US "bullies" countries into giving immunity to US forces
 

REF: http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/Cou...625502044.html

I know many (most?) US members of this board probably support this position taken by the Bush Administration, so I can safely predict the response that this post will engender.

Still, call me old fashioned, multilateralist or just a plain old believer in international law and justice, but I think this is sad.


Mr Mephisto

IT's very sad Mephisto, again the US wants the world to see we put ourselves above the laws we demand everyone else uphold.

Wouldn't want to be held accountable to rest of the world, now would we? Didn't we participate in the Nuremberg trials?

Yes you did Coppertop.

One rule for the strong, another for the weak.


Mr Mephisto

I think the fact remains that if any international law is violated, it will properly be dealt with in the states. I don't like the notion that our boys can be subject to international courts, that are largely held by countries with anti-American positions and agendas, and said courts being under the control of organizations without authority or sovereignity. Call me old fashioned.

Then why do we participate in those courts? If we didn't participate or uphold the rulings then I'd agree Mojo, but until we no longer are a part of those courts then their laws and the courts rulings are very much applicable to us.

And another thing, as far as Iraq relates the equation, why should our boys be subject to a political body that doesn't sanction our being there? They have no presence there, plus they were in polar opposition to our actions. Not to mention in light of the fact that the UN has massive corruption regarding the whole situation, maybe Kofi Annan should be thrown up in an international court. Under his watch 1.5 million Iraqi's needlessly died while foreign governments profited from the corrupt dealings. Yeah I want our boys subject to courts run by the likes of the French and Germans.

Right...

Kofi Annan is guilty of war crimes because 1.5million Iraqis died...

And, by the way, the UN is in Iraq. Or have you forgotten about the massive bomb and the deaths of many UN workers there already?

Finally, like it or not, the ICC is now International Law. The US can stay outside of it if it wants (which is unfortunate), but no amount of bleating or irrelevant snipes at Kofi Annan is going to change that.

The UK, America's most "trusted" ally in the misguided invasion of Iraq, has signed up to it. So has Poland. And most of the rest of the world.

Do you think the US is the only country that wants to protect its citizens from "politically motivated" actions? It would be rather pompous to think so. The fact is, the ICC is constituted such that "politically motivated" actions would be avoided.


Mr Mephisto

Mr Mephisto

Then have Bush pull us out of those courts and ignore any previous ruling against nations that we now observe. Until then, we should abide by them or we prove we put ourselves above International laws.

It's one thing to have a court for people like Milosevic or Hitler. It's another to have one for some American Joe Sixpack soldier who capped a civilian. I'm all for the first one, I just don't think situation number two has any merit. We can handle our own.

i like it just that it would be money that we wouln't be giving away and could be used to solve some of our own problems. it shouldn't be our responsability to give money to other nations in order to keep them affloat. if that government can't cut it without us backing them up they don't deserve to be in charge.

You don't believe in international aid?

You know, without it, America wouldn't exist itself. :)

Mr Mephisto

I think its about damn time, but you knew that already.

Have to say I disagree with the ICC too. Look at how fucked up the UN is, look at the countries it appoints as heads of comittees. Do we really want countries that hate us in charge of bringing cases and convicting out citizens. Nope... Fuck em...

Whats all this fuss over international law? I don't know waht you guys think about international law, but all international law is are treaties between countries. No country is going to honor an international law if it goes against the interest or well-being of that country, be it the US or Tajikistan. No country is going to enforce a 'broken' international law, there's really not much any state can do about it. I think its funny how people are always whining about the US breaking international law. Unless the US recognizes a particular 'international law' then it doesn't exist or pertain to the US. And since we don't reconginze the ICC, we aren't breaking any 'law'.

As far as cutting off aid to countries that wish to prosecute our soldiers and leaders...makes sense to me. I sure as hell don't want to fund a country that wants to hang our boys.

*nods in agreement*
so - someone remind me again why we are funding anyone? When was the last time one other country stuck up for or applauded the United States? I say pull all the aid. Then people will really begin to see how much the US supports the lazy asses of the international community and then they will fight to survive and earn what they work for.
That is about as traditional as I get. Aid comes in many forms, most if it from the United States religious communities. No one is going to starve anymore if the government backs out - people might even starve less!!!

I would be excited for such a little expirament. If the rest of the world doesnt like that - then they can become independant of our aid.

only demand from others that which you can demand from yourself. seems a pretty basic principle. these last 4 years of US politics have been episode after episode of outraged accusations of slaughter, torture, terrorism and lack of demockracy.
followed by many proven episodes of this administrations complete disregard of these charges when applied to them.
the US should pull in all their foreign aid right now. the 3 billion a year to israel and the 20 million to the palestineans. the rest of the world should call in their debts in return and watch the worlds biggest debtor nation collapse and burn.
the total contempt the US has shown the world by refusing to apply their rules for others to themselves is not making or maintaining any friendships. Pretty soon Milosevic and Saddam are gonna look like boyscouts compared to Rummy and Rice . And when Asia starts dumping (actually, they already have) the dollar and the sinking economy implodes, them UN humanitarian food flights will be landing at an airport near you. Poor fella, you really can´t see it coming, can you?

Well, as I said I knew the reaction that this would create, so let me add a few comments without descending into pointless argument with the nay-sayers.

1) The US does comply with international law in many cases. To say otherwise shows a lack of understanding or knowledge of actual events. The recent Bush Administration decision to comply with WTO decisions on import duties (under protest) is just one recent example.

2) The US is obliged, and all Administrations agree, that a certain amount of GDP be set aside for international aid. Failure to accept that or to take a haughty isolationist point of view makes no difference. It also shows that the poster does not understand international economics.

3) The US, like most countries, uses international aide as a tool of foreign policy. On one hand we have some people here say "let's not give them any aid", but then applaud the power that international aid gives the US in formulating its foreign policy. Opps! More silliness or downright hypocracy

4) I hate to break this to you righ-wing, neo-con, globalization supporting Republicans, but the US economy is dependent upon trade. International trade. You can't withdraw from international treaties (ie international law), as your economy would collapse into a quivering heap if you did.

5) In many circumstances, and here we are taking a Marxist point of view (where are you smooth?!! :) ), the use of international aid could be construed as a manisfestation of US economic and cultural colonization. This in turn creates more markets for US trade and leads to further domination.


As Forrest Gump says, "That's all I have to say about that."


Mr Mephisto

Let us pull out, see what happens to the rest of you. You canucks should take heed of this, don't a majority of your exports depend on our dollar? The EU hasn't reached a point to be self sufficent quite yet. Plus we are still the industrial and military power. Just keep pushing us, you wanna piss off another sleeping giant?

"see what happens to the rest of you"

"You canucks should take heed..."

"..military power."

"Just keep pushing us"

"you wanna piss off another sleeping giant?"



I can't really add anything to what you have already said. And you wonder why people get exasperated at American arrogance?

Mr Mephisto

PS - A country that routinely invades or overthrows foreign governments is not exactly a sleeping giant...

you really need a time out. You seem to be coming down with that " I pledge blind allegiance" disease.

You mean like support in taking down a corrupt dictatorial government that destablizes an entire region by existing?
Right, then we tell the world to fuck off and see when they get that money they are owed. You don't think THEY will collapse and burn without our aid OR our loaned money?

Why SHOULD we pump so much money into a badly corrupt thing?

Why SHOULD we pump money into countries that quite frankly, dont like us?

Why SHOULD we give money to people who in turn give it to our enemies?

I'm all for foreign aid people, but I dont like feeding dogs that bite me everytime I give them a piece of bacon.

You're not really that familiar with international economics, are you?

The US owes more money than any other nation on Earth. As of two days ago it was $7,550,023,742,837.60


Mr Mephisto

What thing is that?

Well, I'm not telling you that you should. But the many reaons that are expounded include

- to make them like you
- to help foster democracy
- to help create a free economy (that will purchase US goods)
- because your country has signed treaties agreeing to do so

oh, and of course, let's not foget

- because it's the humanitarian thing to do

I never said you should. That has got nothing to do with this thread. What we're talking about is the US refusing aid to countries that refuse to pervert their own laws with regards to the ICC; a treaty that is ratified International Law and accepted by all of the US allies.

Mr Mephisto

I think that war criminals should be brought to justice wherever they are from, be it Kosovo or the USA. I don't think that US concerns about biased decisions againts US soldiers are justified. I think the USA just doesn't want to deal with their soldiers being trialed for war crimes.

The concept of crimes against humanity is based in international convention, and no nation may have immunity from it, legally. If countries are encouraged to sign agreements saying they will not prosecute American soldiers for crimes against humanity, such an agreement is not legally valid in my opinion.

The idea of a "crime against humanity" is that the accusation takes precedent of any national law or international treaty.

But on the other hand, we know that the victors are not very often tried for war crimes at all. At Nuremborug, I am reminded of the massacre of the Polish village with which the Germans were charged with. After investigation it is revealed the massacre was not carried out by the Nazi's, but by the Red Army. So, of course, the case is dropped, and for this village, there is no justice.

As much as we would like to believe in things like the ICC, we have to understand the reality, if a nation is strong, its soldiers or leaders cannot be tried or punished by the international court, if the nation is weak or defeared, then they can. It is victors justice, and this has always been the way of things, and it still is.

You're absolutely right that. "History is written by the victors" after all.

BTW, the massacre you're referring to was the murder of over 6,000 Polish officers at the Katyn Forest. The Soviets actually manufactured evidence to throw the blame on the Germans. They only admitted their responsibility in 1990.


Mr Mephisto

i do not see any rational basis for opposing american acceptance of the jurisdiction of with the international war crimes tribunal.
i also have found nothing like a rational argument against it in this thread. what i do see is a lot of recycling of neocon nonsense, which i assume exists because it would be difficult to market their opposition to international legal enforcement of war crimes directly. instead you get vague accusations regarding the un (not relevant) and buchananite isolationist arguments (shades of john birch again) but no actual arguments. the closest to a direct argument came from rumsfeld, who argued that the iwct would "prosecute americans arbitrarily" for war crimes, presumably because he thinks only those who lose wars are potentially guilty of war crimes, and in the fantasyland of neocon ideology, the americans never lose wars, so therefore.....

american opposition to international law regarding war crimes also puts the various fronts of bushwar in a funnny spot--it positions the americans as something of a rogue state which justifies its actions by accusing other states of being rogue states.
for the right, this irrationality is consistent enough with the other irrationalities that structure their politics as to cause no problems.

it woudl be nice to see arguments that address this matter directly: why should americans not be held accountable to international law on questions of crimes against humanity? what exactly positions the american state above international law? is there any argument to be made for this position, if you strip away residual john birch paranoia concerning the un?
or is this a delightful correlate of the appalling display of ideological self-justification on the part of the bush administration that followed its complete failure to persuade the un security council that its colonial adventure in iraq could be fobbed off as a legitimate war of self defense?
or is this some kind of opposition in principal to international law? does this extend to multilateral accords in general? this would at least be symmetrical with how bushworld in fact operates--the central critique in reality of clinton was that he was seen as being too much an advocate of multilateral agreements (thereby being insufficiently nationalist), while bushworld prefers bilateral agreements (all the better to impose exploitative conditions with, one can only assume).....

Better then blinding hatred for a country that despite it's flaws, is still one of the most giving and self sacrificing nations. Can you name another country that has done half as much as America to help out others? To free oppressed people? That gives aid at such high amounts?

Didn't think so.

I think some of you are still missing the point. If the US has never signed a treaty with other counties recognizing a particular treaty (or in this case, court), then the law does not pertain to the United States. A bunch of other countries getting together and creating a court has no jurisdiction over the United States unless the United States agrees to it. That's just a fact. So all this talk about the US violating international law is bogus because the international law doesn't pertain to the United States since the United States never agreed to such a law. period.

Notice. Section 2

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c106:H.R.2381.IH:

Good reading, Steve.

I also found this quote to be quite accurate and relevant.
by Jeremy Rabkin, a professor of government at Cornell University and an adjunct scholar of American Enterprise Institue, is the author of Why Sovereignty Matters.

edit- here's the link to the whole story. You should read it. http://www.aei.org/publications/pubI...pub_detail.asp

I think you missed what I was saying here. Other countries can call in their debts all they want, but what happens if we DON'T PAY?

Unless there's something I'm missing that's my point, and if I am missing something, please let me know :)

Well with the Neocons in charge we should behave as the bible tells us too. Rom 13:8 "Leave do debt outstanding" So if Bush said screw you to countries wanting their money I guess he wouldn't be some amazing christian after all would he?

What I don't understand about some Americans is we have a mentality of "We know best, we are the best, screw anyone who doesn't agree". We are arogent and that is why much the world hates us. If your neighbor decided you should live a certian way and forced that way onto you how would you feel if you did not agree with how they lived? What if you told them you didn't agree and they treated you like you were stupid and inferior?

If the US want's immunity from war crime tribunals then their enemies should get it to. In Mathew 5:44 Jesus states "You have heard that it was said 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enmies and pray for those who persecute you."

Sorry about quoting the bible for those of you who don't consider it a valid source of guidence but considering the neocons who are running this country I find it is a fair way to evaluate their actions.

Um... you are severely misunderstanding how the US debt works.

When we spend more than we make... we do owe it, but we owe it to OURSELVES. Where does this international debt suddenly appear?

Ok lets start...

- That corrupt thing is the UN. I dont want my money going to Kofi's pocketbook at the expense of millions dying while under a dictator
- To make them like us... we give LOTS of money to France/Palestine/etc... they still dont like us very much do they?
- To foster democracy... what about to established countries like France/Germany/etc? Why do they need extra money?
- Fair enough, but putting that money to use building new schools/roads/etc would help our economy much more considering these other countries wont nessicarily buy our goods.
- And most of those treaties date back to the cold war when they NEEDED us. Now that they're angry we're the only power left, let them be angry just dont give them the money.
- And humanitarian... Palestine gets tens of millions of "aid" money from their Arab neighbors, too bad none of it reaches the people. Personally I'd rather my money going to the war torn places of Africa than to fund Hamas.

As seaver pointed out, we owe it to ourselves. Those that hold US treasury bonds are the ones owed the debt, most of those people are american investors, although some are foreign. Its not like we owe the countries around the world 7 trillion dollars. When did we borrow $7 tril from other countries?

"If we go down then you're all coming with us", eh? Do these "what if's" really matter?

All I seem to be reading of arguments opposing the ICC share one reasonably worrying characteristic; that being the assumption that international law constitutes some kind of conspiracy against American interests. We would all do well to remember that these treaties are binding to all who sign them, this includes all the European countries accused of spouting meaningless rhetoric.

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.

Well said Aborted.


Mr Mephisto

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....

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.

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

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

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...

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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)

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.

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.

Couldnt have said it better. Brilliant post.

Funny. I couldn't disagree more.

But therein lies the rub. :-)


Mr Mephisto

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

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

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. ;)

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?

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.

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'. :thumbsup:

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.

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?

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! :thumbsup:

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.

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.

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...

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?

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.

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.....

RB, this is ridiculous that you say that the ICC some how has legal authority. On what grounds? They exert no power except where it's conceded. What makes there actions so righteous and legal? If anything it is illegal because it circumvents the legal constants of our country.

Ummm, Australia? New Zealand?

No, wait, that's not right.....

They are part of the axis of evil, so they don't count.

THANK YOU for a very eloquent post.

On a related point, because of all the anti-American, anti-Bush rhetoric, I think it would be interesting to do a couple of searches.

I'd like to see if our supporters of the ICC have EVER posted anything

a) Good about the US
b) Bad about terrorists (I don't call them "insurgents")

We could certainly narrow the number of posts to search if we eliminated any that used the word "neocon."

I swear we're going round in circles now.

Welcome to Tilted politics!

well that's too bad, the circle-spinning...

before this thread dies altogether--and to clear up misapprehension of my positions--what bothered me here was intially was what i saw as a replacement of the question of the icc with reference to the prosecution of war crimes with either:

what i took to be an irrelevant issue of sovereignty (that i find it irrelevant does not mean that it is not persuasive to folk, including those in power, so legally the question is moot, even if politically it is not) or:

more curiously a series of general statements about american troops, which seemed to come down to whether you could at once claim affection for the american military as a huge collection of people on the one hand, as an idea more generally, and entertain the matter of prosecution for war crimes at the international level. one seems to preclude the other. i wonder, reading through the thread, whether i underestimated the extent to which my own position was caught up in a reversed version of what i criticized others for. i find that curious.

so i adopted the tack of trying to force debate back onto the question of war crimes.
which put me in the place of talking about fairly inflammatory matters. whence the appearance, i guess, of "negativity".

so there were really two matters: that at hand and another, of what either prevents of enables someone to look at the military as potentially capable of the commission of crimes against humanity. on the first, the debate was fairly straightforward: on the second it was (predictably i think) less so.

one strange side-effect of working as a historian (which is what i do) is that you end up finding out a mountain of ugly things about what the united states has done in the world politically, militarily, etc... initially it puts you in a difficult position vis-a-vis your own committments---later it puts you in a strange position relative to some kinds of conversation because you find it difficult to understand how others do not find themselves placed in a strange position vis-a-vis their committments by this information as well...inside of this is i guess an unspoken assumption that everyone knows the history of american foreign policy since, say world war 2 (the history of the american empire) and that arguments that remain uncritical of american actions are built around a repressing of that information.
because this assumption creeps in, arguments take on a particular kind of edge: the "you cant be serious" tone comes from here.

i still maintain that thinking about this issue by emphasizing the question of war crimes in themselves, and pushing the possible linkage between opposing the icc and the condoning of war crimes if and when they are committed by american troops (who have no monopoly either on their commission of their avoidance--but this was a particular argument, so american troops were the focus) is interesting, maybe important.

but there we are.

O.K. roach, I can understand that.

The only problem I see with your historian comment is the fact that it can be applied to any nation. Pretty much everybody has things in their past that are not necessarily worthy of being heralded. Not to dilute your point, it is just that it cannot be focused on one country alone.

Anyway....

I still stand by my original argument. The international community cannot get past their own differences/cultures/religion/etc. enough to even order a pizza without squabbling over it. Why would I think that they could do a better job investigating/prosecuting our soldiers. Especially with the obvious slant they would come to the table with.

We have already proven that we will investigate and prosecute our own. We may not do the best job at it, but at least we are willing to do it. This so-called International Communtiy has done nothing to even remotely convince me that they could even do as well as we do.

As a soldier, I would rather face my own peers. At least I know that they have an inkling of the place I would be coming from. I have no doubt that, if I had done something, I would at least be given a chance for a fair trial. I may be convicted and go to BFE Kansas, but I couldn't say I didn't get a fair shake.

I would never want to stand trial in another country, any country. I would also never want to stand trial having my judges be a motley assortment pulled from various countries. There would be absolutely no notion of "innocent until proven guilty", many people would automatically assume guilt because the soldier is American--just to prove a point.

if i operated with the assumption that the american judicial system had a monopoly on due process, then i would maybe agree with you, kma. but i dont. i do not see where the assumption would come from that the icc would be a kangaroo court, that it would employ multiple standards, reserving a particularly unfair one for americans--i do not see it. were i a more cynical fellow, i might see this concern as projection: under the bush administration, it is the american judicial system that has de facto condoned the denial of basic features of due process to people held prisoner under the veil of the war on terrorism---the suspension of habeas corpus for folk held at guantanamo comes immediately to mind here. so i do not understand where this assumption comes from.

more generally, i can see how i might have given the impression that my criticism is directed exclusively at the states--but that is a function of the nature of most debates in this space that i choose to participate in, which are focussed on american politics, usually to the exclusion of all else. so there is no occaision to talk about how i might view other places--but to give an indication--most of what i work on concerns france since ww2--which includes, for example, the period of the algerian war--which you cannot look at and maintain any illusion that it is only the americans who commit appalling acts--at times---under the cloak of nationalism. so no, i do not think americans alone have done this stuff. but to introduce material that would broaden the frame of discussion requires that you step back a little from the debate--the occiasions for which are infrequently presented--spaces like this, when others declare the thread to be simply twisting in circles provide something like that....

As a historian RB you should note that in regards to the detainees at Gitmo the President is acting well within his constitutional powers, therefore making that point of legality moot.

Chief Justice Stone 1942

if we were working in a civil law tradition, mojo, then what you say would settle the matter i guess: but this is a common law tradition, and so questions settled at the level of precedent for the moment are nevertheless active as political questions. the production of a legal black hole, the matter of creating a second justice system within the american justice system, and using the "war on terror" as the pretext for it is there for all to see. this administration has created such a hole. whether your reading of selected elements from case law supports that view or not is secondary to the fact that it is a political problem, that there are other views on the matter, and that no number of arbitrary quotes will make that go away.

what is more, you do not address the main point in the post.
further, i do not work on american history. so your assumptions are, in your language, moot about what i should and should not know.

Well let's take this from a different angle then perhaps. I think we are both in agreement that the American tradition doesn't hold a monopoly on due process, many of our own traditions were derived from traditions before our own time.

But on what grounds do you think that this ICC will be legit and just? If you read the link posted regarding the congressional bill on the matter, there were many assertations made that pointed out that there would be no due process, no double jeopardy, no trial by peers, limited access to bail, and an indefinite detention.

Maybe you know, but on what traditions are the basis of the ICC to be set up on? I'll drop the issue of authority.

It would be legit if we all sign the treaty and accept it, or am I oversimplifying the matters now. Cause I though that was the foundation for a international treaty. Countries sign and abide by it.

Furthermore it would be just if the court would be unbiased and thus giving due process. How to do that? Well how do you do that in a country? How do you know your system is unbiased? In some cases people still argue that any system is biased (whether American or European). If that is your problem with the ICC I suspect that you are weiry of your own system as well, cause (like mine) it is not flawless, but it tries darn hard to be that.

As for the trial by peers, not every country has a trial by jury/peers. So in that aspect there could well be a problem. Then again who are his peers? the people from the country of origin? or from the country were the alleged crime was committed?

Limited acces to bail could be resolved by letting the suspect go under supervision of his/her country. But yes that is a problem. As for indefinite detention I fail to see the point since under American law terrorist are being held for years now without trial. No I am not saying the people in front of the ICC are terrorist (nor am I implying that USA soldiers are), but it seems that even the American system has found ways round that point.

Personally my biggest beef with the ICC would be the length of trial. As can be seen with Milosovic, Saddam and Chemical Ali it can take years before they appear before court, and that process takes years as well. If that can be trimmed down to months there would be less problems.

Furthermore I can well imagine that people feel that there is bias/hatred towards the USA. Speaking personally I know plenty of people who agree with the USA politics as well as people who hate the politics. However the vast majority does not hate Americans (do not mix those up).

what energus said is, in general, what i would have said, had i the time to really consider the various features of teh treaty that you raise, mojo. but had the thread gone that way, it would have opened up a different kind of debte--which i would have endorsed then, and endorse now. so there we are. interested to see further development.

FYI - Saddam and Chemical Ali are being tried by the iraqi government, not the ICC

stevo: i think the proper terminology would be:
an "iraqi" court.
that way nothing damaging to the americans can be introduced into evidence.
o the virtues of "freedom" american style...where to start enumerating them....?

What do you mean, an 'iraqi' court? What's the difference? The iraqis are setting up a government, including a judicial system, in which Saddam will be tried by the people he ruled over, if you will, his peers. The US isn't trying him, it came as a suprise to the US that trials will begin in Jan.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/tex...iraqdig15.html

No stevo22, I think that's just roachboy's lovable way of referring to the Iraqi Court as a puppet system of the Americans. He's of the Noam Chomsky school of American Foreign and Domestic Policy, except further left. It's a beautiful thing. :p

roach -

Are you gonna hate me if this made me smile....no guffaws or chuckling, just a smile.....well, maybe more like a smirk.....you know what I mean.

Debt breakdown (as of 1998, but still relevant...if not exactly current):
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/faq.html

Note that only 22% of the debt is owed to foreign entities. Also, a whopping 44% of the debt is government-internal debt.

Also note that ANY percentage of the debt is a HUGE amount of money.