is that There are already things in place within our own structure and concept of law, one that I have way more confidence in than some international constant.

This is ultimately an issue of politics and relinquishing of sovereignity. I think it is something we will have to agree to disagree about though. I love my country, it's the best country on the face of the planet, the best country to ever exist. It is part of my identity, and like those before me, I would die to preserve it. I find it saddening you to don't love your country or what it stands for.

roachboy · 12-12-2004, 04:19 PM

Quote:

I find it saddening you to don't love your country or what it stands for

well, at least you were nice about it.

i tried to be clear that i was not equating all war crimes with genocide, but maybe i failed in that.
on the other hand, i still see no problem whatsoever with a mechanism that would operate at the international level that would enforce laws pretaining to crimes against humanity. it is obvious that the bush administration is not capable of holding its own forces to such standards. it is obvious that the bush administration feels things like the geneva convention to be unnecessary constraints (bush's nominee to a.g. has referred to it as "quaint"). if you have an administration like this one in power, then it seems to me to follow that there is all the more reason for such an international court, and that opposition to it from supporters of the administration are, to say the least, problematic.

stevo · 12-13-2004, 10:19 AM

Do you follow the news? I've heard of several reports of US soldiers being tried for illegal acts during this war. If you want, when I get time I'll post them up. But the whole point is that the US is a nation that can and should take care of their own problems. If a US soldier commits a crime it is the US's responsibility to prosecute the soldier. There is NO reason for the US to allow other countries to prosecute our own. Maybe you didn't follow the link I posted, so I'll post the whole article.

Quote:

A Dangerous Step Closer to an International Criminal Court

By Jeremy Rabkin
Posted: Monday, January 1, 2001
ON THE ISSUES
AEI Online (Washington)
Publication Date: January 1, 2001

On the Issues
President Clinton has approved a treaty that would create an international court to try war crimes and crimes against humanity. He explained that, despite having concerns about the treaty, he signed on because he wants the United States "to remain engaged in making the ICC an instrument of impartial and effective justice." Signing was at best a tactical blunder, however. The treaty as it stands would further erode our diminishing sovereignty, and signing it removes our leverage in trying to fix its flaws.

On December 31, with the country distracted by the New Year’s revels, Bill Clinton announced that the United States would sign the treaty to establish an International Criminal Court. He characterized his decision as an act of "moral leadership." In other words, it was a betrayal of American interests.

The treaty was drafted at a United Nations conference in Rome in July 1998. Then, and in over two years of subsequent bargaining over remaining details, Mr. Clinton had refused to sign, primarily because of strong objections from the Pentagon. The objections remain strong.

What the Treaty Would Do

The treaty would transfer ultimate judgment on American military measures from the U.S. government to an international prosecutor. The Clinton administration has consistently sought some great-power veto on the prosecutor’s discretion, or some exemption for troops on U.N. missions. The Europeans and others have persistently rejected such modifications.

Mr. Clinton says that "jurisdiction over U.S. personnel should come only with U.S. ratification of the Treaty" and has called on the Senate to delay ratification until the court is adequately reformed. But U.S. personnel would be subject to prosecution anyway, because the court now has jurisdiction where the victims of a "war crime" or "crime of aggression" come from a ratifying state (even if the alleged perpetrators do not).

Moreover, the treaty establishes a special provision by which a country can ask the court to take jurisdiction over some crime against its nationals without that country actually committing itself to turn over its own nationals to the court. This is an invitation to special raids on Americans. Or perhaps on American allies, such as Israel, which pleaded in vain at the Rome conference against successful Arab initiatives that effectively classify the building of Jewish settlements on the West Bank as a "war crime."

Suppose Israel and the Palestinians are making progress in a serious peace negotiation. Will it be helpful for the court’s prosecutor to barge in with his own indictments? No national government is permitted to offer an amnesty that binds the court, nor is the United Nations authorized to do so. Yet every country that has made a transition to democracy in the past decade (from South Africa to numerous states in Latin America and Eastern Europe) has sought national reconciliation with just such measures.

Any country that wants to arrange for outside trial of its own nationals can already do so. The United Nations has established three special-purpose tribunals (for the former Yugoslavia, for Rwanda and, most recently, for Sierra Leone), and could do this again. Spain and other European countries, which offered to try Gen. Augusto Pinochet for abuses in Chile over two decades ago, could certainly make their courts available for special trials of other perpetrators. Far from excluding such ad hoc ventures, the ICC treaty actually invites states to adopt them, "recalling" in its preamble "that it is the duty of every State to exercise its criminal jurisdiction over . . . international crimes," without limiting this jurisdiction to its own nationals.

Much of the world wants to pretend that international justice can be delivered on the cheap. Mass murder in Rwanda? No need to send troops and risk casualties of your own. Just send in a team of lawyers to show you care. This has, of course, been the policy of the Clinton administration as well as the United Nations. But the International Criminal Court’s statute was finally a way to call the Clinton bluff: If international justice is so noble, why not impose it on the United States, too?

Let the United States supply the troops and the court will sit in judgment on how well the U.S. has done. But the world that presumes to judge American action in this court does not volunteer to replace American power with any international alternative. International justice is merely a slogan that appeals to European leaders who are eager to make European rhetoric a counterweight to American resources.

What the United States Should Do

Mr. Clinton claims that signing the treaty assures the United States a better opportunity to work for changes from within. But the U.S. has only one vote among some 130 current signatories. What we haven’t been
able to persuade others to do in two years on the sidelines we aren’t likely to put over as a signatory.

In the meantime, though, Mr. Clinton’s action has undercut our actual leverage as a critic of the court. We should be saying that we don’t want to see this court come into existence at all in its current form. We should be exerting pressure on allies and friends not to ratify. Instead, we have now blessed the existing treaty by signing it, hoping the world will heed our cavils more than our blessing.

In fact, we may now be committed, under existing international law, not to act in any way that would undermine this treaty. That is the obligation of states that sign a treaty before they ratify it, according to the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. And in general terms, the obligation makes sense: Countries should not sign treaties with their fingers crossed behind their backs.

But Mr. Clinton has repeatedly signed treaties that have no hope of Senate ratification and then simply declined to submit them to a vote there. The 1997 Kyoto Protocol on global warming is but the most notorious example. This practice enables the president to cast the United States as a willing partner in ventures that actually command very little domestic support. Instead of rallying domestic consensus for international commitments, such maneuvers leave our diplomacy in a fantasy land of good intentions, which the president then doesn’t dare put to the test.

President-elect Bush should give top priority to a review of Mr. Clinton’s globalist legacy—starting with
the International Criminal Court. According to our Declaration of Independence, "a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that [Americans] should declare the causes which impel them to the separation." There is more "decent respect" in an honest statement of American opposition than in a perpetuation of Clintonian evasions.

Jeremy Rabkin, a professor of government at Cornell University and an adjunct scholar of AEI, is the author of Why Sovereignty Matters.

Source Notes: This article appeared in the Wall Street Journal on January 3, 2001.
AEI Print Index No. 12457

Pacifier · 12-13-2004, 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo22

Do you follow the news? I've heard of several reports of US soldiers being tried for illegal acts during this war. If you want, when I get time I'll post them up. But the whole point is that the US is a nation that can and should take care of their own problems.

Exactly, and thats why I fail to see your problems with the ICC, the ICC is only accountable for those crimes if the home nation of the criminal fails to investigate the crime.

If the USA continues to investigate those ilegal acts committed by US Soldiers those soldiers will never be put in front of the ICC.

(hit "edit" instead of "quote".

appologies, lebell)

roachboy · 12-13-2004, 01:32 PM

i know jeremy rabkin--he is a neocon--so his argument is not surprising.
nor do i find it an adequate response to the problem at hand.
it simply repeats the framing problem i have already noted several times.

Lebell · 12-13-2004, 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pacifier

Exactly, and thats why I fail to see your problems with the ICC, the ICC is only accountable for those crimes if the home nation of the criminal fails to investigate the crime.

If the USA continues to investigate those ilegal acts committed by US Soldiers those soldiers will never be put in front of the ICC.

And there is part of the problem: What recourse would we have if they DID put someone in front of the ICC who we determined didn't deserve it?

This is of course the core of why we won't submit to the ICC. Those conducting trials are not accountable to those under it's jurisdiction.

Maybe you don't think this is a problem, but we fought a war to achieve just such a thing.

powerclown · 12-13-2004, 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebell

If the USA continues to investigate those ilegal acts committed by US Soldiers those soldiers will never be put in front of the ICC.

And there is part of the problem: What recourse would we have if they DID put someone in front of the ICC who we determined didn't deserve it?

This is of course the core of why we won't submit to the ICC. Those conducting trials are not accountable to those under it's jurisdiction.

Maybe you don't think this is a problem, but we fought a war to achieve just such a thing.

I agree...

International prosecution of so-called war crimes in the last century have been a sham. Has anyone been held to account for Rwanda YET? The Milosevic 'Trial' (term used loosley) at the Hague is going on 3 years now, with no end in sight. Darfur continues to burn on. Chechnya is a mess. French troops opened fire with automatic weapons on civilian demonstrators in the Ivory Coast, killing many. Spain is fighting fundamentlaist islamic and basque separatist terrorism in its own country. Israel resorting to wall itself in to protect itself from suicide bombers.

International war crime prosecution will never work because by definition, it is a contradiction, a conflict of interests. Nobody is impartial because everybody is politically motivated by self-interest. And so now, along comes this ICC nonsense, claiming inviolate moral superiority, pure as the driven snow they are, and pout and scream and cry "IMPERIALIST!" and "BULLY!", when America won't drop its pants and bend over, to put itself at the mercy of its critics who have axes to grind. No country in the world would submit to having its own legal institutions so publicly mocked and humiliated.

sprocket · 12-13-2004, 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

I agree...

International prosecution of so-called war crimes in the last century have been a sham. Has anyone been held to account for Rwanda YET? The Milosevic 'Trial' (term used loosley) at the Hague is going on 3 years now, with no end in sight. Darfur continues to burn on. Chechnya is a mess. French troops opened fire with automatic weapons on civilian demonstrators in the Ivory Coast, killing many. Spain is fighting fundamentlaist islamic and basque separatist terrorism in its own country. Israel resorting to wall itself in to protect itself from suicide bombers.

International war crime prosecution will never work because by definition, it is a contradiction, a conflict of interests. Nobody is impartial because everybody is politically motivated by self-interest. And so now, along comes this ICC nonsense, claiming inviolate moral superiority, pure as the driven snow they are, and pout and scream and cry "IMPERIALIST!" and "BULLY!", when America won't drop its pants and bend over, to put itself at the mercy of its critics who have axes to grind. No country in the world would submit to having its own legal institutions so publicly mocked and humiliated.

Couldnt have said it better. Brilliant post.

Mephisto2 · 12-13-2004, 06:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sprocket

Couldnt have said it better. Brilliant post.

Funny. I couldn't disagree more.

But therein lies the rub. :-)

Mr Mephisto

stevo · 12-13-2004, 06:43 PM

so I guess we see where everyone lies and both sides of this arguement...

Seaver · 12-13-2004, 07:54 PM

Well for one I'm glad I'm in a country that doesnt backstab it's own people because of international pressures.

Anyways even if they DID want to put someone on a trial from a country who didnt sign? Or even if they did sign refused to go? The UN is going to send in it's army and force it *laugh*, they couldnt even help out the Gold Coast. They dont help out Dafur, hardly did anything in the Balkans (until Clinton decided). Let France declare our soldiers criminals, we'd never hand over our soldiers for prosecution, so let them have their own courts with no one there when they decide guilty.

energus · 12-14-2004, 06:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebell

And there is part of the problem: What recourse would we have if they DID put someone in front of the ICC who we determined didn't deserve it?

This is of course the core of why we won't submit to the ICC. Those conducting trials are not accountable to those under it's jurisdiction.

Maybe you don't think this is a problem, but we fought a war to achieve just such a thing.

If he (or she for that matter) is innocent there should be no problem, get the person a good defence (should be there since he/she has already been found innocent by a court (which I presume was out for justice and not a politial statement)) and this person is free after trial. Cleared in full view of the international media, and thus presumably the world.

The problem the rest of the world might have, when the USA does not sign the ICC agreement, is that the USA might have something to hide. If your military courts (maybe aided by civilian law) are doing their job no USA miliatry personel (or any other country for that matter) would stand trial outside thier own country and the the ICC court would handle the Hitler's and Stalin cases in this world (i.e. cases to big to be held in a national court).

I therefore do not see what the problem is with the ICC unless a country has something to hide or is affraid it is doing something that is againts treaties they already signed. And the idea of holding a bribe (money in what form so ever) in front of other nations is weird in my opinion. I feel it is a method that is inworthy for a country that sees itself as the biggest democracy in the world as well as its defender.

stevo · 12-14-2004, 06:52 AM

Is it too much to say that maybe we don't trust the rest of the world to try our soldiers as much as we trust our own government to? We are the strongest, most powerful nation in the world, we can handle our own. We don't need some international court to tell us what our soldiers did wrong when the vast majority of those countries won't even send their own troops in to do the job. It could turn into a witch hunt, if say, there was an unpopular war that europe didn't agree with. Europe could get back at the US by convicting our soldiers of war crimes, even after the US had an investigation and cleared them, or even punished them, if the ICC didn't think the punishment fit the 'crime'.

So all I have left to say to the ICC and those in favor of it, is to...well, I'm not going to say it, but I'm sure you can infer what I want to say, something about shoving. I'm glad this country isn't run by a bunch of pusses who bow to the wills of the international community.

When a superpower does what lesser nations want her to do, just to please them, she looses her power, just as the lesser nations want her to do.

energus · 12-14-2004, 07:08 AM

Well if you can handle your own you should not be surprised other countries do not send in their soldiers to aid you in a job you took on. Or am I taking your "we are capable of making our own mistakes and taking care of the consequences" speech to far now? Cause in my eyes this is a great reason NOT to join in the fray, as so many countries have done. So don't blame us for doing what you want us to do, being nothing.

On topic: I still have not heard why this treaty should not be signed. As you said we can take care of our own. If that is true (and I believ that you can) there is no reason not to sign this agreement, cause you will only be prosecuted if you do not take care of your own. And don't say that anti american feelings will lead to higher prosecution rates in a ICC court, cause there would have to be grounds for such a case. And if those grounds are not there (i.e. a proper trial was held that dealt with all the evidence) there can be no sequal in a ICC court.

That can only happen if the case was not properly prosecuted or dealt with or if a sentence was politically motivated. Again take care of your own as you say and the court will be no problem

Charlatan · 12-14-2004, 07:16 AM

The reason the US should sign up with the ICC is so people like Kissinger can be held accountable for their actions... apparently the US is not interested in bringing people like him to justice... and yet they sit back and applaud when the people he supported like Pinoccet are finally hauled before the courts.

Aborted · 12-14-2004, 07:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo22

When a superpower does what lesser nations want her to do, just to please them, she looses her power, just as the lesser nations want her to do.

Your patriotism is admirable, indeed the American sense of identity and her citizens faith in her ideologies and power are aspects of your culture that I respect greatly and envy to a point. I would, however, encourage you to venture away from the naive notion that Europe is "weak" simply because it isn't quick to thrust a gun into the face of any who oppose it. Such talk wanders dangerously close to self-righteous rhetoric territory, and I'd rather not have to read any of that.

Mojo_PeiPei · 12-14-2004, 08:06 AM

First off we aren't a "super power", we are the sole "hyper power". We stand alone, those at the top always do.

Secondly if people here don't think there is anything wrong or at least questionable with the ICC in regards to how it undermines sovereignity and authority, there is no discussion to be had.

It's not that there is something to hide, it's just that basically this ICC equates to what is effectively what the left fears the Patriot Act does to America. Why should we submit our own sovereign people and elected officials to the wills of an appointed court, a court selected by a bureaucracy that at best is unfavorable to American policy? An appointed court that has no accountability to those that it rules over. It would literally be a spit in the face to constants of our own (American) justice system.

KMA-628 · 12-14-2004, 08:48 AM

I think that there is another potential failing point to this idea that is not being discussed.

If we were to join the ICC (which, of course, we won't and I fully support), how would that change how we use our troops?

Some of you would be o.k. with us using our soldiers a whole lot less than we already do, but the future implications could be huge.

What if you need us and the situation is going to be sticky? What if the US hesitates helping someone out with our military might because we are worried about the fallback on our troops? That is a VERY LIKELY situation if we were to join up with the likes of the ICC.

Here is my analogy:

In our military, you have the elite. The people, like SEALS, rangers, etc., who are called in to do the dirty work that nobody else wants to do or can do. By the very nature of the work they do, they cannot be held to the same boundaries that the rest of the military is held to. To get the dirty work done, sometimes you have to get dirty.

It is really not publically talked about, but the "rules" for these guys are a lot more loose than they were for me when I served. Sure I risked my life, but in nowhere near the way or intensity these guys do/did every day. The idea is that when you force someone to "push the envelope' in the way we do with our spec. ops, you can't measure them the same as you would your average, run-oh-the-mill grunt.

Now, try and look at it this way, in a global sense.

The military for the rest of the world falls under the normal "soldier" role. The military for the US falls under the "elite". (stay with me here, I am not trying to say that everyone else's military is weak compared to ours).

For your everyday jobs, you call in your everyday soldier (i.e. other country's troops, UN, NATO, etc.).

To get the job done, you bring in the people who will get down and dirty and get the job done--the elite (i.e. the US). You don't want to know how they do it, but you just want it done.

There are many cases of this already, some known some unknown, where we had to come in and do the dirty work. You may not realize it, but there is a good chance that you sleep better because of it. Sometimes, our mere presence alone can accomplish this task. If a country/regime is getting out of hand, how do you think they react when we park a carrier off their coast?

Now, do you want the very people that may be needed to save your life or your way of life to feel limited? I wouldn't.

We have ways of taking care of our own. Is it a perfect system? Of course not, but for the most part it works. Could the ICC do it better? Of course not.

You may bitch about us now, but it wasn't too long ago (on more than one occasion) that the dirty work needed to be done and we did it without question, regardless of the geographic location or political persuasion of those we were helping. Who knows what the future holds. You may need us again and I really think that you don't want to look back at this and wish you hadn't done this--by then, it would be too late.

Aborted · 12-14-2004, 08:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

First off we aren't a "super power", we are the sole "hyper power". We stand alone, those at the top always do.

I don't see what your super hyper mega ultra-ness has to do with the topic at hand, enlighten me.

Quote:

Secondly if people here don't think there is anything wrong or at least questionable with the ICC in regards to how it undermines sovereignity and authority, there is no discussion to be had.

Not at all. All bases seem to have been covered and people from both sides have given some concise, well thought out opinions. I for one have enjoyed being part of the debate, and I don't see how you can dismiss the discussion entirely just because people don't subscribe to your view.

Quote:

It's not that there is something to hide, it's just that basically this ICC equates to what is effectively what the left fears the Patriot Act does to America. Why should we submit our own sovereign people and elected officials to the wills of an appointed court, a court selected by a bureaucracy that at best is unfavorable to American policy? An appointed court that has no accountability to those that it rules over. It would literally be a spit in the face to constants of our own (American) justice system.

This has already been dealt with. All invloved countries are bound by and accept the same terms. French troops (to use them as an example) would be just as susceptible to prosecution as American troops, and likewise I'm sure there would be outcry in France if this were ever to happen. The fact is that this wouldn't matter one iota, because of the binding terms of the treaty. I for one am confident of the courts ability to consider cases with the impartiality required of it, regardless of which nation those facing prosecution call home.

Also, the amount of verbal spin some people put on relatively simple situations irritates me. We all know that France and America don't see eye to eye and that diplomatic relations are not wonderful between all nations in the world, but what I fail to see is how this detracts from the credibility of an international court where the voice of each nation is equally audible?

Aborted · 12-14-2004, 09:04 AM

Sorry for being a dirty double poster, but:

Quote:

Originally Posted by KMA-628

To get the job done, you bring in the people who will get down and dirty and get the job done--the elite (i.e. the US). You don't want to know how they do it, but you just want it done.

No offense, but I'd take the SAS over the Seals any day.

Quote:

You may bitch about us now, but it wasn't too long ago (on more than one occasion) that the dirty work needed to be done and we did it without question, regardless of the geographic location or political persuasion of those we were helping. Who knows what the future holds. You may need us again and I really think that you don't want to look back at this and wish you hadn't done this--by then, it would be too late.

I don't think there is one among us who doesn't appreciate and isn't forever indebted to those Americans who gave their lives to preserve the western way of life or free oppressed peoples the world over, but it would be wrong to dismiss the capability of other countries to get their own "dirty work" done. I also don't think the ICC would, or indeed could, cripple the United States ability to respond effectively when such "dirty work" needs to be done, as it's simply not in the world's best interests. Perhaps a little more credit needs to go to those living outside your own borders, some of us have brains you know.

roachboy · 12-14-2004, 09:27 AM

it seems to me that the irrational assertion of american sovereignty as over against any and all multinational institutions/agreements was at the heart of the iraq war to begin with--it was not about oil directly--so to reproduce this argument is simply to recapitulate the central element of neocon ideology.

there is nothing more to it.

when it comes to deriving consequences of this ideology, what seems to matter most is a sequence of aesthetic judgements that shape how one prefers to imagine "our boys" and their actions on the ground.

resistances to dissonant information follow from these aesthetic preferences--images of civilian casualties of american bombing raids shown on al-jazeera (for example) become "anti-american" primiarily because they show consequences that those who imagine americans incapable of committing war crimes simply do not want to see.

that this administration has organized a publicity machine to market the colonial war in iraq that reinforces this is an index of how good they are at publicity, nothing more.

that folk who recapitulate this syndrome are incapable of distancing themselves from it, of examining their committments, of recognizing the aesthetic core of their position, is kinda sad to watch through any number of cycles of repetition.

not a bit of it is rooted in anything like a realistic understanding of what is happening on the ground as a result of bushpolicies.
not a bit of it is based on consideration of what constitutes a war crime.
not a bit of it is based on consideration of whether there should or should not be in fact a mechansism in place that would prosecute war crimes independently.
because in this context (iraq), the entire question of war crimes continues, despite all evidence, to be construed as a correlate of the bushwar-on-terror, whatever that is, and so is routed through the delusion that self-preservation is actually at stake in this war.

so anything goes.

which is absurd.

counterfactual question: do you imagine that the american extermination of the native americans could have unfolded as it did had there been transnational legal mechanisms in place that could have triggered prosecutions for crimes against humanity? is a massive, sustained, premeditated crime against humanity ok if you agree with the ideological justifications for it? is all that matters in thinking about crimes against humanity the internal integrity of the ideological justifications that are floated in support of them, that call them something else (manifest destiny is an old fave in this regard)--a renaming that enables those who support violence to not think about the consequences of that violence, to look somewhere else and congratulate themselves for doing so?

if that is the case, how is this a discussion at all?

KMA-628 · 12-14-2004, 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aborted

Sorry for being a dirty double poster, but:
No offense, but I'd take the SAS over the Seals any day.

Another debate entirely, one of which I am nowhere near qualified to enter. However, I have nothing respect for any person in uniform, regardless of the patch. However, as you know, that wasn't my point.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aborted

I don't think there is one among us who doesn't appreciate and isn't forever indebted to those Americans who gave their lives to preserve the western way of life or free oppressed peoples the world over, but it would be wrong to dismiss the capability of other countries to get their own "dirty work" done. I also don't think the ICC would, or indeed could, cripple the United States ability to respond effectively when such "dirty work" needs to be done, as it's simply not in the world's best interests. Perhaps a little more credit needs to go to those living outside your own borders, some of us have brains you know.

I don't think you understood my point.

I didn't say it would cripple, but it might cause hesitation. I really don't think that is a stretch to conclude. And, depending on the situation, I don't think anybody wants the US to hesitate at the wrong time.

In terms of the dirty work, there are situations you are aware of and situations that you aren't (not going back 50+ years) where the dirty work needed to be done and we were the only ones to do it. Most countries have a pretty capable armed forces, but sometimes you need the extra umph that we provide.

Here's another analogy: I let my dog run around in my yard and one of the reasons for this is the protection. Sure he does things that upset me, but I would never consider leashing him because that would limit his ability to protect me and my family. I don't set requirements for how he protects us, merely that he does. If a bad guy escapes the police (i.e. the "soldiers") and makes his way to my house, I want my dog (i.e. the "elite") to take him out. I don't care how he does it, only that he does. And for that, I will be forever in his debt. Now, he is my dog, my responsibility. It is not up to my neighbor to discipline him, it is mine.

Do you see where I am going with this?

Also, I don't think there is a good argument making the case that the ICC could do a better job than we do taking care of our own. Both would be imperfect, why would the ICC be better?

Anyway, in all actuality, it is moot as we will not join the ICC. It just ain't gonna happen. Everybody can debate about it, whine about it, point out the reasons why we should, etc., but the end result will be the same regardless. You guys play around with the ICC all you want, and when you need us, we will come a runnin'.

Seaver · 12-14-2004, 10:19 AM

Quote:

If that is true (and I believ that you can) there is no reason not to sign this agreement, cause you will only be prosecuted if you do not take care of your own.

There IS a reason not to sign it. You can't complain about theft if you leave your door open, what you do is lock it and make it harder for them to mess with you. Signing this treaty would be leaving our windows, doors, and garage door wide open to any witch hunt the international community decides to go with. This whole thing of we can get their soldiers too is BS. We could do it but you know very well which one the international media would focus on. It would only reassure our bad press.

I for one will never let one of my fellow soldiers be crucified by people who simply dont like America.

roachboy · 12-14-2004, 10:26 AM

this dame edna theory of american foreign policy--we give and give and give--is really nonsense.

it has no contact with the history of american foreign policy, the reality of american uses of its military power, etc.

it is, at best, a weak ideological justification for anything----anything-----the americans choose to do, outfitted in high passive aggressive style (bend over and see how nice we are--we give and give and give).

and it is a demonstration of the point i was trying to make above--the basic argument seems to be that what matters is the political justifications for unlimited uses of violence, not the unlimited uses of violence themselves. i am a nice person--all my friends are nice people--all my friends are american--therfore all americans are nice. when nice people like us do things, we mean well, therefore everything we do means well.

you should try this argument out on some iraqi civilians who may have lost some of all of their families to american firepower, for example. or to people who had spent a lovely vacation in the legal black hole of guantanomo. or any number of other people who have run into the reality of american foreign policy and/or uses of military power.

i am sure they would welcome such an understanding of what happened to them.
i am sure they have been waiting around for it.
i am sure that this kind of powerful argument would disabuse them of any illusion that legality and american actions had anything to do with each other.
because what matters, really, is that we are nice.
we give and give and give.
see?

Aborted · 12-14-2004, 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KMA-628

Here's another analogy: I let my dog run around in my yard and one of the reasons for this is the protection. Sure he does things that upset me, but I would never consider leashing him because that would limit his ability to protect me and my family. I don't set requirements for how he protects us, merely that he does. If a bad guy escapes the police (i.e. the "soldiers") and makes his way to my house, I want my dog (i.e. the "elite") to take him out. I don't care how he does it, only that he does. And for that, I will be forever in his debt. Now, he is my dog, my responsibility. It is not up to my neighbor to discipline him, it is mine.

Certainly, but let's assume that the street on which you live is a community where everyone knows each other, but doesn't necessarily get on, and they all have dogs of varying sizes. Say you let your dog run onto the lawn of someone you didn't like and it tore apart their own (smaller) dog, but afterwards it took a piss on their flowerbed. This person isn't likely to be happy and the rest of the street now fears that your dog will piss on everyone's flowerbeds because you won't punish him. They propose the creation of a society where all the residents meet to decide, mutually, whether your dog's actions are punishable, stating clearly from the outset that it's rules are applicable to all. Seems fair to me.

I know it's a stupid analogy, but it doesn't change the fact that the flipside of your argument is credible regardless of whether you dismiss it or not.

I guess you're right about this whole thing being moot, but there's nought wrong with a healthy debate to help pass the time!

KMA-628 · 12-14-2004, 11:23 AM

I agree that there are good reaons to consider something like this, but, as we seem to agree, the end result will not change because of it.

I think my strongest reason for being against this idea is that nothing has been done to convince me that the ICC could do a better jo than we already do. Its not like "international committees" are overflowing with ringing successes. Also, bear in mind that I do not believe we do the best job, but we try and our motives are clear.

So, look at is this way: Our system for governing our own works. It may not work perfectly, but it does work. Why would I consider changing my opinion if the option is as flawed or more flawed than the original?

C'mon, the international community can't agree on much, what makes you think that representatives of said community could come together, in a meeting of the minds, throwing all prejudices aside, to investigate and possibly prosecute American soldiers in an impartial manner?

roach -

I read your posts and pretty much only one thing came to my mind.

Weren't some of your heroes of time past executed, persecuted and exiled for the very beliefs you hold so dear?

Have you been executed, persecuted, exiled because you espouse similar beliefs?

Why is that?

Maybe such flippant disregard for "our boys" is a little unwarranted?

Their sacrifices, regardless of when the sacrifices took place, allow you to vocally proclaim your beliefs and values whenever or wherever you want.

Maybe they deserve a little bit more latitude than you give them?

Since the beginning of our country, they have spent every waking hour of every day risking their lives so that you may live the life you want to, to believe the things you want to believe. Whether you agree with their mission, current or past, that is the belief that drives them on. That is the belief that makes them face constant danger, willingly and voluntarily, while you postulate safely at home.

Seaver · 12-14-2004, 01:38 PM

Quote:

rest of the street now fears that your dog will piss on everyone's flowerbeds because you won't punish him

That's our point. Our military DOES punish it's own. We dont a third neighbor who's pissed off because his own dog is no longer bigger punishing our own dog for pissing on the house next door.

roachboy · 12-14-2004, 04:19 PM

Quote:

Weren't some of your heroes of time past executed, persecuted and exiled for the very beliefs you hold so dear?

Have you been executed, persecuted, exiled because you espouse similar beliefs?

Why is that?

Maybe such flippant disregard for "our boys" is a little unwarranted?

Their sacrifices, regardless of when the sacrifices took place, allow you to vocally proclaim your beliefs and values whenever or wherever you want.

Maybe they deserve a little bit more latitude than you give them?

Since the beginning of our country, they have spent every waking hour of every day risking their lives so that you may live the life you want to, to believe the things you want to believe. Whether you agree with their mission, current or past, that is the belief that drives them on. That is the belief that makes them face constant danger, willingly and voluntarily, while you postulate safely at home.

while this has been equally touching each of the thousands of times i have heard it, i really do not see where this sentiment can be bent around into a condoning of war crimes if they are perpetrated by american troops, nor into a rationale for blocking the setting up of an extra-national legal instrument that could prosecute war crimes, if and when they occur.
i really dont.
explain to me the link, please.
you act as though there is one...

Mojo_PeiPei · 12-14-2004, 04:38 PM

Here's a question for you RB.

On what basis does the ICC get it's authority? Where is it's power and legitimacy(sp) derived from? Why must we cow-tow to this "extra-national legal instrument"?

At the same time in your argument, you use the basis of war crimes. This is a whole nother can of worms, like most things political it is a issue of relativism, semantics, and politics. What constitutes a war crime? On what basis does an international body have more authority and legitimacy then our own government?

KMA-628 · 12-14-2004, 04:38 PM

I never said condone, I said give them a little latitude,

You seem to show absolutely no appreciation for all the gifts, rights and blessings that you do have. People have died trying to get their message out that is similar to yours. You have no fear of retribution, you can spout whatever doctrine you like and no one will stop you, and in fact, in many cases they will support your beliefs. Jesus man, have at least a small morsel of gratitude. What trials and tribulations did you have to go through to get your freedoms? None, they were given to you. And, why where they given to you? Because of where you live.

I don't really understand constant complaining while completely ignoring the good things that you have been given.

And many of the things you take for granted, are because of the sacrifice of others.

Do you have no compassion for the people that at lease somewhat contributed and did something so that you can complain about them?

I never give you a hard time about your beliefs, but in this matter, I think your overwhelming negativity clouds some of the things you could actually appreciate that are right in front of your face.

Whether you like or don't like what the troops do or how they do it, at least they are fighting for what they believe. You have to at least give them credit for standing up and fighting for something, regardless of what you think of the cause.

roachboy · 12-14-2004, 04:55 PM

what negativity? that i think what is at stake here is the legal prosection of war crimes and do not buy the attempt to divert it onto an irrelevant question of sovereignty?

sorry--a friend turned up here--i'll have to get back to this later.....

12-10-2004, 05:39 PM	#43 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	fill me in please on exactly how the bill posted above functions to obviate the question of rightwing political biais at every level of the debate in this thread on the question of internationa law with reference to crimes against humanity? it seems rather to simply write that political logic into a different register...a republican dominated congress passes a bill written on the basis of exactly the kind of john birch society-style "logic" about international law i complained about earlier--this changes things how exactly? given that a war crime is a crime against humanity, i do not see how teh question of national sovereignty enters into consideration here. folk who are supporting the american refusal to accept the jurisdiction of the incr seem to be bent on pretending that the issue is sovereignty and not the prsecution of war crimes. i think that is false. what, then, is the basis for refusing to accept the notion that americans can and should be prsoecuted for war crimes? nothing about being prsecuted assumes guilt.... __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

12-11-2004, 01:42 PM	#47 (permalink)
djtestudo Baltimoron Location: Beeeeeautiful Bel Air, MD	There is a flip-side to this, though. If we were to join up and a nation like France were to "unjustly" go after our troops, we could then go after THEM. Fair's fair, right? __________________ "Final thought: I just rented Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine. Frankly, it was the worst sports movie I've ever seen." --Peter Schmuck, The (Baltimore) Sun

12-12-2004, 03:14 PM	#48 (permalink)
whocarz Jarhead Location: Colorado	That's assuming France has it's soldiers doing something outside of driving around in Land Rovers in some insignificant African country, or sipping latte in a Parisian cafe. __________________ If there exists anything mightier than destiny, then it is the courage to face destiny unflinchingly. -Geibel Despise not death, but welcome it, for nature wills it like all else. -Marcus Aurelius Come on, you sons of bitches! Do you want to live forever? -GySgt. Daniel J. "Dan" Daly

12-12-2004, 03:33 PM	#49 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	mojo: what you dont seem to understand if that i do not care about the notion of the nation-state. i understand nationalism as a form of collective mental disorder. the nation-state is an outmoded relic of a particular period of capitalist development. it is already effectively obsolete in significant areas of economic organization, for example. the bush administration itself is proof that some kind of international law is required. insofar as this law is at the moment being debated across the question of how crimes against humanity should be prosecuted, it is a tactically disadvantageous position for the right--so of course they would prefer to reframe the question as one of national sovereignty---because otherwise you would find yourself arguing against the idea of war crimes, or against the idea that americans should be prosecuted for war crimes, that somehow or another there was some "essence" to being-american that made the commission of war crimes impossible. which is pretty funny, given the close relation between the american nation-state and genocide (remember the native americans?) or is the matter really that a genocide that you approve of is not a genocide? a war crime that you approve of on political grounds is not a war crime? or are you saying that what really matters is how the people who carry out a genocide--or other war crimes---understand their actions? only in cases where you politically approve of the action, of course. if you did not approve politically, i expect you would be appalled at the same action. as for the patriot act: i saw it as a logical consequence of the particular, cynical response on the part of the bush administration to 9/11. whatever positions i have argued here about it are logically and politically unrelated to this question. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

12-12-2004, 04:02 PM	#50 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	Genocide isn't the issue though RB, I honestly hope you don't think that I'm somehow allowing for it. This particular treaty however isn't about genocide. There are already many instances of international law, more importantly genocide, that we have signed accords too. I don't equate a Marine shooting an illegal combatant as genocide, nor do I consider it a war crime. It might be immoral, it could be illegal in some other sense has held by our own laws. All I'm saying is that There are already things in place within our own structure and concept of law, one that I have way more confidence in than some international constant. This is ultimately an issue of politics and relinquishing of sovereignity. I think it is something we will have to agree to disagree about though. I love my country, it's the best country on the face of the planet, the best country to ever exist. It is part of my identity, and like those before me, I would die to preserve it. I find it saddening you to don't love your country or what it stands for. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

12-10-2004, 05:33 PM	#42 (permalink)
Mephisto2 Junkie	Well said Aborted. Mr Mephisto

12-11-2004, 12:27 PM	#44 (permalink)
alansmithee Junkie	But crimes against humanity is not the issue, the issue is crimes against some disgruntled country being used to punish American servicemen. It's really remarkable that many people only see evil and self-intrest coming from America and fail to ignore it from elsewhere. Take the much maligned Iraq war-France opposed it, but does anyone now really believe they opposed the war based purely on ideological reasons? Or was it the kickbacks they were getting from the oil-for-food program? My point being that America (as the world's reigning superpower) should not allow it's sovernity to be undercut by other countries who might arbitrarily and unjustifiably use the ICC to attack America's soldiers/leaders.

12-13-2004, 01:32 PM	#54 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	i know jeremy rabkin--he is a neocon--so his argument is not surprising. nor do i find it an adequate response to the problem at hand. it simply repeats the framing problem i have already noted several times. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

12-13-2004, 06:43 PM	#59 (permalink)
stevo Rail Baron Location: Tallyfla	so I guess we see where everyone lies and both sides of this arguement...

12-13-2004, 07:54 PM	#60 (permalink)
Seaver Junkie Location: Fort Worth, TX	Well for one I'm glad I'm in a country that doesnt backstab it's own people because of international pressures. Anyways even if they DID want to put someone on a trial from a country who didnt sign? Or even if they did sign refused to go? The UN is going to send in it's army and force it laugh, they couldnt even help out the Gold Coast. They dont help out Dafur, hardly did anything in the Balkans (until Clinton decided). Let France declare our soldiers criminals, we'd never hand over our soldiers for prosecution, so let them have their own courts with no one there when they decide guilty.

12-14-2004, 06:52 AM	#62 (permalink)
stevo Rail Baron Location: Tallyfla	Is it too much to say that maybe we don't trust the rest of the world to try our soldiers as much as we trust our own government to? We are the strongest, most powerful nation in the world, we can handle our own. We don't need some international court to tell us what our soldiers did wrong when the vast majority of those countries won't even send their own troops in to do the job. It could turn into a witch hunt, if say, there was an unpopular war that europe didn't agree with. Europe could get back at the US by convicting our soldiers of war crimes, even after the US had an investigation and cleared them, or even punished them, if the ICC didn't think the punishment fit the 'crime'. So all I have left to say to the ICC and those in favor of it, is to...well, I'm not going to say it, but I'm sure you can infer what I want to say, something about shoving. I'm glad this country isn't run by a bunch of pusses who bow to the wills of the international community. When a superpower does what lesser nations want her to do, just to please them, she looses her power, just as the lesser nations want her to do.

12-14-2004, 07:08 AM	#63 (permalink)
energus Tilted Location: Alphen aan den Rijn, the Netherlands (find it on a map, it is there (somewhere))	Well if you can handle your own you should not be surprised other countries do not send in their soldiers to aid you in a job you took on. Or am I taking your "we are capable of making our own mistakes and taking care of the consequences" speech to far now? Cause in my eyes this is a great reason NOT to join in the fray, as so many countries have done. So don't blame us for doing what you want us to do, being nothing. On topic: I still have not heard why this treaty should not be signed. As you said we can take care of our own. If that is true (and I believ that you can) there is no reason not to sign this agreement, cause you will only be prosecuted if you do not take care of your own. And don't say that anti american feelings will lead to higher prosecution rates in a ICC court, cause there would have to be grounds for such a case. And if those grounds are not there (i.e. a proper trial was held that dealt with all the evidence) there can be no sequal in a ICC court. That can only happen if the case was not properly prosecuted or dealt with or if a sentence was politically motivated. Again take care of your own as you say and the court will be no problem __________________ Somnia, terrores magicos, miracula, sagas, Nocturnus lemures, portentaque. Horace

12-14-2004, 07:16 AM	#64 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	The reason the US should sign up with the ICC is so people like Kissinger can be held accountable for their actions... apparently the US is not interested in bringing people like him to justice... and yet they sit back and applaud when the people he supported like Pinoccet are finally hauled before the courts. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

12-14-2004, 08:06 AM	#66 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	First off we aren't a "super power", we are the sole "hyper power". We stand alone, those at the top always do. Secondly if people here don't think there is anything wrong or at least questionable with the ICC in regards to how it undermines sovereignity and authority, there is no discussion to be had. It's not that there is something to hide, it's just that basically this ICC equates to what is effectively what the left fears the Patriot Act does to America. Why should we submit our own sovereign people and elected officials to the wills of an appointed court, a court selected by a bureaucracy that at best is unfavorable to American policy? An appointed court that has no accountability to those that it rules over. It would literally be a spit in the face to constants of our own (American) justice system. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition. Last edited by Mojo_PeiPei; 12-14-2004 at 08:10 AM..

12-14-2004, 08:48 AM	#67 (permalink)
KMA-628 ....is off his meds...you were warned. Location: The Wild Wild West	I think that there is another potential failing point to this idea that is not being discussed. If we were to join the ICC (which, of course, we won't and I fully support), how would that change how we use our troops? Some of you would be o.k. with us using our soldiers a whole lot less than we already do, but the future implications could be huge. What if you need us and the situation is going to be sticky? What if the US hesitates helping someone out with our military might because we are worried about the fallback on our troops? That is a VERY LIKELY situation if we were to join up with the likes of the ICC. Here is my analogy: In our military, you have the elite. The people, like SEALS, rangers, etc., who are called in to do the dirty work that nobody else wants to do or can do. By the very nature of the work they do, they cannot be held to the same boundaries that the rest of the military is held to. To get the dirty work done, sometimes you have to get dirty. It is really not publically talked about, but the "rules" for these guys are a lot more loose than they were for me when I served. Sure I risked my life, but in nowhere near the way or intensity these guys do/did every day. The idea is that when you force someone to "push the envelope' in the way we do with our spec. ops, you can't measure them the same as you would your average, run-oh-the-mill grunt. Now, try and look at it this way, in a global sense. The military for the rest of the world falls under the normal "soldier" role. The military for the US falls under the "elite". (stay with me here, I am not trying to say that everyone else's military is weak compared to ours). For your everyday jobs, you call in your everyday soldier (i.e. other country's troops, UN, NATO, etc.). To get the job done, you bring in the people who will get down and dirty and get the job done--the elite (i.e. the US). You don't want to know how they do it, but you just want it done. There are many cases of this already, some known some unknown, where we had to come in and do the dirty work. You may not realize it, but there is a good chance that you sleep better because of it. Sometimes, our mere presence alone can accomplish this task. If a country/regime is getting out of hand, how do you think they react when we park a carrier off their coast? Now, do you want the very people that may be needed to save your life or your way of life to feel limited? I wouldn't. We have ways of taking care of our own. Is it a perfect system? Of course not, but for the most part it works. Could the ICC do it better? Of course not. You may bitch about us now, but it wasn't too long ago (on more than one occasion) that the dirty work needed to be done and we did it without question, regardless of the geographic location or political persuasion of those we were helping. Who knows what the future holds. You may need us again and I really think that you don't want to look back at this and wish you hadn't done this--by then, it would be too late. Last edited by KMA-628; 12-14-2004 at 08:51 AM..

12-14-2004, 09:27 AM	#70 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	it seems to me that the irrational assertion of american sovereignty as over against any and all multinational institutions/agreements was at the heart of the iraq war to begin with--it was not about oil directly--so to reproduce this argument is simply to recapitulate the central element of neocon ideology. there is nothing more to it. when it comes to deriving consequences of this ideology, what seems to matter most is a sequence of aesthetic judgements that shape how one prefers to imagine "our boys" and their actions on the ground. resistances to dissonant information follow from these aesthetic preferences--images of civilian casualties of american bombing raids shown on al-jazeera (for example) become "anti-american" primiarily because they show consequences that those who imagine americans incapable of committing war crimes simply do not want to see. that this administration has organized a publicity machine to market the colonial war in iraq that reinforces this is an index of how good they are at publicity, nothing more. that folk who recapitulate this syndrome are incapable of distancing themselves from it, of examining their committments, of recognizing the aesthetic core of their position, is kinda sad to watch through any number of cycles of repetition. not a bit of it is rooted in anything like a realistic understanding of what is happening on the ground as a result of bushpolicies. not a bit of it is based on consideration of what constitutes a war crime. not a bit of it is based on consideration of whether there should or should not be in fact a mechansism in place that would prosecute war crimes independently. because in this context (iraq), the entire question of war crimes continues, despite all evidence, to be construed as a correlate of the bushwar-on-terror, whatever that is, and so is routed through the delusion that self-preservation is actually at stake in this war. so anything goes. which is absurd. counterfactual question: do you imagine that the american extermination of the native americans could have unfolded as it did had there been transnational legal mechanisms in place that could have triggered prosecutions for crimes against humanity? is a massive, sustained, premeditated crime against humanity ok if you agree with the ideological justifications for it? is all that matters in thinking about crimes against humanity the internal integrity of the ideological justifications that are floated in support of them, that call them something else (manifest destiny is an old fave in this regard)--a renaming that enables those who support violence to not think about the consequences of that violence, to look somewhere else and congratulate themselves for doing so? if that is the case, how is this a discussion at all? __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 12-14-2004 at 09:30 AM..

12-14-2004, 10:26 AM	#73 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	this dame edna theory of american foreign policy--we give and give and give--is really nonsense. it has no contact with the history of american foreign policy, the reality of american uses of its military power, etc. it is, at best, a weak ideological justification for anything----anything-----the americans choose to do, outfitted in high passive aggressive style (bend over and see how nice we are--we give and give and give). and it is a demonstration of the point i was trying to make above--the basic argument seems to be that what matters is the political justifications for unlimited uses of violence, not the unlimited uses of violence themselves. i am a nice person--all my friends are nice people--all my friends are american--therfore all americans are nice. when nice people like us do things, we mean well, therefore everything we do means well. you should try this argument out on some iraqi civilians who may have lost some of all of their families to american firepower, for example. or to people who had spent a lovely vacation in the legal black hole of guantanomo. or any number of other people who have run into the reality of american foreign policy and/or uses of military power. i am sure they would welcome such an understanding of what happened to them. i am sure they have been waiting around for it. i am sure that this kind of powerful argument would disabuse them of any illusion that legality and american actions had anything to do with each other. because what matters, really, is that we are nice. we give and give and give. see? __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

12-14-2004, 11:23 AM	#75 (permalink)
KMA-628 ....is off his meds...you were warned. Location: The Wild Wild West	I agree that there are good reaons to consider something like this, but, as we seem to agree, the end result will not change because of it. I think my strongest reason for being against this idea is that nothing has been done to convince me that the ICC could do a better jo than we already do. Its not like "international committees" are overflowing with ringing successes. Also, bear in mind that I do not believe we do the best job, but we try and our motives are clear. So, look at is this way: Our system for governing our own works. It may not work perfectly, but it does work. Why would I consider changing my opinion if the option is as flawed or more flawed than the original? C'mon, the international community can't agree on much, what makes you think that representatives of said community could come together, in a meeting of the minds, throwing all prejudices aside, to investigate and possibly prosecute American soldiers in an impartial manner? roach - I read your posts and pretty much only one thing came to my mind. Weren't some of your heroes of time past executed, persecuted and exiled for the very beliefs you hold so dear? Have you been executed, persecuted, exiled because you espouse similar beliefs? Why is that? Maybe such flippant disregard for "our boys" is a little unwarranted? Their sacrifices, regardless of when the sacrifices took place, allow you to vocally proclaim your beliefs and values whenever or wherever you want. Maybe they deserve a little bit more latitude than you give them? Since the beginning of our country, they have spent every waking hour of every day risking their lives so that you may live the life you want to, to believe the things you want to believe. Whether you agree with their mission, current or past, that is the belief that drives them on. That is the belief that makes them face constant danger, willingly and voluntarily, while you postulate safely at home.

12-14-2004, 04:38 PM	#78 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	Here's a question for you RB. On what basis does the ICC get it's authority? Where is it's power and legitimacy(sp) derived from? Why must we cow-tow to this "extra-national legal instrument"? At the same time in your argument, you use the basis of war crimes. This is a whole nother can of worms, like most things political it is a issue of relativism, semantics, and politics. What constitutes a war crime? On what basis does an international body have more authority and legitimacy then our own government? __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

12-14-2004, 04:38 PM	#79 (permalink)
KMA-628 ....is off his meds...you were warned. Location: The Wild Wild West	I never said condone, I said give them a little latitude, You seem to show absolutely no appreciation for all the gifts, rights and blessings that you do have. People have died trying to get their message out that is similar to yours. You have no fear of retribution, you can spout whatever doctrine you like and no one will stop you, and in fact, in many cases they will support your beliefs. Jesus man, have at least a small morsel of gratitude. What trials and tribulations did you have to go through to get your freedoms? None, they were given to you. And, why where they given to you? Because of where you live. I don't really understand constant complaining while completely ignoring the good things that you have been given. And many of the things you take for granted, are because of the sacrifice of others. Do you have no compassion for the people that at lease somewhat contributed and did something so that you can complain about them? I never give you a hard time about your beliefs, but in this matter, I think your overwhelming negativity clouds some of the things you could actually appreciate that are right in front of your face. Whether you like or don't like what the troops do or how they do it, at least they are fighting for what they believe. You have to at least give them credit for standing up and fighting for something, regardless of what you think of the cause.

12-14-2004, 04:55 PM	#80 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	what negativity? that i think what is at stake here is the legal prosection of war crimes and do not buy the attempt to divert it onto an irrelevant question of sovereignty? sorry--a friend turned up here--i'll have to get back to this later..... __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 12-14-2004 at 04:58 PM..