America, someone elses ball, and going home.

The BBQ Pit
81

< sigh >

To quote you earlier, Twisty

I’m. Going. To. Explain. This. Slowly.

The. US. Is. Not. Obligated. To. Relinquish. It’s. Soverignty. Simply. Because. A. Bunch. Of. Snivellers. Are. Whining. About. It. We. are. not. obligated. to. sign. ANYTHING. we. don’t. feel is. in. our. national. interest. We. Are. Not. Obligated. To. Fight. Wars. That. Aren’t. In. Our. Interest.

So far, your only argument is “The US should bow to the UN’s will because we waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaant it to.”

To use a cleaned up version of a horribly racist phrase (I apologize in advance) only because it conveys the contempt the U.N. seems to have for the U.S. :“We are not your <ahem> slaves.” despite the fact that you seem to think we are. The fact that you waaaaaaaaaannt us to do something is, quite frankly, irrelevant (or should be).

And given that in a stunning vote from the Senate see here (including such pro-U.N. types as Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden) bitchslapping the I.C.C. it’s pretty clear that the idea of this rogue court is despised by a majority of Americans.

Fuck that.

It’s not that we “can’t get our way”, it’s not that “we’re going to take our ball and go home”, it’s that the U.N. is changing the rules such that the U.S. has to do the heavy lifting and in return the U.N. wants the U.S. to sign a document that not only gives up it’s basic guarantees for it’s citizens, but will simply be another bullshit anti-American UN commission.

And I still haven’t gotten an answer from the pro-U.N. types. Why are you so pissed that monsters like the US won’t participate in UN wars? Since apparently the only way to curb our brutal, homicidal rampages is this bullshit kangaroo court, if we won’t sign, then why do you want us to participate?

All sarcasm aside, don’t you see the fucking insane mixed message you’re sending? On one hand “We need the Kangaroo Court to keep the U.S. in line when they’re fighting our wars!” and on the other hand “You’re being mean for not fighting our wars with or without the Kangaroo Court to keep you in line!”

You wrote

If we’re such gawddamned monsters that you think we’ll run amok without your court than WHY DO YOU WANT US PARTICIPTING?

The only argument that makes even a little sense is that we’d committed to those missions. Well, you guys have changed the situation by trying to punish us for helping. I guess it’s been decided that we’ll stay, but I hope to hell that during the next U.N. fuckup where we’re begged to save their sorry asses gets a hearty “Fuck you” from us.

Fenris

82

This isn’t really accurate. In Bosnia, the UN made a complete hash of the situation before, ahh, more robust measures were employed. After Bosnia, no one even imagined that the UN ought to be asked to take the lead in Kosovo. In both cases, the military actions had the UN’s blessings.

83

I’m familiar with the points you bring up pld. Didn’t say that Germany was correct, but that was still the case they made. I used it merely as an example of exactly how this all is in no way cut and dry, which you expanded on and clarified beautifully.

Sparc

84

I know you know, Sparc (I have an ongoing mental note: "Sparc probably already knows that.’ :wink: ), but I didn’t want anyone reading the thread thinking that these were two guys who just happened over here on vacation and ran afoul of the authorities. Frankly, I think that case was a real low point for U.S. jurisprudence, even if everything the U.S. courts did was legally and procedurally proper. As soon as the authorities knew the LaGrands were not U.S. citizens, they were as obligated to inform them of consular availability as they were to Mirandize them. But I still don’t like the ICJ claiming binding jurisdiction over a State court.

85

Quite regardless of the content of the OP, you just have to give this points. I don’t know what the fuck it means precisely, but it sure gets the message across.

86

Hmmm… point taken pld, never meant to spread ignorance.

I guess I should be a little less sloppy when making points rhetorically.

I say the same to Sailor, as he also made the effort to clarify my mildly fallacious statement, although it slipped by in my previous read.

Thanks guys (I am not being sarcastic BTW)

Respectfully

Sparc

87

point the first.

I NEVER CALLED YOU MONSTERS!! STOP PUTTING WORDS IN MY FUCKING MOUTH!

As I have said. If the US do not want to Participate in the ICC, that is their own choice to make. There are issues with the ICC that I completely acknowledge the US’s right to dispute.

Threatening the existence of ongoing UN missions in fragile environments is a bad way to negotiate. That was my problem.

Fenris, go fuck yourself.

88

Ok. This is getting out of hand. My statment was intented as (I’d hoped) obvious hyperbole. I certainly had no intention of putting words in your mouth. I abjectly apologize if my poor phrasing led anyone to believe it was anything other than that.

And I disagree. It’s not only a great negotiation strategm (had we not backed down), it makes sense. If our soldiers are suddenly going to be held accountable to this court (which we did not agree to participate in*) for actions taken on these ongoing wars, then it makes perfect sense to withdraw rather than be subject to this court. I care about American servicemen and women being subject this court far more than I care about Bosnia, say.

Fenris
*In the U.S., treaties must be ratified by the Senate. The fact that Clinton said we’d join is irrelevant.

89

Well, the jurisdiction of the ICC wouldn’t be retroactive, Fenris. Therefore, threatening to withdraw from current missions is a bad move. It doesn’t make a difference in terms of US troops being subject to the ICC, because troops on current missions won’t be, whether the US ends up signing the ICC treaty or not.

90

My apologies for telling you to go fuck yourself, Fenris.

91

I don’t believe this is correct. My understand that the ICC claims jurisdiction to prosecute any acts occurring after July 1. So if a U.S. citizen serving with the mission in Bosnia goes on a Muslim-killing rampage, he or she would technically be a candidate for trial by the ICC.

92

I’m reading this commentary by Stephen Den Beste and it makes some very interesting points about why we should be suspicious about the court.

In brief, the selection of judges is on a one-nation, one-vote rule, which allows for the possibility of some nations ganging together to get their candidates elected. There a question of fairness there.

Second, the regulations describing war crimes is very vague, and can be applied to almost any aggressive act by any nation. For example, Israel can be indicted immediately for its incursions into the West Bank. Of course, so can the Red Crescent for allowing their ambulances to transport explosives, but does anyone really expect this to happen?

But I’m parroting Den Beste’s arguments, so I would suggest reading it for yourself. It’s a long commentary, as he quotes directly from the ICC’s laws, but it’s worth it. He makes a pretty good case for US non-involvement.

93

only if the US refused to put the soldier on trial.

94

Or if they didn’t like the outcome of the US trial they could just say ‘Oh well they were unable to handle the matter properly’.

95

In response to a GQ I took the time to surf over to the UN and debunk the myth about ‘negotiated immunity’ that Ari Fleischer has been kind enough to proliferate in the media lately.

Here is the answer.

Sparc

96

Thanks, Sparc. I hope that matter’s cleared now.

Truth Seeker, I should have indeed phrased that better. Yup, jurisdiction of the ICC applies as of July 1, 2002 (although they’re not accepting cases yet, but that’s another matter) - but only for citizens of countries that signed the treaty. So, if the US refuses to sign, its troops on exisiting UN missions still can’t be procecuted by the ICC. Any complaint filed would be found ungrounded since the US is not a signing nation. Only if the US sign will US citizens become subject to the ICC’s jurisdiction.

That’s why the threat to withdraw was farcical and heavy-handed.

97

Untrue, Coldfire. US troops would be subject to the ICC if the violation occurs in the territory of a signatory. So even if the US does not sign, but an accusation is made that a US national committed a crime in, say, Bosnia/Herzegovina or Yugoslavia or Croatia (all signatories and have ratified) then that US citizen can be hauled before the court.

So participating in UN peacekeeping missions in certain countries still puts US troops at risk, even though the US does not recognize the court. So given that fact, is it still a farcical (can’t argue that it’s not heavy-handed) tactic?

98

http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/icc/qna.htm#Who%20can

Hmmm. I guess you’re right.

Still, one wonders how in the hell any soldier on a UN peace keeping mission would ever even get in a position to be subject to the ICC. Hell, it’s not like UN troops are killing Serbs left and right, is it?

But yeah, I gotta admit that the “farcical” in my last post was unjustified. Still, there’s a million better ways to go about it.

99

I don’t think that Serbia is a problem. But I could envision a scenario similar to the Somolian situation where the US is asked to disarm the citizens or arrest a warlord and something goes wrong and citizens are killed. In that situation, it is completely plausible that the soldiers are brought before the ICC and face the threat of imprisonment.

100

Coldie, this sounds suspiciously like the (B.S., IMO) arguments that there’s nothing wrong with random searches or traffic stops, 'cause unless you have something to hide, you don’t have anything to worry about. My take is that even if the U.N. or U.S. soldiers are saints, I don’t want 'em operating under those rules. Hence, without an exemption, I think withdrawing would have been a good idea.

Fenris