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

Mephisto2 · 12-09-2004, 04:33 PM

Quote:

Countries that refuse US immunity 'face aid cuts'
December 10, 2004 - 9:37AM

Supporters of the International Criminal Court warned today that a law signed into effect by President George W Bush would cut off humanitarian aid to countries that refuse to grant Americans immunity from the world's first war crimes tribunal.

It will cut off hundreds of millions of dollars in foreign aid to countries that belong to the court, or ICC, but have not signed a so-called bilateral immunity agreement with the United States.

The bill, submitted by House Representative George Nethercutt, passed Congress as part of a $US388 billion ($513.43 billion) legislative package covering spending of every federal agency but the Pentagon and Department of Homeland Security. It was approved by Congress and signed by Bush on Wednesday.

"None of the funds made available in this act ... may be used to provide assistance to the government of a country that is a party to the International Criminal Court and has not entered into an agreement with the United States," a portion of the text reads.

The New York-based Human Rights Watch, a pro-ICC group, said the bill threatens US aid intended to help US allies promote democracy, fight terrorism and corruption, resolve conflict and drugs.

Jordan, which has helped train Iraqi police and hosted conferences on the reconstruction of Iraq, is set to lose approximately $US250 million ($330.82 million) in aid. Peru is expected to lose $US8 million ($10.59 million) for democratic reforms and agricultural programs, drug-trafficking, and terrorism.

"This is a serious escalation by the Bush administration and US Congress in its ill-conceived, ideologically motivated crusade against the ICC," Richard Dicker, head of the International Justice Program at Human Rights Watch said in an interview.

He called it ironic that the bill's passage coincided with new reports of torture by US forces of prisoners in Iraq and at the Guantanamo prison complex.

ICC officials declined to comment on the bill, saying it was up to the court's member countries to react.

The International Criminal Court is the end result of a campaign for a permanent war crimes tribunal that began with the Nuremberg trials after World War II. It can prosecute cases of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity committed after July 1, 2002, but will step in only when countries are unwilling or unable to dispense justice themselves.

The US government vehemently opposes the court, arguing that it could be used for frivolous or politically motivated prosecutions of American troops. But supporters of 1998 Rome Treaty, ratified by 97 countries including the entire European Union, counter that it contains enough safeguards to prevent politically motivated prosecutions.

The court is expected to try its first cases of crimes in Congo and Uganda next year.

AP

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

pan6467 · 12-09-2004, 04:36 PM

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

Coppertop · 12-09-2004, 04:39 PM

Quote:

He called it ironic that the bill's passage coincided with new reports of torture by US forces of prisoners in Iraq and at the Guantanamo prison complex.

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

Mephisto2 · 12-09-2004, 05:05 PM

Yes you did Coppertop.

One rule for the strong, another for the weak.

Mr Mephisto

Mojo_PeiPei · 12-09-2004, 05:31 PM

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.

pan6467 · 12-09-2004, 05:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

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.

Mojo_PeiPei · 12-09-2004, 05:37 PM

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.

Mephisto2 · 12-09-2004, 05:45 PM

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

pan6467 · 12-09-2004, 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

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.

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.

Mojo_PeiPei · 12-09-2004, 05:50 PM

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.

fuzyfuzer · 12-09-2004, 06:03 PM

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.

Mephisto2 · 12-09-2004, 06:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fuzyfuzer

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

Ustwo · 12-09-2004, 06:16 PM

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

Irishsean · 12-09-2004, 08:02 PM

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...

stevo · 12-09-2004, 08:24 PM

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.

Brooke · 12-09-2004, 08:44 PM

*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.

pedro padilla · 12-09-2004, 09:38 PM

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?

Mephisto2 · 12-09-2004, 09:44 PM

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

Mojo_PeiPei · 12-09-2004, 10:57 PM

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?

Mephisto2 · 12-09-2004, 10:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

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...

pedro padilla · 12-09-2004, 11:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

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?

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

djtestudo · 12-09-2004, 11:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pedro padilla

only demand from others that which you can demand from yourself. seems a pretty basic principle.

You mean like support in taking down a corrupt dictatorial government that destablizes an entire region by existing?

Quote:

Originally Posted by pedro padilla

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.

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?

Seaver · 12-10-2004, 12:35 AM

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.

Mephisto2 · 12-10-2004, 01:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by djtestudo

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?

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

Mephisto2 · 12-10-2004, 01:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

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

What thing is that?

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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

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

aKula · 12-10-2004, 02:04 AM

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.

Strange Famous · 12-10-2004, 03:31 AM

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.

Mephisto2 · 12-10-2004, 05:09 AM

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

roachboy · 12-10-2004, 07:46 AM

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).....

Mojo_PeiPei · 12-10-2004, 08:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pedro padilla

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

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.

stevo · 12-10-2004, 09:09 AM

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.

stevo · 12-10-2004, 09:17 AM

Notice. Section 2

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

Quote:

Protection of United States Troops From Foreign Prosecution Act of 1999 (Introduced in House)

HR 2381 IH

106th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 2381

To prohibit United States economic assistance for countries that ratify the treaty known as the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, a treaty that provides for the establishment of an International Criminal Court, an illegal and illegitimate institution that violates the principles of self-government and popular sovereignty, as well as accepted norms of international law, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

June 29, 1999

Mr. NEY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on International Relations

A BILL

To prohibit United States economic assistance for countries that ratify the treaty known as the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, a treaty that provides for the establishment of an International Criminal Court, an illegal and illegitimate institution that violates the principles of self-government and popular sovereignty, as well as accepted norms of international law, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Protection of United States Troops From Foreign Prosecution Act of 1999'.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

The Congress finds the following:

(1)(A) A treaty is a contract between sovereign nations and, like a private contract, cannot force a nation to be subject to its terms if that nation has not agreed to be bound by its terms.

(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.

(B) These are among the very offenses of the King and Parliament listed in the Declaration of Independence that required separation from England, revolution, and war.

(7) The Court would be able to prosecute any individual United States citizen, including the President, military and civilian officers and officials, enlisted personnel, and even ordinary citizens who were involved in any action the Court determined to be within its jurisdiction.

SEC. 3. PROHIBITION ON IMPLEMENTATION OF ICC TREATY.

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no Federal department or agency shall--

(1) take any action that has the effect of observing or implementing the provisions of the ICC Treaty; or

(2)(A) provide funding or other support for the International Criminal Court; or

(B) transfer any person to the custody of the International Criminal Court.

SEC. 4. PROHIBITION ON FOREIGN ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE FOR COUNTRIES THAT RATIFY ICC TREATY.

(a) SENSE OF THE CONGRESS- It is the sense of the Congress that the President should inform both allies and adversaries of the United States that ratification of the ICC Treaty, in view of jurisdictional claims provisions in the Treaty that violate international law, will be considered an unfriendly act directed at the United States, and that ratification by any foreign country will adversely affect bilateral relations between the United States and that country.

(b) PROHIBITION ON ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE- Chapter 1 of part III of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2351) is amended--

(1) by redesignating the second section 620G (as added by section 149 of Public Law 104-164 (110 Stat. 1436)) as section 620J; and

(2) by adding at the end the following:

`SEC. 620K. PROHIBITION ON ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE FOR COUNTRIES THAT RATIFY ICC TREATY.

`(a) PROHIBITION- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, United States economic assistance may not be provided, directly or indirectly, to a foreign country that ratifies the ICC Treaty.

`(b) DEFINITIONS- In this section:

`(1) ICC TREATY- The term `ICC Treaty' means 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.

`(2) UNITED STATES ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE- The term `United States economic assistance' means any assistance under part I of this Act and any assistance under chapter 4 of part II of this Act, except that such term does not include humanitarian assistance.'.

SEC. 5. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS RELATING TO REFERRAL BY UNITED NATIONS TO ICC.

It is the sense of Congress that the President should instruct the United States representative to the United Nations to veto any attempt by the United Nations Security Council to refer a matter to the International Criminal Court for investigation.

SEC. 6. DEFINITIONS.

As used in this Act:

(1) ICC TREATY- The term `ICC Treaty' means 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.

(2) INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT- The term `International Criminal Court' means the institution, known as the International Criminal Court, established upon the ratification of the ICC Treaty by 60 nations.

Lebell · 12-10-2004, 09:22 AM

Good reading, Steve.

stevo · 12-10-2004, 09:28 AM

I also found this quote to be quite accurate and relevant.

Quote:

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.

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

djtestudo · 12-10-2004, 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto

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

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

Rekna · 12-10-2004, 10:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by djtestudo

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.

Seaver · 12-10-2004, 11:08 AM

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?

Quote:

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

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.

stevo · 12-10-2004, 11:26 AM

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?

Aborted · 12-10-2004, 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by djtestudo

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?

"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.

Lebell · 12-10-2004, 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aborted

... 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.

12-09-2004, 04:36 PM	#2 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	IT's very sad Mephisto, again the US wants the world to see we put ourselves above the laws we demand everyone else uphold. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

12-09-2004, 05:31 PM	#5 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	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. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

12-09-2004, 05:37 PM	#7 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	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. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition. Last edited by Mojo_PeiPei; 12-09-2004 at 05:43 PM..

12-09-2004, 05:50 PM	#10 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	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. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

12-09-2004, 06:03 PM	#11 (permalink)
fuzyfuzer Insane Location: st. louis	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. __________________ "The difference between commiment and involvment is like a ham and egg breakfast the chicken was involved but the pig was commited" "Thrice happy is the nation that has a glorious history. Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure, than to take rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in the gray twilight that knows neither victory nor defeat." Theodore Roosevelt

12-09-2004, 05:05 PM	#4 (permalink)
Mephisto2 Junkie	Yes you did Coppertop. One rule for the strong, another for the weak. Mr Mephisto

12-09-2004, 05:45 PM	#8 (permalink)
Mephisto2 Junkie	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

12-09-2004, 06:16 PM	#13 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	I think its about damn time, but you knew that already. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

12-09-2004, 08:02 PM	#14 (permalink)
Irishsean edited for content Location: Austin, TX	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... __________________ There are no absolute rules of conduct, either in peace or war. Everything depends on circumstances. Leon Trotsky

12-09-2004, 08:24 PM	#15 (permalink)
stevo Rail Baron Location: Tallyfla	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.

12-09-2004, 08:44 PM	#16 (permalink)
Brooke Crazy	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. __________________ And so its over Your fantasy life is finally at an end And the world above is still a brutal place And the story will start again

12-09-2004, 09:38 PM	#17 (permalink)
pedro padilla Insane	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?

12-09-2004, 09:44 PM	#18 (permalink)
Mephisto2 Junkie	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

12-09-2004, 10:57 PM	#19 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	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? __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

12-10-2004, 12:35 AM	#23 (permalink)
Seaver Junkie Location: Fort Worth, TX	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.

12-10-2004, 02:04 AM	#26 (permalink)
aKula Psycho	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.

12-10-2004, 03:31 AM	#27 (permalink)
Strange Famous follower of the child's crusade?	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. __________________ "Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate, for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain without being uncovered." The Gospel of Thomas

12-10-2004, 05:09 AM	#28 (permalink)
Mephisto2 Junkie	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

12-10-2004, 07:46 AM	#29 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	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)..... __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

12-10-2004, 09:09 AM	#31 (permalink)
stevo Rail Baron Location: Tallyfla	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.

12-10-2004, 09:22 AM	#33 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	Good reading, Steve. __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

12-10-2004, 11:26 AM	#38 (permalink)
stevo Rail Baron Location: Tallyfla	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?