SentientMeat:
The creation of this institution, we may add, is opposed by the US administration.
Randy:
I know.
That’s why I brought it up.
I’m hoping this entire Iraq episode might convince the US that an ICC might be useful in future, since they could act as its “arresting officers” on a firmer legal basis rather than merely being one loud voice in a meeting of its peers, ie. the UN.
I also believe that, should another deliberate murder of civilians ever be carried out by US troops, all reasonable Americans would want those responsible brought to justice, even in a non-American court.
Did you miss the sentence where I said “the UK is more dependent on its ties with the US than other European countries by a long way”? See also SentientMeat’s post.
**I’m not sure you’re understanding the metaphor. The US has antagonized its allies quite needlessly and churlishly, and for reasons that look awfully petty to me.
Apart from their endorsement (tacit or explicit) of the US’s actions, and possible assistance (or at least permission to use their airspace).
Pun intended?
So why the fuss? If the US doesn’t care what other countries think and doesn’t need any help militarily, why does it need the UN’s approval and NATO’s assistance? It can just go invade Iraq all on its own.
Or maybe, just maybe, what the US wants is legitimacy for its actions. In which case, pissing off those countries with which it has the best relations is probably not the best idea. Which is my point about the bridges.
SentientMeat:
Ok, all the better 
I just thought that it was worth mentioning in case someone didn’t know.
So, how’s the investigation going into those mass graves at Dasht-e-leili, in Afghanistan?
Can we include deliberate irresponsibility in determining whether civilians or enemies are at the receiving end of our bombs? I seem to remember a wedding in Kabul where we showered the happy couple with bombs instead of rice. I’m sure we’ll look into that as soon as we’re done stonewalling the Canadian investigation, eh?
Never in a non-US court. That is precisely why the USA is so opposed to an international court.
Perhaps I should have been more expansive:
Deliberate murder would not be an accurate description of an honest mistake during a bombing raid. “Collateral damage” is not equivalent to “war crime”.
I suggest that something like the Mi Lai massacre would be the level of crime which would warrant investigation by the ICC, since it could be described as “deliberate murder”.
I have just deleted my enitre response to the errors of SM, jr8, und so weiter twice. I’ll post it later.
Sam: “The simplest explanation is that Blair knows what Bush knows, and both are agreed that the threat is real and cannot be ignored.”
Gosh, Sam, I think that really is simple. So Blair and Bush know something we don’t know and therefore have come to a conclusion that we can’t reach. But the French and Germans and the Russians also know this thing and it hasn’t changed their recalcitrance. But, of course, that’s because whatever dire and imminent threat this knowledge contains isn’t as strong–for them–as the threat of losing an intra-European political battle, or the threat of lost economic interests. Whereas Bush, presumably, has absolutely nothing but the security of the American people at heart.
I wonder if this thing they all know is something I can find in one of those 10-year-old articles Blair’s “intelligence” took off the internet and published as their own.
If Blair really knows something we don’t, then he shouldn’t present, as evidence to the British public, out of date intelligence reports mixed in with a 12 year-old US students essay on the issue. Which is what we had as “evidence”. MI5 state that there are no current Al Qeada links to Saddam Hussein, who is apparently poorly regarded by Osama’s men.
For the record, here is Blair himself explaining the cause for war in a Paxman BBC interview posted by jjimm in the “Millions” thread. (Find link there).
*"PAXMAN:Prime Minister, for you to commit British forces to war there has to be a clear and imminent danger to this country - what is it?
TONY BLAIR: The danger is that if we allow Iraq to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons they will threaten their own region, there is no way that we would be able to exclude ourselves from any regional conflict there was there as indeed we had to become involved last time they committed acts of external aggression against Kuwait."*
randy spears
Statistics differ. As they say, lies, damned lies, and __________"
Sentient Meat
This doesn’t hold much water. I refer you to my answer below, to jr8
I’m not sure you understand. The ICC is not Constitutional. It is not in the perview of the US government to legally create any court outside the authority of the Supreme Court.
This is also not really releveant. The problem is not the stated goals of the ICC< but rather the serious issue with its charter and checks and balances; it has none. That is not an acceptable answer to me. I and most Americans do not realy trust the government; power flows up from the people, and not authority downward. The ICC looks like a potential danger, particularly when there are Palestinians right now in Belgium trying to get Ariel Sharon idicted for war crimes under their laws. To be honest, I don’t trust an unlected and unaccountable body that much power without any checks. Having read the relevant parts of the ICC charter, I am convinced it could be used to essentially do anything anyone wants it to. It is no bad thing to punish the guilty; I do not think this will be an honest, unbiased authority. Moreover, the US has found it quite acceptabel and has been very helpful in setting up and supporting temporary and limited international courts.
However, I would like to state that this is not the appropriate thread. Create another if your like.
Well, the problem is that its very easy to demonize someone in wartime. It might be very easy for a politicized ICC to use its extremely vague and undefined powers to declare such things deliberate murder.
jr8
No, I didn’t miss it. However, you have not pointed out where the US has been at all likely to use trade sanctions. Moreover, Britain, as you say, is heavily tied with the US. The last thing Bush wants is to weaken the US economy now.
I do understand the metaphor; I disagree with it. You think the US is pissing people off. I say you are overestimating the damage (with friends like these…), overestimating the number of people who’ve been put off (Europe is behind us 18-3-4), and its not a bad thing if certain countries of the world realize that the US is not unwilling to defend itself and others. These are not petty reasons.
We don’t need or want their endorsement. What we want is their non-involvement. We need no military assistance, and France would be of little help. They can offer nothing but 12 planes, and less than optimal ones. Useful, but hardly critical. Morevoer, after the actions of certain French pilots in Afganistan, I think US military commanders would think twice before giving them any real jobs. We can also live without their airspace, though that would be nice. I thin, however, that we wouldn’t be flying over France anyway.
No. Not really, no.
I implicitly talked about military force. Politics is another beast. The UN is useful as a forum and occaisional do-gooder. The US has suuported it and largely paid for it because, despite all our anger at its flaws, it is still a good thing that can be a positive force. But it has to have force of will to succeed.
The US is precisely trying to avoid looking like the bad guy. That we are not such is irrelevant. Heck, Bush is the one saving the UN right now. France is the one likely to destroy it, by showing that the united nations of the world cannot enforce their will (and lets not reptend its anything but) upon one errant member. As it is, I still disagree that our allies are feeling burned. Rather a few former allies are burning for their own domestic politics.
Why isn’t the possibility considered that Rumsfeld’s comments and Blair’s letter to the Vilnius group are intentional? I’m wondering if France wasn’t goaded into overplaying its hand? Because for all the talk about this being a ham-fisted diplomatic situation, it sure looks like it’s breaking heavily in the U.S. and Britain’s favor.
The difference between the Eastern European countries and France and Germany is that the East sees the EU as a democratic body giving a collection of countries the advantages of open markets and currencies. On the other hand, France sees the EU as an economic and cultural competitor to the United States, and it sees France and Germany at the center of it.
But the Eastern European countries aren’t about to allow themselves to be dominated by a larger power again - they got enough of that in the Warsaw pact.
And as the Czech foreign minister said today, “Why do we tilt towards the United States? Because we learned in the 1930’s not to put our security in the hands of the French.”
So I wonder if Rumsfeld’s words were intended as a wedge to split Eastern Europe and isolate France and Germany so as to both put pressure on them and take the heat off of Tony Blair?
And the larger game could be to form a new Transatlantic Alliance with Britain, the Vilnius countries, and other friendly European countries, as a competitor to the EU?
bandit, my offering up of the ICC was merely in response to the OP which asked “where we were” when these undesirable regimes were taking hold, as a possible way to prevent such in future. Of course it has its faults, but I venture that it represents a far superior option to the gunship diplomacy on offer at the moment.
I don’t know how I could convince you of the supreme importance of the special relationship to British Prime Ministers of any persuasion.
The problem is that you have been very good in presenting opinions and feelings that it is "vital to the future, but have not provided a convincing argument for that. Nor have you given me any reason to trash the Constitution of the United States. If you want a permanent ICC, go back to the drawing board.
The vaguely defined powers of the ICC - essentially, it can do whatever anyone can convince people it does - scare me. That is not the proper way to have a court. Moreover, we have visible, current evidence that politicized groups WILL try to use it as a bludgeon against their opponents. This is not a court of law, and it does not try epople with principles of law, but of words. There is a difference.
Finally, I note that it was the same Europe that supposedly wanted a world of Law and Order that allowed Saddam to escape justice last time. I am open to argument, but I have yet to see any evidence that these leaders will act correctly. I am not going to give up something for nothing.
Why? Will this ICC somehow conjure Mugabe from his lair? Will its indictments of Kim Jong-Il pull him from his home and his army? Will Saddam suddenly abase himself before it when called to trial? On top of this, you’ll probabyl cause many leaders who fear such to join together in mutual protection or assistance pacts.
You’re going to have to much better to conive Americans and the rets of the world. Unlike some state sof Europe, we do not agree just to avoid disagreement.
I believe you; I merely point out that we have the same feeling on this side of the Atlantic. Bush will try to help Tony Blair as well. I don’t think it is merely an economic arrangement, though.
As I already agreed, the current ICC plans are fraught with flaws. However, I feel that it is a sound principle on which to progress, particularly compared to the current legal ambivalence regarding despotic regimes.
No, but at the very least he could not have a holiday in France without being arrested (assuming he has been found guilty in absentia).
No, but it would provide a firmer legal basis for any military action without having to bribe members of the UN Security council to vote your way.
Of course I sympatise with your reservations, and indeed share some of them, but if national interests are all that matter then one cannot demonise “rogue states” for merely acting in their national interest.
Please try this reason on for size. (Sorry if this has already been covered, I’m coming late to this thread.)
Saddam agreed to (or had imposed on him) certain terms as part of the cease-fire ending Gulf War ep. I. Some of these terms included destruction of WMDs and termination of WMD programs, and UN inspections to verify compliance.
Saddam has violated those terms consistently, by continuing to develop WMDs and by resisting and obstructing inspections.
Violation of a cease-fire accord is grounds to restart a war. The threat of a new (or resumed) war is a major method of enforcing the cease-fire.
Ergo, Saddam’s continued development of WMDs and less-than-full cooperation with UN inspections constitutes a legitimate reason to go to war. QED.
Sentient There is more than mere national interest in the US as it is. Moreover, you still have not actually adressed my concerns. Merely brushing them off as a silly matter of that old nationalism is a rather unintellectual idea. Can you actually do so or are you simply working from axoim?
SB: Ergo, Saddam’s continued development of WMDs and less-than-full cooperation with UN inspections constitutes a legitimate reason to go to war.
But I think what ITRC was asking for was a reason to consider Saddam a serious threat, to the extent that attacking him is not just legally justifiable but actually a good idea.
As for the “legitimate reason” bit, I think you’re right that the UN could technically make an acceptable case for resolving to invade, if they thought it was a good idea. To consider it a good idea, though, you’d have to make a case that the threat now posed by Saddam is significantly worse than the dangers of war and subsequent political and social chaos fueling regional instability and further extremism and terrorism. That case hasn’t been made convincingly so far.