Well done American Government!! Its not as if Bosnia needs a police force. I mean, its all the way over the other side of the world! They can sort themselves out!
And as for the U.N.? Fuck 'em! Buncha liberal pantywastes trying to drag the good name of America into the mud! Why should America sign up to an international criminal court if they can’t have total immunity from it?
Americans, I admire your countr but your governments foreign policy is digging a hole in its own ass with an arc welder attached to a shovel. Of course, when America needs help, the rest of the world are either with you or against you, but when an international body devoted to humanitarian issues to set up an independent body to justly try people for war crimes and crimes against humanity, the rest of the world can fuck off because its against your isolationist foreign policy.
Fuck I’m angry at the small mindedness of your government.
Can we get a link so we can all laugh at the ridiculous American government and its self-serving foreign policy? And keep that arc welding shovel away from you ass.
You watch, though–the first time a member of the EU gets hauled in front of the ICC, they’ll realize exactly what it is that the U.S. is concerned about.
I know that your Senate would have to ratify it, but if the US want to see people like Karadic and Milosivic tried for War Crimes, they have to accept that their own citiziens are capable of the same, and should be held accountable for their actions.
The American UN Ambassador, John Negroponte had this to say:
So they recognise its juristiction when it suits them.
a permanent ICC makes sense. But apparently the US want to be above the Law that it supports when it is prosecuting people who lost wars against them.
Well, I agree that we should not make our participation in UN peacekeeping missions contingent upon shaping the ICC to our desires. But I do agree that the U.S. should not allow its servicemen or nationals to be tried before any international body that does not guarantee at least the same rights that they would have under the U.S. Constitution.
pldennison -seems to me that when a soldier is stationed elsewhere in the world, we do run into that same scenario, right? remembering the servicemen in Japan who were tried under Japan’s laws (I believe that the US insisted on having a Lawyer there for them too, but that seems to be a minor change), and the Japanese were not required to adopt our constitution, and all of our legal stances.
Having been in Europe for several weeks lately, I got a chance to hear what our foreign policy looks like from over there. Now I’ve always been a good little leftist, so I’ve taken issue with a great many of our foreign policy decisions all along, but for some reason discussing it with people over there left me shaking my head every time.
What the FUCK are Bush and Co. doing? You want to know why there’s so much resentment of America in the world (hint: it ain’t cause we’re a beacon of freedom)? It’s because our leaders act like because we happen to be the biggest at the moment we have the GOD-given right to have every other country do what we say when we say it. They do whatever works the best for them at that moment and the rest of the world be damned, cause we’re the US of A!
Bush is an especially bad example of a leader believing that nothing can ever go against us, and that we can always depend on our allies to be there for us, no matter if we treat the rest of the world like shit or not. I think that’s a piss-poor way to conduct one’s life, and especially to lead one’s country.
I think Nixon was the president who first openly admitted to a foreign policy of “We have no principles, we will intervene in whatever way and on whichever side is the most convenient for us. We may or may not follow the rules that we set out for the rest of you, and we may or may not enforce those rules when our buddies break them.”
Anyway, I feel like our leaders make us all look like the assholes of the world, and I’m awfully sick of it.
Colour me crazy, but from an interview I heard recently (no online cite, I can’t even remember what radio station I heard the interview on), I got the idea that the ICC could only act if the defendant’s own legal system was not brought to bear - ie, if a Kranskyovetskian is accused of war crimes but the Kranskyovetskian government elects not try hir, then the case can proceed to the ICC.
I’m not putting this up as a definitive statement, rather questioning whether or not this is true. If it is (genuine ‘if’, given how half-assed my mind is, lately), then any US soldier accused of war crimes would be guaranteed Constitutional rights - because they’d have the option of a trial in the US rather than before the ICC.
wring, I specified “international body,” not “single sovereign government.” The differences between the two should be obvious–international bodies have no sovereignty.
Coldfire, does the ICC charter guarantee defendants charged before it all the same rights that criminal defendants in the U.S. have? Not some, but all? (I’m asking honestly–I was under the impression that it does not.)
but if the Internation Court is created under charter of the UN, etc, what practical differences would exist between that system and the system of justice for another nation?
In both cases, there’d be codefied law, appeals process, etc.
Yes, ‘multinational’ is different from ‘national’, but not in a practical sense that I can see in this situation.
Just a nitpick if you’re referring to the Timothy Wood rape case, wring, the lawyer request (he wanted a native English speaking one) was denied, even though there were plenty available on the base who had studied Japanese law.
Also, there was in fact a good deal of resistence from base officials to turning Wood over to the Japanese police, mainly because of concerns over Japan’s treatment of suspects (they can be held for three weeks without being charged, and beatings and other mistreatment are fairly common). They insisted that he be held at a U.S. base until charged had been formally filed by the police.
I believe the abassador who did this stated that his reason was that the charges could be politically motivated to embarass the US and not necessarily reflect actualy war crimes.
As fo the decision I’m not surprised. The US has never been happy about placing itself under the power of others whereas Europe has certainly learned to be somewhat comfortable with it.
[sarcasm] Let one US serviceman get tried for crimes against humanity, then it is a short slippery slope before the UN is ruling on prayer in school. [/sarcasm]
Yes, wring, but this is supposed to be a venture in which we’re supposed to voluntarily take part. Why should the U.S. volunteer to allow its citizens to be tried before a body that does not provide those protections? It’s one thing for a U.S. citizen to be in another, sovereign, country, break its laws, and be subject to its justice system. This is a case in which we’re being asked to voluntarily surrender part of our sovereignty to a body – a third part with no sovereignty of its own – which might not treat criminal defendants the way we do.
) but the fact that they are threatening existing UN missions because they can’t get their way.