|
|
|
|
Lars_H
SFN Regular
Germany
630 Posts |
 Posted - 05/13/2002 : 06:20:30
|
This is connected with the recent discussion about so-called 'Crimes Against Humanity'.
What Is Your stance on the ICC?
Some of you may have heard of the attempts to create an Internatinal Criminal Court as a permanent version of the War crimes tribunal in The Hague. The US initially signed the treaty under Clinton but a few days ago decided to 'unsign' it.
There have been several arguments brought against the Tribunal by its critics, none of wich I could understand beyond the 'we don't get immunity' point.
Edited by - Lars_H on 05/14/2002 05:28:58
|
|
|
Lars_H
SFN Regular
Germany
630 Posts |
 Posted - 05/13/2002 : 06:35:07 [Permalink]
|
Addendum. I just found this newspaper artcile on the web and will include it without comment:
Key House panel targets international tribunal
Adam Clymer The New York Times
Monday, May 13, 2002
WASHINGTON With strong administration support, an important House committee has voted authorization for the president to use force to rescue any American held by the new International Criminal Court and to bar arms aid to nations that ratify the court treaty.
The measure, sponsored by Representative Tom DeLay, the Texas Republican who is the majority whip, is part of an appropriations bill that contains $29.4 billion for military and domestic security spending. The House is likely to pass the bill this week.
DeLay told the Appropriations Committee on Thursday that his provision was necessary so the United States would never see an "American soldier or elected leader dragged before this court," which he called a "rump court" and a "rogue court."
The bill would also codify the Bush administration's announced policy of refusing to cooperate in any way with the court, and it would bar the extradition of anyone sought by the court. Its founding treaty has been signed by 139 nations and ratified by 66, including most democratic nations.
The Senate overwhelmingly passed a weaker version of the DeLay measure last December, but Democratic leaders who opposed it were able to kill it in a House-Senate conference. This year, with the court scheduled to come into existence on July 1, they may not be able to block the measure.
DeLay said that he had spoken with both Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Colin Powell and that they "have endorsed this in its entirety."
Victoria Clarke, assistant secretary of defense for public affairs, said that while "I am confident the secretary has not read every line, he is very supportive of the intent" of the measure.
Rumsfeld said recently that the court imperiled American servicemen and women by putting them "at risk of politicized prosecutions."
The arms deal ban would exempt NATO countries and other major allies, but arms deals with nations like Colombia or the Philippines would require a waiver.
The proposal would also cover participation in peacekeeping operations that might put service members at risk of court jurisdiction.
Before the committee voted, 38 to 18, to adopt DeLay's plan, it was bitterly attacked by several Democrats. Representative Patrick Kennedy of Rhode Island said that the DeLay measure sent a message of unilateralism to the world.
Representative David Obey, a Wisconsin Democrat, said the Appropriations Committee should not even consider the measure but leave it to the International Relations Committee.
After demonstrating that some committee members did not know the court would be in The Hague, Obey asked if DeLay understood that under the rescue provision, "We would be sending our troops to invade the Netherlands." DeLay said he did not consider that a serious question.
|
 |
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 05/13/2002 : 06:43:34 [Permalink]
|
Message is that the U.S. runs the world and is not bound by ethics or law.
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
Computer Org
Skeptic Friend
392 Posts |
Posted - 05/15/2002 : 07:35:55 [Permalink]
|
This article from 14 May issue of FT (page 7) may give some insight. A partial quote from the beginning of the article:quote:
The US government was yesterday facing renewed calls to address human rights concerns in Afghanistan after the European Union's special envoy strongly criticised the conditions in which hundreds of prisoners were being held.
Klaus-Peter Klaiber said he was horrified at the condition of more than 2,000 Afghan Taliban and Pakistani prisoners near the northern city of Mazar-e-Sharif and called for urgent action to alleviate the situation.
"The people have nothing on their bones any more. The are being treated like cattle, crammed into tents," he told the AFP news agency. "The kitchen, you cannot imagine. They were ghost-like figures, just stirring soup."
We (--the U.S.--) caught the prisoners, supervised their arrival at the POW camp, and interrogated some of them before turning them over to the locals.
Although I've never been a prosecutor under our legal system, I think that I could make a pretty good case for a CaH against U.S. officials: The longer the delay in the U.S.' taking action, the more prosecutable I think the case would be. We, ourselves, established the legal principles at the Nuremberg trials after World War II.
With modern U.S. officials (--I contrast to "historical"--) being unable or unwilling to accept responsibility for the consequences of their decisions and/or actions, an International tribunal would likely find them a profitable target for prosecution in quite a few cases.
My opinion, anyway.
Do thou amend thy face, and I'll amend my life. --Falstaff |
|
|
|
Omega
Skeptic Friend
Denmark
164 Posts |
Posted - 05/17/2002 : 19:21:55 [Permalink]
|
“With strong administration support, an important House committee has voted authorization for the president to use force to rescue any American held by the new International Criminal Court and to bar arms aid to nations that ratify the court treaty.”
I think that is pretty scary!
"All it takes to fly is to fling yourself at the ground... and miss."
- Douglas Adams |
|
|
|
opus
Skeptic Friend
Canada
50 Posts |
Posted - 05/18/2002 : 01:15:14 [Permalink]
|
Gee it sound like the U.S. is a rogue nation.
|
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 05/18/2002 : 10:35:12 [Permalink]
|
The real problem is President Bush. The American people made a huge mistake electing someone with almost no previous years of service to examine and he was very careful during his campaign not to let anyone know what a complete idiot he is.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Lars_H
SFN Regular
Germany
630 Posts |
Posted - 05/18/2002 : 15:13:06 [Permalink]
|
I was actually more interested what people thought of the general concept of a world court and only added the curiosum about the US policy as an afterthought.
It is kind of hard to imagine, that anybody involved in this really thought this completly through. Do they plan to leave NATO before they invade the Netherlands? And what exactly makes this court a 'rouge court'? What will they do if some american is brought before the court, who is obviously guilty? Do they plan to risk the lifes of american soldiers to free a war-criminal?
Protecting peace and freedom by invading a country in wich (soft)drugs, prostetution(to a degree) and gay-marriages are legal somehow does sound a bit counterintuitive.
I doubt much will come out of either the ICC or this stupid policy.
|
|
|
|
Computer Org
Skeptic Friend
392 Posts |
Posted - 05/19/2002 : 12:36:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
The real problem is President Bush. The American people made a huge mistake electing someone with almost no previous years of service to examine and he was very careful during his campaign not to let anyone know what a complete idiot he is.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law!
Clinton would have even more and bigger problems before such a Court than would Bush II.
Remember how upset we got when Japan attacked us a few hours before they delivered a formal Declaration of War--as required by International Law?
Missles slammed into Sudan and Afganistan (--on 'evidence' which has not, to this day, been made fully public--): War-attacks without formal Declarations; civilians were killed in Sudan with no expectation whatsoever that it could have been otherwise. Now if that couldn't be considered an international crime fit to go before an International Criminal Court...[!]
And there's Bush I launching an entire invasion force against witsy-bitsy Panama without any provocation (--just to get rid of a Panamanian President who Bush I, et alles, didn't like--) and without any formal Declaration of War. Once again, it sure sounds to me like a crime of one nation (--a really big guy: US--) against another nation (--a really little guy: Panama).
_________________________
Lars: You said: "I was actually more interested what people thought of the general concept of a world court. . . ."[*]I think that it's a really bad idea because of what I wrote to @tomic above: It means that we (and others) will no longer be able to 'play' at being Marshall Matt Dillon of Gunsmoke.
[*]I think that it's a really good idea because of what I wrote to @tomic above: It means that we (and others) will no longer be able to 'play' at being the brutal gun-slinger-type of Gunsmoke. As I see things, it will essentially end anyone's nation being able to act as WorldPolicePerson,;--as well as any nation being able to act as a brutal thug.
Do thou amend thy face, and I'll amend my life. --Falstaff |
|
|
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
