gaut
Posts: 436
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2001 10:57 am

International Criminal Court And USA

Sat Aug 17, 2002 2:14 am

The International Criminal Court (ICC) will be a permanent court for trying individuals accused of committing genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. Following the Rome Statute of the ICC entry into force on 1 July 2002, the Court is expected to be fully functional by mid-2003. This court is a good idea don't you think?

Today, 77 countries have ratified the treaty (Colombia was the 77th!). But USA have not and Bush don't want to sign it in the future.

On 2 August 2002, President George W. Bush signed the supplemental appropriations bill, making the American Servicemembers' Protection Act binding US national law. This act includes a provision that authorizes the use of military force to free any citizen of the US or ally country being held by the Court in The Hague. In addition, the law provides for the withdrawal of U.S. military assistance from countries ratifying the ICC treaty, and restricts U.S. participation in United Nations peacekeeping unless the U.S. obtains immunity from prosecution. There is a clause, however, that allows the President to waive these provisions on basis of "national interest."

Now, the US government is actively seeking bilateral agreements with as many countries as possible, in order to exempt US officials from prosecution by the ICC. To date, two countries (Romania and Israel) have signed such agreements, but several governments, including Bosnia, Canada, Italy, Norway, Slovakia, Yugoslavia and the United Kingdom have reportedly been approached by the US government.

I can't understand why USA are opposed to such a court????
I don't start this topic to bash USA (I don't have all the points of view) but to UNDERSTAND. Could you help me?



Gaut

All those informations can be found on http://www.iccnow.org/
«Horum omnium fortissimi sunt Belgae.»
 
david b.
Posts: 2894
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 7:18 pm

RE: International Criminal Court And USA

Sat Aug 17, 2002 2:36 am

I agree it was a bad decision. The court is a good thing and I he should have approved of it. Whatg harm can it do. Whay does he want immunity for US and allied peacekeepers? Is he protecting other countries?

Maybe this is why http://www.airliners.net/discussions/non_aviation/read.main/269060/
Teenage-know-it-alls should be shot on sight
 
Guest

RE: International Criminal Court And USA

Sat Aug 17, 2002 3:45 am

Don't forget that this court is simply a 'court of last resort' and only comes into effect in the event that people who have been indicted cannot be tried in any other jursidiction. Therefore, the only cases that would affect the US is where the US has demonstrably tried to cover something up and has refused to indict people for political reasons. Mai Lai wouldn't come under the jurisdiction of the ICC, for example, as the commander was Court Martialled for the affair; but Kissinger and the people behind the invasion of Grenada and the assassination of Allende, for example, would well be liable to make starring appearances.

Global accountability is a good thing - and that's why most of the world's democracies have signed up for the ICC. That the US has not is a serious indictment of the contempt they hold the rest of the world in; and their isolationist policies whilst at the same time believing they can attack any nation they wish to without legitimate cause.

Only those nations that have something to fear from justice and accountability need fear the ICC.
 
NoUFO
Posts: 7397
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2001 7:40 am

RE: International Criminal Court And USA

Sat Aug 17, 2002 4:18 am

What harm can it do.

Sentencing US troops to long imprisonment and the administration obviously does not wish to pass jurisdiction to an international court. The Administration argued that US troops are uniquely called on for peacekeeping and ought not to be at risk of prosecution abroad.
A bad decision IMO as this is going to weaken the international community's efforts to bring terrorists and dictators to justice. An international court that exempted U.S. citizens would not sit well with other nations.
However, I wasn't surprised much: As everyone knows the US and the UN form an uncomfortable marriage. Foreign policy of the US tend to base more on unilateralism rather than on multilateral cooperation. As long as Europe struggles or seems to struggle this will continue, I think.

What really surprised me (to say the least) was the line that authorizes the president to use all necessary and appropriate means to free Americans detained by the International Court. "All necessary and appropriate means" - transferred into non-diplomatic English is: "We may even use weapons." Although it is more than unlikely that US troops will occupy The Hague, this line did not face a warm welcome outside the US. A running gag in The Hague goes like this: "Good thing we didn't destroy all those German shelters left from WWII."

Regards,
NoUFO
I support the right to arm bears
 
cfalk
Posts: 10221
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2000 6:38 pm

RE: International Criminal Court And USA

Sat Aug 17, 2002 4:52 am

Speaking as a 3rd party (Swiss), I can understand the U.S. reluctance to legitimizing the court. I'm not sure I agree with it, but I understand it.

The U.S. is the most powerful country in the world, which almost by definition means it is the most resented, or even hated country. The two go hand in hand, unfortunately. The "have-nots" want what the "haves" have, and if they can't manage to take it, they will at least try to annoy the haves as much as possible.

The UN is not immune to such games. Remember last year when the U.N. decided to "teach the Americans a lesson", by kicking them off of the human rights board? They replaced the U.S. with countries like Sudan and Libya! This was so absurd that it was not even funny.

So it is a PROVEN FACT that international bodies like the U.N. will stoop to such tactics, abandoning their most basic principles (such as human rights should be watched over by people who care about human rights) in order to pressure the U.S..

Given that solid track record, If I were an American soldier overseas, I would be worried about accusations coming out of nowhere.

Let's say someone makes up a story that a U.S. soldier raped and murdered young girl in Afghanistan, and they have a name. The Americans look in their records and see that the accused soldier wasn't even in the area, and say there is no case. Countries like Syria, Libya, and other countries push for the court to intervene, because "the US has demonstrably tried to cover something up and has refused to indict people for political reasons", as SAS put it. That's a very easy accusation to make.

Perhaps there is a way to negotiate a balanced structure, but at the moment, I find the U.S. stand perfectly defendable.

Charles

The only thing you should feel when shooting a terrorist: Recoil.
 
go canada!
Posts: 2886
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2001 1:33 am

RE: International Criminal Court And USA

Sat Aug 17, 2002 5:00 am

the un is one giant cockup, full of self important states and diplomats and never gets anything done.
It is amazing what can be accomplised when nobody takes the credit
 
Guest

RE: International Criminal Court And USA

Sat Aug 17, 2002 5:06 am

I haven't really followed this story much, but I thought I remember hearing one reason the US rejects this court is because the outcome of a trial isn't decided by a jury (pears) but Judges. According to US law, I believe, a US citizen's fate is decided by its pears and not Judges.

I'm fuzzy on this topic but I think it went something like this.
 
Staffan
Posts: 3879
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2008 9:21 am

RE: International Criminal Court And USA

Sat Aug 17, 2002 5:11 am

Charles brought up some valid arguments but I think this kind of paranoia will weaken diplomatic relations to other countries.

Staffan
 
Guest

RE: International Criminal Court And USA

Sat Aug 17, 2002 5:59 am

CFalk, the reason the UN kicked the US off a committee was because it owes nearly half a billion dollars in outstanding dues ... most for several years. They were warned what would happen if they didn't pay ... and they disregarded it.

In your scenario, as long as the US is able to show that they are not perpetrating a cover-up, then there would be no problem. Sure, some countries might try to cause trouble ... but as the judiciary in the ICC are both highly capable and impartial, I do not believe that there would be much risk of any such cases even getting to trial.

NoUFO, plenty of other countries provide personnel for peacekeeping purposes. Any action against them would first be liable to be undertaken in the US, under US law. unless there's a cover-up by the US government, there's no reason for the ICC to be involved.

As you say though, very aggressive language from the Americans ... basically sticking two fingers up at the rest of the world!
 
cfalk
Posts: 10221
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2000 6:38 pm

RE: International Criminal Court And USA

Sat Aug 17, 2002 6:12 am

...the reason the UN kicked the US off a committee was because it owes nearly half a billion dollars in outstanding dues ... most for several years. They were warned what would happen if they didn't pay ... and they disregarded it.

SAS, are you justifying their actions? I hope not. It would be, as you said, simply a consequence of non-payment if the U.S. lost its place in favor of some decent countries. Most countries in the world are pretty decent.

But they intentionally made a joke out of their own institution by giving seats on the Human Rights Committee to governments who intentionally starve, disenfranchise, torture and murder their own citizens. They really went to the bottom of the pile. This is beyond punishment, this is pure spite, and I cannot trust any body that would do such things.

Charles
The only thing you should feel when shooting a terrorist: Recoil.
 
NoUFO
Posts: 7397
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2001 7:40 am

RE: International Criminal Court And USA

Sat Aug 17, 2002 6:50 am

SAS23: NoUFO, plenty of other countries provide personnel for peacekeeping purposes.

True, Germany is second with some 9000 soldiers, followed by France and GB. I cited a reason issued by the Pentagon which doen not mean I'd agree with them - not counting that the US really plays a major role in peacekeeping missions.

Go Canada!: the un is one giant cockup, full of self important states and diplomats and never gets anything done.

Hmm ... isn't this as the same as some dictators think of the UN? And can you think of an alternative to the UN? The USA perhaps? Does not get anything done? That's history.

Regards,
NoUFO
I support the right to arm bears
 
heavymetal
Posts: 4443
Joined: Fri May 08, 2015 3:37 am

RE: International Criminal Court And USA

Sat Aug 17, 2002 7:08 am

Global accountability is a good thing - and that's why most of the world's democracies have signed up for the ICC. That the US has not is a serious indictment of the contempt they hold the rest of the world in

No , just your part of it, Ace. People like you are the reason I'm behind the President's decision.

A 'democracy' doesn't guarantee the presence of justice, as I'm sure you're aware since your favorite hobby here is pushing Israel into the sea. Every two bit Third World tyrant or nihilistic egomaniac from Brussels to Borneo would use this Court for political purposes in their politicalgrudges against the United States, thus gutting true justice. How do I know? Because they've made the UN nothing more than a idealogical gangbang of the 'evil Americans'....and eventhat was when we had a progressive Democrat as President. So where is the real contempt? People like you show it to America everyday. I have no problem refusing to endorse yet another forum for their ungrateful rants, and still less of an urge to give those rants teeth beyond the yipping snipes that they are.

 
roguetrader
Posts: 1404
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 5:14 am

RE: International Criminal Court And USA

Sat Aug 17, 2002 7:52 am

Gaut,

I will attempt to answer your question, obviously from my point of view.

The United States, like all countries, acts only in its own self interest. Even in cases where Americans have assisted or fought and died for its allies, it is still American interests that come first.

Almost all countries of the world are small, economically weak, and militarily insignificant. The ICC is a way to check the more powerful nations - so obviously its going to be very popular among most nations.

Agreeing to the ICC provides no benefit whatsoever to America. Rather, it creates risks and potential costs. Submitting to the ICC would be to give up the rights of its own citizens - namely the rights of Americans everywhere to have the protection of the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights found therein. It is in fact against the law for the American government to give up the Constitutional protections afforded to every citizen without the consent of that citizen. This is the analytical, theoretical reason why the US declines to join. The practical reason is of course that this is in big part another attempt by everyone else in the world to have some input or influence on US policy.

Cfalk is right - and even if he is not right, the perception among Americans is that he is right. Right about showing how the rest of the world and specifically international bodies like the ICC will stop at nothing and sell short their own basic principles in order to gain some influence over US policy.

One thing you have to understand is that because of America's unique position it at times must take unique positions with which everyone else in the world disagrees. What is right for the entire rest of the world may not always be right for America, and vice-versa. The United States also makes mistakes as often as anyone else and American mistakes are, due to its size, gigantic in effect compared to the mistakes other countries make. So, what Americans consider a mistake the rest of the world may view as criminal. SAS23's example that the actions of a US Secretary of State or perhaps even a President could be subject to judicial review by some trivial group of jurists in The Hague is outlandish - why would the US ever agree to this?

So, in short, the US will not ratify the ICC because it provides no benefits to America and yet has many potential costs.

kind regards,

RogueTrader
 
roguetrader
Posts: 1404
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 5:14 am

RE: International Criminal Court And USA

Sat Aug 17, 2002 8:30 am

Just to amplify the point that Cfalk brought up and to further explain why the US will not join the ICC - namley because it would no doubt be used as a political weapon to influence US polcies.

...The past week's votes that kicked the United States off two United Nations panels in which it had played crucial roles set off shock waves...[US Administration officials suggest that the reason] the United States lost its seat on the U.N. Human Rights Commission [is explained by] anonymous quotes from European diplomats that it was payback for Bush's unilateral renunciation of the Kyoto Protocol on global warming and for his insistence that the decades-old framework of arms control be swept aside for his planned missile defence shield....

---Deutsche Presse-Agentur, May 8, 2001

In other words, European diplomats admitted, alebeit anonymously, that they were manipulating an international body in an attempt to 'punish' the United States for an issue unrelated to the mission of that tribunal. The same thing could and likely would happen with the ICC. Again, whether or not this is ever to be proven true or not, the perception is strong that other nations of the world attempt to usurp the government of the US through international bodies.

kind regards,

RogueTrader
 
b757300
Posts: 3914
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2000 10:27 pm

RE: International Criminal Court And USA

Sat Aug 17, 2002 9:03 am

Sorry guys, the United States finally has a President who is not going to allow U.S. soldiers and citizens to be hauled before a politically motivated kangaroo court. Funny thing is you all blame Bush because he withdrew from the treaty and yet it would never have passed the United States Senate. I don’t know of a single member who would have voted for it let alone the needed 2/3's majority.

Also, did you know that in a recent defense bill, Congress authorized the President to use any means (including using parts of the military such as Delta Force) to rescue any American hauled before the joke known as the ICC.
"There is no victory at bargain basement prices."
 
User avatar
STT757
Posts: 13224
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 1:14 am

RE: International Criminal Court And USA

Sat Aug 17, 2002 9:30 am

There is no way politics would not enter the court , eventually it would come down to politics.

Who's to say what is an honest mistake and what is deliberate crime in war such as what happened in Afghanistan, it's subjective. Belgium courts and the media were ready to go after Israel for the "Ramallah massacre",when in fact even the Palestians who lived through it later admitted there was no massacre just intense combat.

Yes sometimes troops do commit crimes, or make really stupid decisions.

Case in point the friendly fire incident where two US F-16 pilots mistakingly killed 3 Canadian troops in Afghanistan, they disobeyed orders not to attack and did so anyway. They are being courtmarshalled for disobying orders and killing 3 coalition members through their actions.

The incident happened when the two F-16 pilots on patrol stumbled across what they thought to be Al Qaeda troops firing on them, they radioed for permission from command to attack the targets but were denied (twice). They believed they were in danger and proceede to attack against orders, it turned out that they were flying over Canadian troops involved in live fire excersises.

That was a reckless incident that killed three allies, the incident is being reviewed by both US and Canadian Officers. And the two pilots will be courtmarshalled under jont jurisdiction.
Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
 
Alpha 1
Posts: 12343
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 12:12 am

RE: International Criminal Court And USA

Sat Aug 17, 2002 12:12 pm

Cfalk, as usual, you say things-whether I agree with you or not-and I do agree on this point-with an eloquence that I can never achieve, try as I might sometimes. Well said.

And RogueTrader, despite our past tiffs, that was a very eloquent piece on your part as well. Very well done.

I do think it goes back to the fact that the U.S. government-AND it's citizens are very, very, VERY reluctant to even give the appearance of giving up some of it's autonomy and independence. We like to solve our problems ourselves. That is why the U.S. turned down Kyoto; that's why the U.S. has turned down being part of the ICC. We believe, and I think quite correctly, that our Constition and our Bill of Rights serve us better than some judge in another country would in deciding the fate of an American.

Maybe such a court is OK for Europe, now that it seems to be on the slow path of unification of some sort or another; but we don't think that way over here in The Colonies. We're fiercely independent, and it just doesn't suit us. You can bash us from here to eternity, but it will have the effect of an ice cube on a hot stove.
 
delta-flyer
Posts: 2631
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2001 9:47 am

RE: International Criminal Court And USA

Sat Aug 17, 2002 12:42 pm

Having joined this thread late, Cfalk, Heavymetal, Rogue and others have said pretty much what I think. I just have a couple of additions ---

The ICC in its present form has no accountability. Can you imagine a US Supreme Court acting totally independently, with no other branches of government? No checks and balances, just nine judges to decide everything. No legislature, no executive.

If Americans are guaranteed a robust constitutional protection at home, why should we have to settle for less when we stick our necks out to help other countries? That's why the US objects.

If you are interested in this topic, you've got to read Headwind by John Nance. It's just a novel, but it shows exactly how the ICC would behave.

Pete
"In God we trust, everyone else bring data"
 
clipperhawaii
Posts: 1943
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 1999 3:35 pm

RE: International Criminal Court And USA

Sat Aug 17, 2002 2:07 pm

It is a great decision for we Americans that we should NEVER repeat NEVER join the ICC! We have this document called the Constitution and we have laws both civil and military that can handle any eventuality. The U.S. dips it's flag for no one!

So NO to Kyoto too! Another flawed document that the U.S. should never agree to.

With a great deal of freedom comes a little arrogance. I like that, and so do the citizens of these United States. If foreign citizens and their governments can not deal with that, well too bad. Write your government officials and complain.

A very huffy,
ClipperHawaii
"You Can't Beat The Experience"
 
clipperhawaii
Posts: 1943
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 1999 3:35 pm

RE: International Criminal Court And USA

Sat Aug 17, 2002 3:06 pm

And this is the best part....

On 2 August 2002, President George W. Bush signed the supplemental appropriations bill, making the American Servicemembers Protection Act binding US national law. This act includes a provision that authorizes the use of military force to free any citizen of the U.S. or ally country being held by the Court in The Hague. In addition, the law provides for the withdrawal of U.S. military assistance from countries ratifying the ICC treaty, and restricts U.S. participation in United Nations peacekeeping unless the U.S. obtains immunity from prosecution. There is a clause, however, that allows the President to waive these provisions on basis of "national interest."

EXCELLENT Mr. President.

CH
"You Can't Beat The Experience"
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: International Criminal Court And USA

Sat Aug 17, 2002 4:44 pm

And that action alone should be enough to guarantee reelection for our prez.

As has been brought up several times, I also share the belief that the ICC will not be anywhere near as "impartial" as it's supporters make it seem.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
Alpha 1
Posts: 12343
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 12:12 am

RE: International Criminal Court And USA

Sat Aug 17, 2002 11:22 pm

I think it was an appropriate action-and before anyone in Europe or elsewhere starts throwing brickbats at President Bush, it should be noted that President Clinton also opposed American's enlistment in this court, so believe me, except among the most ultra-left in this country, who represent a tiny fraction of the populace, this court will never stand a chance of ever being accepted in the United States.

Of course, there is absolutely NO political motive, is there, around the world, for wanting the U.S. in the ICC? (dripping with sarcasm). If all of you critics of the U.S. don't believe that the #1 reason why most of the world wants the U.S. in there is that so trumped-up charges against U.S. citizens and soldiers can be brought in an attempt to embarrass the U.S., then you've lost a grip on reality. There are countless people and governments around the world who would love to have at the U.S. that way-including some in Europe.

The U.S. will not get involved in this court-ever. Any president who tried to get the U.S. into it would find himself with a huge problem with the American people and the Congress. And, in the end, the only opinion that counts on this matter doesn't reside in Europe, Asia or anywhere else-but it's how it Plays in Peoria.
 
gaut
Posts: 436
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2001 10:57 am

RE: International Criminal Court And USA

Sun Aug 18, 2002 12:02 am

Ok guys tkx for your replies. I have your point of view now, I understand but I don't agree with your arguments.

This court judge only genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity!! It will not judge all crimes and I think it's a good thing that an international court judge such crimes and not the country of the criminals. It's why German war criminals were not judged by a German court. And it's why Milosevic is judged by the ICC. Note that Bush and Milosevic use the same arguments regarding the competence of the international court.

I understand that USA want to keep it's independence but it's the country in the world that interfere the most in the politic of the other countries and they don't want to be part of a independent and international court ! I am fed up with this "do what I say not what I do" attitude. They impose free market but subside heavily the US steel industry ... All those things with the Kyoto treaty will not ease the relations between US and EU and good relations are good for both sides. US have to learn to make concessions and not only impose their views or they will be more and more isolated.
It's my opinion

Regards

Gaut
«Horum omnium fortissimi sunt Belgae.»
 
delta-flyer
Posts: 2631
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2001 9:47 am

RE: International Criminal Court And USA

Sun Aug 18, 2002 12:09 am

Gaut....just read Headwind by John Nance and tell us what you think of the ICC after.

Pete
"In God we trust, everyone else bring data"
 
Alpha 1
Posts: 12343
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 12:12 am

RE: International Criminal Court And USA

Sun Aug 18, 2002 12:16 am

This court judge only genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity!!

And you don't believe that you can fit just about anything under those headings?

It's why German war criminals were not judged by a German court.

Yes, an international tribunal was convened. I don't see the need for a PERMANENT court for things like this. It will lead to abuse of the system, such as it is.

I understand that USA want to keep it's independence but it's the country in the world that interfere the most in the politic of the other countries and they don't want to be part of a independent and international court !

Right there, that shows why I absolutely don't want the U.S. in this court. YOu say the U.S. "interfers" the most in the politics of other countries? Give me examples? The U.S. gets involved with other countries mostly through invitation: Israel/Palestine, Northern Ireland, Yugoslavia. The U.S. certainly wasn't like the old Soviet Union who started "wars of liberation" around the world from the 1950's through the 1980's. Again, the U.S. is right to stay away from this court. It violates our belief in our autonomy and in self-determination.

Say what you want, but the U.S. should never join this dubious court.
 
AerLingus
Posts: 2280
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2000 9:22 am

RE: International Criminal Court And USA

Sun Aug 18, 2002 12:39 am

Alpha 1:

Panama, El Salvador, Colombia, Chile, The Philipinnes (excluding our most recent endeavour). Five examples of United States interference.

An International Criminal Court is not dubious. By the same logic, American citizens should suspect that our own criminal court system is too dubious because it can be enfluenced to harm innocent people.

Regarding "crimes against humanity" and genocide:
And you don't believe that you can fit just about anything under those headings?

-No. There are guidelines for those, just like there are guidelines for what constitutes homicide and theft in regular courts. Again, the logic doesn't click.

Regarding the permanence of the ICC:
It will lead to abuse of the system, such as it is.

-Firstly, let me say that by "international," that means the United States would be a part of it, not the SUBJECT of it. Secondly, there are surely safeguards in the system, and besides, there are allies that are part of the ICC. I'm sure they would watch our back if there was anything that was truly "dubious" going on. Thirdly, such as it is what? We haven't even seen the court in action. Where is the EVIDENCE of corruption or conspiracy? There is none! It's a baseless comment.
Get your patchouli stink outta my store!
 
delta-flyer
Posts: 2631
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2001 9:47 am

RE: International Criminal Court And USA

Sun Aug 18, 2002 12:48 am

Read Headwind -- it shows the court in action.

Pete
"In God we trust, everyone else bring data"
 
gaut
Posts: 436
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2001 10:57 am

RE: International Criminal Court And USA

Sun Aug 18, 2002 1:09 am

And you don't believe that you can fit just about anything under those headings?

No I'm not, those crimes are serious and you can't put anything about those heading.

Yes, an international tribunal was convened. I don't see the need for a PERMANENT court for things like this. It will lead to abuse of the system, such as it is.

But who will decide when the court has to be convened? If France (for example because for what I have seen on this forum US don't like France) commits a war crime do you think that they will allow the others countries to convened an international court? Certainly not but if the court is permanent and if France signed the treaty they haven't the choice!

Right there, that shows why I absolutely don't want the U.S. in this court. YOu say the U.S. "interfers" the most in the politics of other countries? Give me examples? The U.S. gets involved with other countries mostly through invitation: Israel/Palestine, Northern Ireland, Yugoslavia. The U.S. certainly wasn't like the old Soviet Union who started "wars of liberation" around the world from the 1950's through the 1980's. Again, the U.S. is right to stay away from this court. It violates our belief in our autonomy and in self-determination.

I hope you are kidding Alpha 1?? What about all those president and others placed by the USA?? What about Mobutu, Saddam Hussein, Talibans all of them were or are dictators placed by the USA and now they subside opposition in Iraq and Afghanistan. Invitation?

delta-flyer,

I will do that but not this month I have examinations in September and then I will be graduated (well...I hope)

Gaut
«Horum omnium fortissimi sunt Belgae.»
 
Nik
Posts: 309
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 4:58 am

RE: International Criminal Court And USA

Sun Aug 18, 2002 1:18 am

"It's just a novel, but it shows exactly how the ICC would behave."

Of course, it does, Delta_flyer....

Headwind:
http://www.johnjnance.com/bookstore/synopsis_hdwind.asp

Judge for yourselves.....
 
clipperhawaii
Posts: 1943
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 1999 3:35 pm

RE: International Criminal Court And USA

Sun Aug 18, 2002 3:49 am

Aer Lingus:

A free Europe, a mighty Japan, a non-communist South Korea, billions of dollars in foreign aid, and a now free Afghanistan. Five examples of United States interference. I can give you more if you like. So stop with the diatribe and move on with it. Are you one of those American apologists or are you a person who is too young and has not seen the whole picture yet?

ClipperHawaii
"You Can't Beat The Experience"
 
heavymetal
Posts: 4443
Joined: Fri May 08, 2015 3:37 am

RE: International Criminal Court And USA

Sun Aug 18, 2002 7:13 am

And that action alone should be enough to guarantee reelection for our prez.


Let's not go too far. Though I'm sure the dittoheads here might take issue, I have little doubt a President Gore would have passed on ICC endorsement too. In any case, their is no election issue here...Bush can jump on this all he wants, and all his opponent has to do is say "yup. what he said."

Dubya Bush has yet to establish a solid comprehension of good economics, has yet to distance himself from the burgeoning 'stock option' aristocrisy that's turning the US economy into that of some influence peddling, richest- rule South American banana republic. And he's throwing way too many cookies to the cultural right that are gonna come back biting him in the ass.

I'll give him "A" for effort on this one (though the whole Delta Force rescue clause was nonsense to make him look tough to the red meaters)....but at this point I won't shed any tears if he gets voted out in 04.
 
Alpha 1
Posts: 12343
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 12:12 am

RE: International Criminal Court And USA

Sun Aug 18, 2002 7:57 am

I have little doubt a President Gore would have passed on ICC endorsement too.

A good guess, since President Clinton refused to take the U.S. into it.
 
NoUFO
Posts: 7397
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2001 7:40 am

RE: International Criminal Court And USA

Sun Aug 18, 2002 8:16 am

Again, the U.S. is right to stay away from this court. It violates our belief in our autonomy and in self-determination.

Poor you. Don't you think some of us from the rest of the world have our beliefs in "autonomy" and "self-determination", too? It is clearly time for an international court and it is not true that all countries act only in its own self interest. Human rights are standing above national interests. All those anti-ICC opinions lack solutions on how to deal with future dictators responsible for lets say: torture and arbitrary killings.
It will lead to abuse of the system, such as it is.
So? Fact is that human rights are abused every day and governments abuse the lacking of an international court.

If you are interested in this topic, you've got to read Headwind by John Nance. It's just a novel, but it shows exactly how the ICC would behave.

Are you kidding? There are plenty of novels and "non-fiction" books around describing the US as Moloch trying to occupy the world or whatever kind of scrap. And all those "secret papers" that appear from time to time exclusively at third class journalists and those "anonymous quotes" don't impress me.

A sentence differs not only from court to court but may also depend on race and other factors. So when it comes to judgment there is no right by absolute means. Did you never come across questionable conclusions made by an US court? Your opposition against the ICC bases solely on the fact that the I reads International not American. That's almost pathologic.

Are you one of those American apologists or are you a person who is too young and has not seen the whole picture yet?

The whole picture is that the USA played an ambivalent role in making this world more peaceful.

Regards,
NoUFO
I support the right to arm bears
 
delta-flyer
Posts: 2631
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2001 9:47 am

RE: International Criminal Court And USA

Sun Aug 18, 2002 12:53 pm

NoUFO -- maybe we've all read Headwind! Hehe!

Anyway, the US will pass on this one; start the party without us.

Pete
 Smile
"In God we trust, everyone else bring data"
 
Alpha 1
Posts: 12343
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 12:12 am

RE: International Criminal Court And USA

Sun Aug 18, 2002 1:00 pm

Don't you think some of us from the rest of the world have our beliefs in "autonomy" and "self-determination", too?

No, apparently not, or you wouldn't be so quick to give up a part of your autonomy to this ICC. What makes this court so special, and why has the rest of the world given it so much instant legitimacy? Is it all part of this "one-world" lunacy? Is it an outgrowth of the EU, and its progression towards tryong to be a super-state? I really don't understand this rush to legitimize and embrace this court that crosses national boundaries.

Maybe you find it acceptable, but an overwhelming majority of Americans on either side of the political spectrum think it unacceptable. Only those who think like "Leopold" (ficticious though he may be, there are people like "him" in this world) embrace this idea in the U.S. Maybe the rest of the world doesn't like that, but, as an independent nation, we have every right to stay away from it if we don't like it.
 
roguetrader
Posts: 1404
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 5:14 am

RE: International Criminal Court And USA

Sun Aug 18, 2002 4:29 pm

Alpha 1 and others have said that Bill Clinton refused to take the US into the ICC and that likewise Gore would have also refused US entry.

My research indicates differently:

newly created International Criminal Court.The United States, under President Clinton, had signed the treaty which established the ...
---The Boston Globe, July 22, 2002

You know, ever since Bill Clinton, your pal, passed that, signed on to that treaty in Rome on New Year's Eve 2000, and made the United States a signatory, which we've now tried to get out of, I've been saying that Israel and the United States are going to be the primary targets...
---FOX NEWS HANNITY & COLMES July 24, 2002 Wednesday (quoting Oliver North)

the ICC document was signed by their former president, Mr Clinton.
---BBC Worldwide Monitoring, July 12, 2002, Friday

So, while this is only a tangent to the topic here, I'm wondering what made you guys think that Bill Clinton and Al Gore are against US membership in the ICC - wishful thinking? This fits right in with the Clinton/Gore view that US policy should be subordinate to or a subset of 'world policy' decided by the international intellectual elite.

kind regards,

RogueTrader
 
LMP737
Posts: 4859
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

RE: International Criminal Court And USA

Mon Aug 19, 2002 6:37 am

Gaut:

And the countries of the EU don't try and impose their will on others?
Never take financial advice from co-workers.
 
Klaus
Posts: 20622
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

RE: International Criminal Court And USA

Wed Aug 21, 2002 2:18 am

The ICC is a tool to establish the rule of law internationally. The rule of law is the only way to keep despotism at bay. Which makes it especially peculiar that the USA is trying to sabotage the ICC in every possible way. Peculiar, indeed.


LMP737: And the countries of the EU don't try and impose their will on others?

Not nearly as much as the current US administration is trying to.

One of the main reasons for the growing international influence of the EU is the (mostly justified) perception that the EU can be trusted, even in matters that are not in the EU´s own interest. And trust by others is exactly what the USA is lacking, badly.

What all the flustered american contributors in this thread have overlooked somehow is the fact that it was the Bush administration that threatened Serbia with sanctions in case they hadn´t extradited Milosevic to den Haag.

Then, a few days later, the same administration categorically refuses to take part in the ICC.

How can anyone believe that a behaviour like that makes the USA appear trustworthy in any way?
 
LMP737
Posts: 4859
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

RE: International Criminal Court And USA

Wed Aug 21, 2002 10:30 am

Klaus:

Flustered? I don't about other Americans on this forum but quite frankly I don't lose sleep over criticism of the US.

".......the perception that the EU can be trusted, even in matters that are not in the EU's own interest."

Really? Let me tell you a little story about this little country called Taiwan. About five years ago China was doing it's best to intimidate Taiwan. The US disregarding the fact that it was probably not in their best economic interest sent a carrier battle group into the Straits of Formosa. The various govt. of Europe realizing that it was not in their best interest to do something of the sort did exactly that, nothing.

Then there is the issues of farm subsidies. While I have heard a lot of criticism of the farm bill recently signed into law here in the states I have heard little about farm subsides in the EU. The EU spends almost twice on subsides than the US. What does this have to do with what we are talking about? These subsides have a detrimental affect on farmers in third world countries. They are hamstrung in their efforts to export to the EU while at the same time the EU dumps products into their domestic markets. Want to lecture me more about the kinder/gentler EU.

Funny you should mention Milosevic. For years we Americans have been listening to voices coming from Europe telling us to stop throwing our weight around the world. When the Balkans first erupted into violence the attitude of a lot of Americans was to let the countries of Europe handle it. After all we did not want to become the worlds policemen. Guess what happened? Because Europe was unable or unwilling to do anything about it we ended up getting dragged into it. I wish people would make up their mind. Do you want us to mind our own business or bail you out when the going gets tough?

Never take financial advice from co-workers.
 
jamesag96
Posts: 2007
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2001 2:59 am

RE: International Criminal Court And USA

Wed Aug 21, 2002 3:46 pm

Clinton did sign the treaty, however, it was on his desk until his last day and was never pushed through congress. Not an oversight.

J
Why Kate, You're not wearing a bustle. How lewd.
 
Guest

RE: International Criminal Court And USA

Wed Aug 21, 2002 5:14 pm

For those with a classical education: Qui ipso custodes custodiet?

If the US regards itself as the world's policeman, using its military might (including mountain troops that "don't do mountains" and an air force that inflicts more casualties amongst its own and allied forces than the enemy does) then it must be held accountable. Otherwise, it is a rogue state that is considerably more dangerous than all other rogue states put together.

And yes, the US is guilty of such behavior - take their invasion of Grenada; their involvement with the fiasco of a coup in Venezuela earlier this year; and the assassination of Salvador Allende.

Global accountability would make them think before embarking on such misadventures - but clearly they have no such intention of being held accountable.

Personally, I think it would be entirely appropriate for sanctions to be imposed against the United States for such action. The reality is that the rest of the world gets along quite nicely without them - Airbus can fly with Rolls Royce engines; the world's financial capitals remain in Europe, not the US; far more Japanese and European cars are exported to the US than US cars are exported to the rest of then world. Let the Euro replace the greenback as the global currency; and pretty soon we'll see the arrogant US reduced to the same level as the remains of the once-mighty Soviet Union.
 
jamesag96
Posts: 2007
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2001 2:59 am

RE: International Criminal Court And USA

Wed Aug 21, 2002 7:08 pm

WOW. Well put. But when the shit hits the fan, and it will, who will be there to back you up? I am not saying that the US is perfect, and I don't remember anyone on here claiming that either, but it is the best we got and the world needs it more than most people care to admit.

If someone else wants to step to the plate and assist in the "policing" of the world as you so succinctly put it, bring it.

J

And more dangerous than all other rogue states put together? My my are you way off.
Why Kate, You're not wearing a bustle. How lewd.
 
Alpha 1
Posts: 12343
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 12:12 am

RE: International Criminal Court And USA

Wed Aug 21, 2002 9:01 pm

Personally, I think it would be entirely appropriate for sanctions to be imposed against the United States for such action.

HAHAHAHAHA. That's a good one. Sanctions against the U.S? Would have the effect of an ice cube on a hotplate. Go ahead, and let the world try it, SAS23. I know it would tickle you to death, but it wouldn't do much of anything.

Let the Euro replace the greenback as the global currency; and pretty soon we'll see the arrogant US...

Again, we see your true colors-which is open hatred for the U.S. The U.S. isn't going to be reduced to anything, SAS23. Europe's time has come and gone, as a world power, SAS23, and your wishful and hateful thinking won't bring it back. And guess what? The U.S. can get along just fine without the rest of the world, if push comes to shove, SAS23. You want to isolate the U.S. Go ahead and try, and see what happens.
 
PH-BFA
Posts: 444
Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2002 6:22 pm

RE: International Criminal Court And USA

Wed Aug 21, 2002 9:41 pm

I think (as an European) that the USA has the full right to say no to the criminal court. Maybe it is selfish from the USA, but I think everyone(even Europe) does selfish things, or act in their best interest. I do thing it is rather stupid they made the 'invasion-act', because people in Holland see it more as an act against Holland and not against the ICC. And this could only damage the relations between Holland(or Europe) and the USA

PH-BFA
 
Guest

RE: International Criminal Court And USA

Wed Aug 21, 2002 10:02 pm

We're not the ones creating an isolationist US, Alpha 1 ... it's the Americans doing it to themselves. You guys need to learn that you're part of a global community - and that what you do in the way of pollution affects the rest of the world (but the US won't accede to the Kyoto Accords ... because it's bad for 'bign business'); and it attacks any country that it doesn't agree with. Then, to add insult to injury, it refuses to be accountable for those actions.

Fine, you guys go off and play with your toys in your own sandbox. However, don't be surprised when no one wants to play with you any more!  Big grin
 
Alpha 1
Posts: 12343
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 12:12 am

RE: International Criminal Court And USA

Wed Aug 21, 2002 10:38 pm

You guys need to learn that you're part of a global community..

Maybe YOU guys need to learn that the U.S. has the perrogative and the right to do what it sees as it's best interest, SAS23, and sometimes that means telling the rest of the world "to hell with what you think, we're not joining." And Kyoto was a non-starter not only with "big business", SAS23, but with the American people, because it would have meant a huge financial burden on American taxpayers, while letting the worlds most populace nation off free of charge.

If you think the EU can be THE power in the world, you're welcome to try. Then let's see how Europeans handle being critisized no matter what they do.  Smile
 
cfalk
Posts: 10221
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2000 6:38 pm

RE: International Criminal Court And USA

Thu Aug 22, 2002 12:11 am

SAS,

You have to look at things a bit more closely than the headlines.

The Kyoto accord was meant to reduce greenhouse gases and pollution in general. Of course everyone would like to reduce pollution. The name itself is a marketing tool. But the devil is in the details.

For example, Kyoto said that both Europe and the U.S. must reduce emissions down to 93 or 94% of 1990 levels. But cars in the U.S. (a big polluter) have had catalytic converters since the early 70's, and Europe only started to look at catalytic converters in the eighties, in one or two countries, and implemented them as part of EU norms only in the mid-90's. Since a car without a catalytic converter pollutes up to 50 times more than an equipped car, Europe can make headway towards their goals simply by continuing their cat laws, whereas the U.S. is penalized by having already addressed a major pollution problem 30 years earlier.

About the International Criminal Court, the same thing goes. Of course everyone wants such a court to be available. But the way it is implemented will cause major problems to the U.S., because of the resentment that comes automatically against whoever is the only superpower.

Here's a solid example. In the U.S., and elsewhere too, people stopped being good samaritans. You see a car accident, and you stop and try to help. The victim is in danger or in pain, and you do whatever you can to help, to the best of your knowledge or ability. But if perchance he has a serious injury, he will sue your ass, saying that you caused the injury. This happened so frequently that people stopped helping, to the point that many people died, burnt to death, suffocated or otherwise because people who stood around refused to get involved and run the risk of a lawsuit. In response, some states put in place good samaritan laws which provide immunity to anyone who tries to help, even if he makes a mistake, as long as he acted with good intentions and to the best of his ability.

This same protection is what the U.S. is asking for. If such immunity is not granted, you will find that the U.S. will no longer be willing to send peacekeepers where they are needed, or other military actions which in the long term provide a great service to the world, like defeating Saddam Hussein before he took over most of the Middle East's oil supplies.

Charles
The only thing you should feel when shooting a terrorist: Recoil.
 
go canada!
Posts: 2886
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2001 1:33 am

RE: International Criminal Court And USA

Thu Aug 22, 2002 12:31 am

hold on a minute people, you cant start saying the USA is part of a global community and shouldnt be isolatist and at the same time attack it for its involvement in other countries affairs, the two simply dont work.either you have a usa away from world affiars ovur its active in them.when its active its called a bully boy and attacked for being 'colonialist' and 'imperial' yet when some thing bad happens, the world expects america to clean up the mess.

The fact is america has always been islotatist, it joined ww1 very late, it wouldnt join the league of nations and it didnt join WW2 until it was attacked(proof that the usa doesnt always poke its nose in in others affairs). Its involvement in world affairs is a concept that has happened since WW2 ended. September 11 may mean the usa reverts back to type, it follows its own views first.
It is amazing what can be accomplised when nobody takes the credit
 
gaut
Posts: 436
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2001 10:57 am

RE: International Criminal Court And USA

Thu Aug 22, 2002 1:26 am

Cfalk

The catalytic converter is one think but you forget that in the 90's, lot of UE countries had more than 50% of their electricity produced by nuclear power stations or windmills, an excellent rail system and more small, less polluting motors on cars.

About your example, if you see an accident, stop, take your gun and shoot the man, it'll be a war crime.  Big grin You all have to understand that war crime is a big accusation.

Gaut
«Horum omnium fortissimi sunt Belgae.»
 
NoUFO
Posts: 7397
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2001 7:40 am

RE: International Criminal Court And USA

Thu Aug 22, 2002 3:27 am

But cars in the U.S. (a big polluter) have had catalytic converters since the early 70's, and Europe only started to look at catalytic converters in the eighties, in one or two countries, and implemented them as part of EU norms only in the mid-90's. Since a car without a catalytic converter pollutes up to 50 times more than an equipped car, Europe can make headway towards their goals simply by continuing their cat laws,

What a scrap. There is hardly any car without cat around in the EU. Getting rid of the last remaining Trabants from the former GDR will not cause a significant improvement of CO-emissions.

whereas the U.S. is penalized by having already addressed a major pollution problem 30 years earlier.

More scrap. The US has always been world's biggest polluter. BTW, aren't we talking 'bout the ICC?

you cant start saying the USA is part of a global community and shouldn't be isolatist and at the same time attack it for its involvement in other countries affairs

The question is how the USA is getting involved. You should differentiate a bit better.

the U.S. has the perrogative and the right to do what it sees as it's best interest

That depends. If it's affecting the U.S. only - fine. If not - than pretending that the US's the only country around doesn't help. The U.S. administration quite quickly starts to urge the EU not to do this or that whenever they fear the EU's interest could spoil America's economy. In cases like this, the EU and U.S. use to argue a little and then find a way both sides can live with. It's very, very seldom other countries categorically say "No way".

NoUFO -- maybe we've all read Headwind! Hehe!

Hehe, really? If that's so: how does the first sentence of page 127, paragraph 2 read?  Smile

Regards,
NoUFO
I support the right to arm bears

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: aerlingus747, seat64k and 8 guests