I always knew the U.S. was opposed to membership of the court but I never realised quite how much:
"Republican Congressmen have introduced a smattering of retaliatory legislation, ranging from forbidding any U.S. contact with the court and punishing those ratifying the treaty to using force to free any American brought to The Hague."
What does this mean? To what lengths will the U.S. go to “free” American citizens? Will it invade Holland? Can Coldfire expect a light carpetbombing? Will it really prohibit military aid to countries who have signed? It’s all so extreme. I’d like to know more.
Maybe this belongs in General Questions. I’m not sure.
It’s G. Nome’s 1,000th post party, Coldfire, and you’re an invited guest! That would be MPSIMS–but not to worry–I’ll try to discuss the OP, but not seriously enough for GD and not focusing on facts enough for GQ.
I spent this past week reading a lot of legislative history for a state law that a client of my firm thinks is stupid. That means that I’ve looked at the things 20 or so US state legislators said when “debating” the bill, as well as at the written reports, amendments and other stuff the bill generated on its way to becoming law, all to try to determine the “intent” of the legislature where the law is facially unclear. Example: “I’m not sure what this Bill says, but I guess I’m for it because it’s tough on crime.”
Conclusion: (1) Some US elected politicians may occasionally introduce legislation for effect, without expecting it to actually pass. (2) Ooops–sometimes they pass.
Happy 1,000, G. Nome. In honor of the occasion, will you enlighten me as to whether you’re a gnome or a genome or both?
Before I went on-line I read books about the Internet. Escape Velocity, Resisting the Virtual Life and Silicon Snake Oil are three I can remember. When I eventually used the Internet and posted to the Straight Dope some of that stuff lost credibility for me. I thought I was supposed to be shedding the ballast of materiality and transcending time and space whereas I was being continually confronted by geography and the realisation that the Straight Dope is in America and I’m not. Anyway, that’s I how see it and just like a visitor to another country I like to behave graciously i.e. I don’t mention John Pilger more than once a year. This quote below from an essay called “One Rule For Americans One Rule For The Rest” is just too funny for that though. I watched American baseball for the first time recently and it’s true! It’s like rounders with protective clothing! Rounders is about the only sport I ever played. It was at primary school. All the American baseball players seemed to have goatees though. I couldn’t work that one out. Here’s the quote:
“The US, however, hates the idea of an international criminal court, and would not dream of allowing its soldiers to be put on trial for war crimes. Other, lesser countries commit war crimes, but not America. This is the land of the free, the home of the brave; 5,000 civilians were not killed in Panama in the hunt for Noriega; Kissinger deserves the Nobel Peace Prize; Clinton did not have sexual relations with that woman; and baseball is not rounders with protective clothing”.
Humble Servant: An ageless and often deformed dwarf of folklore who lives in the earth and usually guards treasure* or a set of genetic material? Ageless is good. Short is correct.
I’d have to agree with G. Nome’s quote. During the war in Yugoslavia, there were accusations that the USAF was deliberately targeting Serbian civilians. We heard about similar things in Afghanistan. I’d say that the US’s leaders are afraid that they could become defendants in this court some day. As an American myself, I say "That’s a risk you take when you go to war, Dubya "
The ICC is a wabbit hunt. Do you ignore the Saddam’s? If not then how do you get him into “court”? Then who goes and get’s him? Do you call him on the phone and ask him to show up? I know he’s an honorable and trustworthy person but something tells me he aint showin.
Sounds like the ICC will only hunt wabbits. For every hunt, I’ll show you a Bugs Bunny that never gets caught.
So Diceman, you believe the USAF was targeting civilians (Clinton’s orders)?
quote]So Diceman, you believe the USAF was targeting civilians (Clinton’s orders)?
[/quote]
I don’t know enough to make an informed decision, but I know that the accusation was made, which for the purposes of our discussion is sufficient.
Could the USAF do such a thing? I think so. It’s what one expert called the “Nintendo effect”: when your target is a dot in the distance, or a blip on a radar screen, it’s much easier to ignore the human aspects of your actions than if the people are standing there in front of you, crying and begging for their lives.
And it has been done before. In World War 2, the British indiscriminately carpet-bombed and fire-bombed German cities, killing mostly civilians. The US didn’t do this to the Germans, but we did do it to the Japanese. In fact, a fire-bombing attack on Tokyo killed more people than either A-bomb.
About the wabbit hunt: The quality of life of evil dictators who are still in power or who are on the run is supposed to be adversely affected by ICC indictments. When you think about it though, just about every evil dictator of the past 50 years is still alive, free and living it up after having been indicted by “popular consent”. How is legislation supposed to change that happening?
About Global Government: American politicians apparently see the ICC as a threat to American autonomony and as the start of the new world order. I don’t understand this: In New World Order conspiracies Americans are major players. Who goes to Davos? Why its Bill Gates, Newt Gingrich, the Clintons. Who is in the Bilderberg Group? The Rockerfellers, Margaret Thatcher, big names from U.S. corporations, banks and media conglomerates. In the conspiracy world left is often right and down is sometimes up, I know that. Environmentalists for example are seen as anti-NWO and pro-NWO depending on the theorist. But I don’t understand how a conspiracy theory can be formulated in which a Global government is a threat to the would-be instigators of that government.
That was also British bombers who bombed Dresden. And in the day time too, no less. Guess there’s a first time for everything.
“Supposed” is the key word. You try to make point that every dictator has some sort of retirement I guess at which point we’ll be able to nab him. Well, what about those who maintain their dictatorship for life? What if the next government was supporters of the dictator? In this case the ICC is helpless. And that’s only one problem with it.
What’s going to happen when American pilots are accused of targeting civilians, accused because of political reasons or because someone dissagrees with policy? I’ll tell you what’s going to happen; that’s the last you’ll see of American help in the Bosnias of the world and you can take that to the bank. Those smug little countries who want to play court are going to have to send their own troops to deal with the Yugoslavias instead of always relying on the US to be their for them.
It’s understandable to consider that people or states would try to use the ICC to attack America somehow although the scenario whereby pilots would be accused or targeting civilians is not supposed to be possible. Anyway, the International Criminal Court is only supposed to act if the criminal’s country of allegiance won’t or can’t. It’s only for countries that have broken down so much and are so corrupt that they have no functioning legal system. I mean, the My Lai massacre trial in the 60s was proof that America is far removed from anything like that. Is that right?
Although I’ve often wondered this: Could mischief makers(misusing world court legislation) accuse the U.S. and Fiji of no longer being legal democracies? The Fiji coup a couple of years ago removed a democratically elected government from power. I mean, what type of government is that country now supposed to have? Everyone knows about the corrupt vote counting in the last American elections and about how Al Gore got half a million more votes than President Bush. If it mattered, if someone stood to gain from it, could a case be made that the U.S. fits that “what is it now” category?
"