Dear United Nations:

The BBQ Pit
1

Were I dictator and able to simply get my way without all that messy Senate approval and stuff, I’d love to tell the U.N. regarding their mewling about the International Criminal Court:

Dear U.N. ,

Hi! Howzit Goin’? There seems to be inordinate snivelling about the fact that we Americans won’t hang around doing your dirty work while you try to kick us for it. I’ve got a solution for the short term issue of existing missions. You want us to finish fighting your existing wars? The ones that we committed to fighting? Keen. I want to see an exemption in your Kangaroo Court NOW which grants immunity to all US participatants in existing and past wars. If not, then we’re gone. Have fun resolving the situation by yourselves. I guess you’d better weigh your desire to bash us against your need for our muscle, soldiers and resources.

I’m sorry that lives will be lost if we pull out, but hey, you’ve chosen to making it an “us vs you” situation but if it is, I’d rather it be you than us. The fact that your soldiers are immune from this criminal Court while ours (though we make up more than our fair share of the people on most U.N. wars) aren’t is intolerable and inexcusable.

There’s a concept called the “good samaritan” law. It says in essence that if you try to help someone in good faith, you’ll be immune from lawsuits regarding your attempt to help. Perhaps the concept might have some merit for you to consider.

For future wars, whether we consider being your workhorses on new UN messes in the future will depend solely on whether you continue to “grant” us immunity. We’ll never sign onto your court regardless as it’s against our laws, our constitution, our principles and our national interest. In addition, we’ll keep fighting wars where our national interest is at stake, Kangaroo Court notwithstanding, and U.N. “approval” or no. But if you want our help in cleaning up your messes where we have no interest, a prerequisite will be immunity from your Kangaroo Court for that war. (And the question has never been answered: why do you want us so desperately, if we’re such thugs that only the criminal Court can keep us in check? Could it be that we’re the only Western nation who puts our money where our mouths are and spends a sufficient portion of our GDP to have a military large enough to be effective? During the first day of the Afghan war, Britain supported our attacks with submarine-launched cruise missles. Then they stopped. Not because they didn’t want to keep helping, but because they’d used them all up! Kudos to Britain for helping, but…)

I don’t think you U.N. types and Europeans realize how much this Star Chamber scheme is despised by the majority of U.S. citizens.

Let me try to help you realize how much this is hated: I can’t think of ANY other U.N. scheme that could cause Charlie Schumer(!!!), Hillary Clinton AND Jesse Helms to vote together on something concerning the U.N (link from The World Socialist News about the American Servicemembers Protection act). It’s not just the fringe “black helicopters are positioning orbital mind-control lasers above my house” right-wingers who hate this Kangaroo Court. It’s a hatred that spans the political spectrum in all directions. A 78 to 21 vote in the Senate is pretty damned overwhelming regarding something like this.

One other thing: we’re resisting this simply as a matter of principle. When it comes down to it, what the hell can you do about it? The U.N. is an ineffectual bunch of incompetents. While some of the individual nations that make up the U.N. certainly have formidable and competent militaries, the U.N. brigades are…um…frankly, pathetically laughable. It’s as though when that blue beret is put on, your brains turn to mush. If we really wanted to, do you think that we couldn’t utterly destroy your blue-bereted wimps if you try to drag one of our soldiers up in front of your lynch mob?

Besides, given the fact that the U.S. is one of five nations with an absolute veto power, we can grind you to a complete standstill by vetoing everything that comes down the pike. And if you try to remove our veto, heh! we’ll veto that too! Face it, legally and militarily, you’re screwed.

So like I said: You’d better weigh your desire to spit on us against your desperate need for us.

Remember, when it comes down to it, the U.N. needs the U.S. faaaaar more than the U.S. needs the U.N.

Love and Kisses,

Fenris, Commander in Chief

2

Dear Fenris,

I know you as an intelligent and rational man. This means that I’m even more surprised at a post like this than if it had come from your average non-thinking schmoe.

Sure, people can disagree on the issue of the ICC. But if we disagree, we’d better be rational about it, rather than knee-jerk nationalistic. Right?

A few points, if I may.

Now, bear in mind that later on in your post you accuse the UN of making this into an ‘us vs. you’ argument. Please explain me one thing, because I honestly don’t get it. How are UN peace keeping missions “their dirty work” and “their existing wars”? UN peace keeping missions are installed in regions where the security council of the United Nations deem them necessary. Examples are former Yugoslavia and Eritrea.

As you well know, the United States has a permanent seat on this security council, and each seating member has the right of veto, which as you can see has historically indeed been used by the United States.

Therefore, any accepted resolution resulting in a UN peace keeping mission has the explicit approval of the United States.

Then why the hell do you keep talking about “their dirty work” and “their wars” when you refer to UN peace keeping missions?

Be rational about it, and say it like it is: the United States were threatening to take away a vital part of UN peace keeping power. They used this leverage in a debate about something unrelated to peace keeping missions, and they threatened to withdraw from the very missions they approved by means of their security council vote. The fact that the threat was pulled back is telling it all. A lot of noise over nothing but a little national pride, in the form of having to give up a little sovereignty for the benifit of a global, and hopefully impartial ICC.

First off, I think it’s clear who turned this into an “us vs. you” situation, and it’s not the UN. I’m not saying the United States don’t have a right to criticize or even denounce the ICC. But the fact that they did makes them stand out. Again, not a good vs. bad thing, but don’t blame the UN, who require a unanimous call on this one, for breaking it up into two camps.

Furthermore, please tell me who “your soldiers” are. You know, the ones that are going to be immune from the ICC? Are they confined to a few nations? All nations excluding the United States? I honestly don’t know who you’re referring to. Which troups can kill and maim to their hearts content, and have the ICC turn a blind eye?

Again, if you consider a UN peace keeping mission a mess, please realise that it never came to be without American approval. No “you vs. us”. It’s ALL “us”, Fenris.

The UN does, as far as I know, not forbid its members from entering into armed conflicts with other nations, be they UN members or not. If anything, the very existence of a UN offers an extra diplomatic option to prevent such conflicts. In other words, the last sentence in the above quote just sounds tough, but doesn’t say anything at all.

Once again, peace keeping forces are not “their messes”. You know why by now. Also, do you think e.g. the Netherlands are bitching about not having a direct interest in peace in the Ethiopian/Eritrean border area? Yet, they led the UN mission that maintains the fragile peace over there. UN peace keeping tasks take place, almost by definition, in regions where the major superpowers (and tiny countries with just 75 F16’s ;)) “don’t have an interest”. They take place because innocent lives are being wasted. That is the interest.

There is no doubt that American military power makes up a large part of the UN arsenal. There is also no doubt that America spends a large percentage of their GDP on this military power. But, as we unfortunately have seen, this is not for UN purposes alone. America, as it is, is a nation that requires a substantial defense. Whether the US is “the only western nation that puts its money where its mouth is”, is another matter. As of the 31st of May, the United States had a total of 704 troops set out on peacekeeping tasks. Not too shabby, but there were nations that contributed more. In fact, there’s a surprising number of “third world” nations that contribute a hell of a lot more in terms of sheer personnel numbers. You can spot them for yourself, there are plenty.
I realise there’s more to it than just a head count alone, but I do feel it’s worth to offer this perspective. Bangladesh doesn’t have the economica power to suppy six carriers and 150 bombers, but they sure don’t skimp on the personnel with over 5,000 troops in peace keeping currently. See what I mean? It’s not all about the big bucks and the big guns.

And the US had that veto all along - no point in blaming “them” if the US was an integral part of decision making all along.

Yes, the UN needs the US, if for nothing else than sheer stability. If the UN is to stand for a global force against All That Is Evil, it should incorporate the largest democratic military power in the world.

Which is why it is so important to get all the parties alligned in the ICC matter.

Fenris, I’m not going to pretend the UN is perfect. Nor am I claiming that the ICC as it stands should be implemented as-is. But the notion of an impartial international court against war crimes is a noble one, dammit, and it makes me furious to see the development towards its conception obscured if not barred by dogmatic and nationalistic crap. Whether it comes from an elected president, or a message board poster who’s clearly not really an idiot: it disappoints me greatly.

3

Coldie, I appreciate the civil tone, given the…ahem…irritated nature of my post.

I’ll respond in more detail later (I don’t have time right now), but I still haven’t heard why our troops don’t get the same immunity that yours (not yours in specific) do? I’d still oppose any court that takes away even one single iota of our soveregnty, but I’ll fight vehemently against one that’s starting out with an anti-U.S. bias.

Fenris

4

I don’t know where this notion comes from, to be honest.

From what I understand, the ICC will not grant immunity to anyone. E.g., if a Dutch soldier on a UN peace keeping task loses it and kills all (let’s see…) lefthanded Muslim women with a wooden leg in sight, he can be tried by the ICC. Ditto for an American soldier under such circumstances.

The jurisdiction would apply to any (armed) conflict, but it looks like you’re referring to a special, negatory status American troops would have under UN tasks. Again, I know of no such thing. So, for old time’s sake: cite?

5

You gotta love prseident Bush’s explanation: our soldiers could be drug into this court, and that’s very troubling

>> There’s a concept called the “good samaritan” law. It says in essence that if you try to help someone in good faith, you’ll be immune from lawsuits regarding your attempt to help.

Um, no. trying to help anyone does not grant immunity for committing a crime. Nope.

I would also like to know who are the ones immune from prosecution. Where do you get a permit to commit war crimes and other mayhem? Is there really a window for that?

Pretty stupid OP if you ask me.

6

Look in my OP. I already cited it.

But, for old time’s sake, I’ll repeat it here:

cite

(From the link)

Presumably Fleisher, regardless of what one thinks of him, wouldn’t make up something so easy for journalists to check.

Fenris

7

That is meaningless and I would like to see some support other than “Fleisher said it”. I do not believe for one second that the other signatories have given their citizens immunity and have denied it to the US citizens. It is just ludicrous. I donot believe anyone has been given immunity. In the best of cases this may be a very distorted fact, in the worst, an outright lie. can someone clarify this? Common sense tells me it cannot be true and it sounds like something from the black helicopter crowd.

8

Yes, I read that too, and I think you’re being deceived there.

Far too vague. Why not cite an example to strengthen your case, mr. Fleisher?

Honestly, Fenris, this is the first time I’ve seen such a claim, and a search in the regular news sources (BBC, Yahoo News) doesn’t reveal anything that indicates other signing nations have immunity clauses with regard to the ICC.

In short, I strongly suspect it’s spin, and if so, CNN are a bunch of hacks for printing it unverified.

9

Uh, yes. Those laws do exist in almost every state in the United States. They hold that a doctor, emergency medical technician, or otherwise properly trained person, who attempts to render aid in good faith and within the limits of their training, cannot be held to any criminal or civil liability for that aid. A damned good idea, if you ask me.

And I think they can be made analolgous to what the U.S. is asking for here. (Or should be asking for – I can’t speak to Bush’s intentions, and I wouldn’t trust Ari Fleischer to walk my dog.) U.S. soldiers should not be put at risk of politically-motivated complaints before the ICC. Now, obviously, regarding the Good Samaritan laws detailed above, if an EMT walked up to an accident victim and kicked them in the head, they would not be considered to be “rendering aid.” They would be comitting battery.

If there are already guarantees that U.S. soldiers – or, AFAIC, any country’s soldiers acting under UN auspices – would be protected from prosecution for actions committed within the limits of their training and while legitimately attempting to render aid, great. If, on the other hand, there are not such guarantees, and it’s possible that soldiers could face being hauled in front of the ICC on charges by countries with an existing anti-American bias, well, that’s a problem.

10

The solution lies elsewhere, pldenison. The ICC won’t accept complaints if they’re purely politically driven.

Yes, I know, defining and implementing a judgement system to ensure a clear process will be a challenge. But here’s what the ICC says is going to happen:

Take it for what it’s worth, but they’ve certainly thought of that reservation.

11

pldennison I suspect that good samaritan laws/vs criminal behavior rests on what would be considered criminal behavior.

It would be my position, that if one were rendering aid to a victim, even a ‘good samaritan law’ shouldn’t absolve the aid renderer from criminal action should they, while giving said aid robbed or raped said victim. I doubt that any will seriously disagree with that.

I also believe that Americans would generally not consider it a ‘bad thing’ for their soldiers to face consequences should they rob/rape etc. , even if they were stationed whereever as a peace keeping mission.

The fear, I suspect, is that in a conflict where US soldiers were involved, that some n’er do well nation/rouge nationstate personnel would make false claims of such wrong doing and said soldiers would possibly face proceedings where our level of rule of law/evidence wouldn’t be adhered to.

However, since we’re talking about rules of evidence and rules of law and proper application therein, I think that the US position is being seriously undermined by the Gitmo detainees, who’ve not been charged as of yet, and we’ve already declared that they will face military tribunals where our generally asserted rules of law and evidence will not necessarily be followed, nor are they being given prisoner of war status.

I love my country. I understand that they fear that some of our soldiers (should the ICC be established) may face wrongful spurious charges when they’ve merely been attempting to assist the UN"s peacekeeping positions.

However, it seems to me that it can be seen that we’re actually doing what we claim to fear other countries will do (ie the boiled down version is we went into their country, bombed them for a while and took prisoner anyone who was in a group firing weapons at us, bundled them up and took them to Gitmo, where we’ll tell you later what we’re going to do w/them). Yes, we had the backing of the UN etc to go into Afghanistan and we believe that those we’ve captured are all very bad guys who would do us harm.

But I see a problem with the stance of : our guys must have USA rights no matter what the circumstances, where the alleged crime occured, 'cause who knows what unlawful evidence, secret tribunals, lack of due process would happen if they were held accountable by theICC. ; these other folk, we just really, really believe that they’re bad people and eventually, we’ll get around to dealing with them, but in the meantime, we’ll just hold them til we say so, while we decide what kind of court/rules we’ll adjudicate them.

12

That’s a very good point wring, one I hadn’t even thought of.

13

pldennison, a doctor is not immune from being sued or prosecuted if he steals your wallet while he administers first aid. The law may provide that he is not liable for acts done while rendering aid but it does not mean he cannot be sued and that he is not subject to the courts. He is under the jurisdiction of the courts in any case. It means that if he is sued, and if the court finds he acted in such capacity, it would declare him not liable. Similarly, the fact that someone is on a peacekeeping mission should not be a license to commit crimes against humanity which is what the ICC is for. If the ICC finds the individual was acting in good faith in the carrying out peacekeeping operations then, obviously, it will rule no crime against humanity has been committed. If a crime against humanity was committed no other fact can excuse it

I see no immunities in the text of the treaty and the whole thing seems pretty reasonable to me. I am definitely against crimes against humanity. For the US to think a bunch of its allies (who are pretty much the only ratifiers of this treaty) are going to gang up to find guilty some innocent American citizen is just ludicrous. The fact that pretty much all developed, western and democratic countries have ratified it and most undemocratic regimes have not tells me more than anything the US government can say. The US is refusing the treaty on the same grounds that China and Iraq and that is quite telling.

Here is the text of the Treaty and I see absolutely no reference to nationals of any country having any immunity. It explicitly says everyone is subject to it and not even heads of state can claim immunity. The only exception is for minors who are left out.

New Zealand’s International Crimes and International Criminal Court Act

14

My biggest concern is thus: The UN has acted rather stupidly on some issues in the past, for no reason apparent to me. I’m very hesitant to accuse the UN of having an anti-American stance (although I’m sure some individual members might). However, when the US is kicked off the UN’s Human Rights Committee, while such sparkling gems like Libya, Syria, and Sudan are given seats, that just smacks me as very… odd.

And, personally, I wouldn’t trust the UN to avoid similar oddities with the ICC.

15

Missed this while digging up an old link…

True, but there are many more gray areas than “rape” or “robbery”. How often do we get controversies where the US takes out some target, identifying it as a “munitions plant” or somesuch, only to have others call it a “pharmaceutical company” or something? Well, okay, that specific example may not be common, but the point is that the trouble anticipated with the ICC does not rest on such obvious crimes as those mentioned by Wring.

16

Oh… and note that I wasn’t disagreeing with Wring… just mentioning a real example of one of his concerns…

That, and I’m padding my post count, too. Yeah. That’s it.

17

Ah, SPOOFE. The US were voted off rather than kicked. Politically influenced vote? Hell, yeah. Nobody’s saying the UN is perfect.

The reverse applies too. Countries like Sudan are granted seats so they can “grow”, so to speak, in human rights terms.

In other words, not to worry. The US will be voted back on next year. Storm in a teacup.

18

Actually, it will be about “obvious crimes”. From this source:

And whether a target is/was a munitions plant or not can of course be determined/investigated. But the point is moot: it doesn’t fit the task description of the ICC. Let’s take your exampe. Either the bombing nation says “Whoops! Sorry, we fucked up” in case they did, and there is no trial (well, unless you do it 25 times in a row), or the trial results in no charges if the claimed pharmaceutical company did turn out to be a munition plant. In which case: not a crime in the definition of the ICC.

19

I guess there’s an opening in that scenario, where the bombing nation knows they messed up (either deiberately or not), and still maintains it was a military target. That could result in a succesful trial. But I’ve always known the US to own up to their fuck-ups, so it’s not a likely option, is it?

20

>> Either the bombing nation says . . .

Just a reminder that the ICC only judges individuals, never countries. America can never come under the jurisdiction of the ICC which can only judge individuals accused of very grave crimes against humanity.

In realistic terms the chances that any American would be brought before the ICC are close to zero because the US would prosecute and punish any such offense so the ICC would not get a chance to act.

And the notion that any unfounded accusation would go forward is unsupportable in view of the membership. This is pure paranoia.