Bush and the International Criminal Court

[lavender]

 

[Texan]

Lavender, I sincerely appreciate the link you posted. I just spent the last hour reading almost all of the charter for the ICC. It was good information and, due to it's nature, without political bias. I have never spent any amount of time reading about the ICC, and I found it educational.

I don't want to argue with you or anyone about the ICC. I can clearly see that many people would welcome an international criminal tribunal. I can also see why a country like ours would be very afraid of such a court. You say that the scope of the courts authority is very limited, but I read exactly the opposite.

Under the rules of the court, as I just read them, that court could decide that the actions of the U.S.A. in Afganistan are "agression" and send captured American soldiers to spend "life" in a foreign prison.

Under the rules of the ICC, the court could decide that Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinians, and take action against Israel. (I noticed that Arabic is one of the courts "official" languages... Hebrew is not.)

Under the rules of the ICC, the court could review the trial and sentencing of someone who had already been tried in the U.S. for civil rights violations, and if the ICC did not like the verdict or sentence, they could hold their own trial.

The ICC gives unto itself the right of siezure of property, with the proceeds to be paid to the ICC.

They claim the right to "force" the "host" country....... (that is an indirect reference to the host country of the United Nations, which is the U.S.) to provide for the imprisonment of any person sentenced by the ICC, if there is no other country that comes forward and volunteers.

The ICC creates a huge organization. The costs of running the organization are divided among the members based upon the SAME criteria that the costs of running the United Nations are divided. It is no secret that the U.S. pays the vast majority of the costs of running the United Nations. Amazingly, the "Registry" of the ICC (18 member panel of judges) is given the right to create as many new judges as it feels are needed. The function of the "Prosecutor" is given to ONE person who will be elected for a term of 9 years. The Prosecutor is given the authority to hire as many "investigators" as he needs.

I don't wonder that so many small countries are jumping forward to ratify the Rome treaty. What better way for a bunch of small countries to get together and "punish" the stronger countries, specifically, the U.S.A.

I wonder what benefit the U.S. would get out of the ICC. The U.S. already has a good criminal justice system. It's not like we can actualy prosecute Saddam Hussein in the ICC. Iraq is not, nor will it ever be, a member of the ICC, so there is no method of enforcement. The ICC could (and undoubtedly, would) immediately decide the Taliban prisoners in Cuba are "prisoners of war" and attempt to force the U.S. to have them tried in the ICC. Any chance for interrogation would be lost.

anyway, thanks for the education.... I guess it's all in your perspective...

 

[LukkyKnight]

Food for thought:

If, by posturing such that dozens of other countries rush to endorse the inception of the ICC Bush speeds along the creation of this body, what then?

Politics is seldom open and transparent, particularly internationally.

 

[sexy-girl]

sorry is late here so i havent read all the article but i thought the US and bush would be all for the ICC espically with them prosecuting slobodan milosevic and trying to catch other war crims from the serbia/bosnia conflict

 

[CelestialBody]

 

[WriterDom]

Wasn't this one of those 11th hour Clinton signings knowing the Senate would never sign on?

Lavender, wouldn't you be happier living in Europe? You seem to be a "one world government" kind of gal.

 

[Todd-'o'-Vision]

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,,3-263478,00.html

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20020411/wl_india_nm/india_68695_2

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=283735

http://www.newsmax.com/commentarchive.shtml?a=2002/4/9/130523

http://www.odci.gov/nic/pubs/2015_files/2015.htm#link2

http://www.americanfreepress.net/04...O_BUSHWHA/bilderberg_plotting_to_bushwha.html

 

[Azwed]

Clinton signed the ICC with reservations that parts of it needed to be reformed.

While I have studied the ICC I honestly don't know enough about the court to agree or disagree with him.

The ICC will just be added to the long list of treaties we have not signed because the US is to big and bad to give a shit about the rest of the world.

It doesn't look very good to everyone else when 190 countries have signed and/or ratified a treaty and the US has done neither.

If we continue to ignore important treaties then how are we going to be able to negotiate new ones. If treat ABC comes up sometime in the next few years and we want to negotiate some provisons or reservations into it how much clout are we going to have? Not very much if we keep pissing on all the previous treaties.

 

[JazzManJim]

I've been doing some reading on this, especially in light of the situations in Bosnia, Afghanistan, and the Middle East.

What it comes down to for me is that there's going to be the formation of another international organization wherein an unelected non-legislative body is going to pass "laws" (which have no power of law, only the power of, at most, a treaty) which are patently unenforceable, except through the force of arms.

What happens when the ICC rules against the United States and we refuse to abide by the decision, for whatever reason? Will "they" invade? If they do, isn't that the exact for of aggression the charter deplores?

It's completely no good, from what I've been reading.

 

[Azwed]

What it comes down to for me is that there's going to be the formation of another international organization wherein an unelected non-legislative body is going to pass "laws" (which have no power of law, only the power of, at most, a treaty)

Treaty is law. In fact in some instances a treaty is higher then normal law.

 

[Laurel]

Funny how we expect the world to stand by and support us when we're hit with acts of terror or aggression, yet we won't agree to do the same for others. We want to be allowed to do whatever we want without consequence, yet anyone who crosses us should be held accountable. Talk about shirking responsibility. No wonder this country's such a mess, with people believing shit like this. We're worse than spoiled teenagers.

 

[JazzManJim]

Treaty is law. In fact in some instances a treaty is higher then normal law.

Perhaps, but a law is only so if it's enforceable. As we've seen throughout history treaties are entirely unenforceable short of war.

Essentially, these "laws" have the same authority as a UN Resolution, if I've read it correctly. Those are exactly as powerful as the nations willing to use their armies to pummel the offending nation into compliance. We've also seen very recently how useless resolutions are when they can't be enforced.

 

[lavender]

 

[Azwed]

Perhaps, but a law is only so if it's enforceable. As we've seen throughout history treaties are entirely unenforceable short of war.

Essentially, these "laws" have the same authority as a UN Resolution, if I've read it correctly. Those are exactly as powerful as the nations willing to use their armies to pummel the offending nation into compliance. We've also seen very recently how useless resolutions are when they can't be enforced.

acckkk wrong

Read lavys post.

Like she said UN general assembly resoulutions are just guidlines that the UN would like countries to follow.

Securtiy Council votes are binding and are supposed to followed and will be enforced in some way if they are not.

Israel may soon find out about this.

 

[JazzManJim]

Funny how we expect the world to stand by and support us when we're hit with acts of terror or aggression, yet we won't agree to do the same for others.

Laurel, this just isn't true.

Time and time again we've involved ourselves in protecting other nations and peoples. We did it in two World Wars. We did it in Bosnia. We did it in Kuwait (say what you will about oil and such, but the resolution was squarely in favor of helping the Kuwaiti people).

We're getting involved neck-deep in the Middle East right now because our allies in Europe and the "moderate" Arab nations like Jordan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia specifically asked us to.

We have a huge history of helping.

I just see this as a huge potential screw-job for nations such as us, with little to no benefit for the people of our country, but at potential great risk to them.

 

[lavender]

 

[JazzManJim]

Securtiy Council votes are binding and are supposed to followed and will be enforced in some way if they are not.

Israel may soon find out about this.

Perhaps, but that entirely assumes that nations will go to war to enforce those votes. That's not much of an enforcement mechanism at all.

As I recall it, we're still waiting for Saddam Hussein to comply with a similar vote to allow UN Weapons inspectors into his country.

We have dozens of treaties that We, the Soviet Union, and China violated to develop and test our nuclear weapon arsenal.

These should have triggered an enforcement mechanism. They haven't. I'm saying that in the future, under the Charter, enforcement of these "laws" is entirely dependent on whether or not the signatory countries will marshall their armed forces, invade the offending country, defeat it, and complete their objectives.

That in itself makes it rife for inconsistency, abuse, and is flawed from the very outset.

 

[Azwed]

Laurel, this just isn't true.

Time and time again we've involved ourselves in protecting other nations and peoples. We did it in two World Wars. We did it in Bosnia. We did it in Kuwait (say what you will about oil and such, but the resolution was squarely in favor of helping the Kuwaiti people).

We're getting involved neck-deep in the Middle East right now because our allies in Europe and the "moderate" Arab nations like Jordan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia specifically asked us to.

Yeah you are right when it gets to the point that things are so bad that we have to send the military in we come to help. How many times do you think more involvement early on by the US would have prevented these problems from spiraling out of conrol?

Of course that is not always going to be the case but it might help sometimes and might help out the perception the world has of the US.

 

[LukkyKnight]

Do you really think that Bush is secretly in favor of the ICC? Highly unlikely.

Bush is nobody, he's a puppet like Reagan was. I'm not saying he's in favor of it, just pondering the possibility that his stated position may bring about the outcome he's ostensibly trying to prevent.

 

[JazzManJim]

It's a HUGE benefit to us. HUGE. Do you know how much easier we could have prosecuted Hussein if we had this enforced 20 years ago? What about Pinochet? Hell, the Khmer Rouge.

This gives teeth to our human rights stance. Isn't human rights one of the greatest principles we espouse internationally?

Sure it does lavy.

But it also has a very potential bad side. It assumes that all the countries of the world are working on the same page, will act in concert, and will do so honorably and completely within the guidelines of the charter. If that doesn't happen, then a lot of countries could face some very serious problems.

There's no way in hell that's going to happen.

 

[lavender]

 

[JazzManJim]

Yeah you are right when it gets to the point that things are so bad that we have to send the military in we come to help. How many times do you think more involvement early on by the US would have prevented these problems from spiraling out of conrol?

Of course that is not always going to be the case but it might help sometimes and might help out the perception the world has of the US.

That's true, it might.

But we've been there and done that, not only militarily, but diplomatically, and covertly. We've thrown the whole package at various international problems at one time or another. It hasn't helped our image.

The fundamental fact for me is that I have absolutely no trust whatsoever in many of the nations that would end up weilding the power of war over me. I don't trust them as far as I can throw them, and they've done absolutely nothing to earn that trust.

 

[Azwed]

That's true, it might.

But we've been there and done that, not only militarily, but diplomatically, and covertly. We've thrown the whole package at various international problems at one time or another. It hasn't helped our image.

The fundamental fact for me is that I have absolutely no trust whatsoever in many of the nations that would end up weilding the power of war over me. I don't trust them as far as I can throw them, and they've done absolutely nothing to earn that trust.

Countries tend to get mad when we go in covertly and fuck with them. We usually screw over the country too. Look at Chile we helped put Pinochet in power.

Diplomacy is good but I think sometimes we are a little too heavy handed about it. Kind of like how many countries see the IMF and world bank. They come in and tell the country to do this this and that and to it right fucking now.

There is a time for dick smack diplomacy and a time for seduction diplmoacy. A lot of times we lay or dick down when we should be playing the soft music and bringing out the wine.

 

[p_p_man]

We have a huge history of helping.

Don't do the American thing and pat yourself on the back too much.

America only came into the two world wars because she was forced to by events. Apart from some volunteers who exist in every country, America was quite happy to remain in an isolationist mood on both occasions and let Europe and other countries destroy themselves. No doubt in the hope of picking over the pieces.

In Bosnia and Kuwait you did not and could not do it alone. The Gulf war you needed a Coalition and in Bosnia European forces were there before and after you had come and gone.

And also in Bosnia there is now some doubt as to whether you were secretly supporting both sides or not.

You're getting involved in the Middle East now, albeit a few weeks later than you should have been, because it was thought by the rest of us who are involved that America was the only country Isra-el would take any notice of.

We were wrong. The latest events have shown that.

In fact America has a very little history of helping. Interfereing maybe but not helping.

As for the ICC. If America had signed, then she would not have had the problem of where to put the "Prisoners on Cuba". They would have been icarcerated at The Hague to be tried by the ICC. But as America wanted to try and convist as quickly and privately as possibe that route would have been too open for her.

As it is, by keeping them on Cuba America brought more world attention on herself than she would have done if she had just complied with being a member of the global community for once.

ppman

 

[JazzManJim]

I really hate to say this, but you're talking out of your ass. Do you really want me to explain this all to you? The structure of the UN the enforcement mechanisms of the UN agencies?

Do you even know how many times the inspectors actually went into Iraq? Do you realize that this has been going on since 1991 and that it created extensive work in the UN including a program called 93+2 and the indefinite extention of the NPT?

The International Atomic Energy Agency's inspector teams have made exactly two inspection trips to Iraq since 1998. There has been a Security Council Resolution in place since 1999. Since 1991, the UN Security Coincil has passed 13 different resolutions to address the problem.

The problem still exists.

Tell me just how good the enforcement mechanisms are, because they look pretty impotent to me. If they were my local police department, there'd be some firings coming damned soon.

Don't assume because I disagree with you that I'm ignorant. I'm far from it. I'm hardly the pawn of the news outlets and I'm far, far more well read than you believe.

I just disagree that this new international program, modeled on one that has a track record for not working quite as well as advertised, is going to make great strides to solve the problem in a substantive way.