I know we have had a few debates on this. And I may have missed a few. But the consensus against our manouver to withdraw our signature was that it was a petty action. And the only effect was to show the world our arrogance, unilateralism, and our ability to show how we expect the world to abide by rules that we don’t have to.
Does this provision support my argument for total commitment against. Or does it re-establish those that it is just another political ploy that will only be more devisive against the US and world community. How far should the US go to protect her soverignty and her citizens against real or imagined threats when faced against the opinion of the international commmunity.
It is already the case that a US citizen in, say, the UK can be tried before the UK courts for acts committed in the UK. Such a trial would not, of itself, entitled the US to use force to “rescue” its citizen from the UK courts. The UK authorities are entitled to exercise jurisdiction over everyone in the UK, even US nationals.
If the UK authorities pass a law authorising an intenational body, such as the ICC, to exercise a jurisdiction over acts committed in the UK which the UK could otherwise exercise itself, I do not see that this would entitle the US to intevene by force. Quite simply, it is no business of the US government who exercises jurisdiction over acts committed in the UK, and it does not become their business merely because one of the people involved happens to be a US citizen. All that the US can demand is that whoever exercises jurisdiction, whether it be the UK government or an international body authorised by UK law, should adhere to the minimum standards required by international law for the treatment of prisoners.
>> Its founding treaty has been signed by 139 nations and ratified by 66, including most democratic nations.
>> DeLay told the Appropriations Committee on Thursday that his provision was necessary so the United States would never see an “American soldier or elected leader dragged before this court” which he called a “rump court” and a “rogue court”.
This guy must be on the payroll of those who want to discredit the US.
BTW, UDS, I read your posts with great interest. Good job.
>> After demonstrating that some committee members did not know the court would be in The Hague, Obey asked if DeLay understood that under the rescue provision, “We would be sending our troops to invade the Netherlands”. DeLay said he did not consider that a serious question.
God, idiocy runs rampant. This is really embarrassing. Who votes for these guys?
Using force is different from authorizing the use of force. DeLay’s action might deter the ICC from making a political prosecution of American soldiers. I fully support this bill for its deterrence effect.
If it actually comes to invading Holland, that’s another question…
Using force is different from authorizing the use of force. DeLay’s action might deter the ICC from making a political prosecution of American soldiers. I fully support this bill for its deterrence effect.
If it actually comes to invading Holland, that’s another question…
Good God, our country had gone completely mad. In addition to the “War on Terrorism” the US is now fighting a “War on Peace”.
What on Earth makes anyone in the Administration think that US troops on peacekeeping missions are likely to be railroaded into prosecution at the ICC and that cooler heads will be nowhere to be found?
We’re willing to send our boys overseas to be * killed*, but the ridiculously miniscule threat that one might be sued prompts us to undermine a promising step in the cause of World Peace and to act like and 800lb gorilla toward the international community.
Of course we all know what the Republicans are * really* thninking: Why don’t they cone right and say that they oppose the ICC because it’s the work of the anti-Christ.
>> We’re willing to send our boys overseas to be killed, but the ridiculously miniscule threat that one might be sued. . .
And I would think other countries would be even more scared at the prospect of an army of American lawyers invading them. That ought to be enough to keep them in line.
The irony here is that ‘the world’ expects us to abide by rules that they don’t have to - or has everyone missed the fact that the signatories to the ICC treaty just happen to have gotten immunity from prosecution under it for varying time periods? If the ICC is such a good thing, and so immune to abuses like declaring a US investigation which clears someone as not a genuine effort, why are the countries signing on to it asking for a grace period where only the US will be subject to it? I mean, shouldn’t all of these people be arguing that their governments should get rid of all of these immunity requests?
The US should go as far is it takes to protect her soverignity and citizens against real threats regardless of the opinion of the international community. I don’t see why it’s even being offered as a serious question - should we let Europe, or the Middle East, or China vote to revoke our constitution? And I don’t see any ‘imaged’ threats here; the treaty explicitly allows the ICC to simply declare that any US investigation of an alleged crime was not a real one and continue to prosecute. And I have a hard time believing that the oft-referenced International Community that previously claimed that the US had a worse record on human rights that Iran, Syria, and Lybia will be at all reluctant to declare a US investigation insufficient when it strikes their fancy.
>> The irony here is that ‘the world’ expects us to abide by rules that they don’t have to - or has everyone missed the fact that the signatories to the ICC treaty just happen to have gotten immunity from prosecution under it for varying time periods?
Riboflavin, this is not true. You have said it in another thread and I called you on it and so did UDS. Stop spreading misinformation.
Please demonstrate that
(a) the signatories to the ICC treaty just happen to have gotten immunity from prosecution under it for varying time periods and
(b) the treaty would deny the USA (if it ratified the treaty) some right or privilege enjoyed by other of the signatories.
Either prove this or stop repeating it. I say it is a lie.
Oh great font of wisdom, you might want to check the dates on the posts in question. The post you’re complaining about here was posted on 07-04-2002 08:24 PM, thrity minutes before my post in the thread you linked to (07-04-2002 08:54 PM) and over an hour before your ‘calling’ post at (07-04-2002 09:47 PM). Since I haven’t been able to find any source (I’ve seen it mentioned, including by pro-ICC people in various places, but nothing that would qualify as a cite) on the immunity issue I haven’t posted anything on it after having been asked for a cite. I’ve found neither confirming information (in the form of ‘this is the agreement that gives these countries immunity’) or disconfirming information (in the form of denials from the relevant countries, or even any mention of any kind of immunity on sites with ICC information) anywhere, so I am not repeating the information but also won’t retract my initial statement.
Really? That’s a pretty nasty and specific allegation, that I’m lying. Can you support it at all? If my initial statements here and in the other thread were untrue then they was based on misinformation as opposed to being a deliberate falsification, and I have not repeated either one after being asked for confirmation and being unable to find it. Challenging me to “prove this or stop repeating it” in the circumstances seems rather more dishonest than anything I’ve done.
How about ‘stop spreading unsubstantiated allegations until we’ve proved the truth one way or the other’, then? You admit you don’t know in the GQ thread, yet present it as fact here. I also don’t know the truth, but I’m not the one claiming it as fact.
Crusoe, how about ‘read what I wrote in my last post in the thread, and check the dates before spreading unsubstantiated allegations about me’, then? At the time I wrote the posts in GD I was not aware that there was any dispute over the matter; now, two days later, after doing some research into the matter, I can’t find anything to back them up and so don’t consider the immunity matter a fact any more.
I In case you missed it in my last post on this thread, here’s a timeline (and you can just look at the messages on the board to see the dates and times if you think I’m inventing them):
07-04-2002 08:24 PM - Post in this thread with claims of immunity agreement
07-04-2002 08:54 PM - Post in other GD thread with claims of immunity agreement
07-04-2002 09:47 PM - Sailor questions the immunity claims.
07-04-2002 11:51 PM - Post in GD, offering what might be an explanation for said claims but mentioning that it’s only from a preliminary search.
07-06-2002 11:09 AM - Post in GQ
So, what am I supposed to do? Get a mod to edit my previous posts to change what they said (somehow I think that might provoke complaints)?
Rboflavin, when, referring to the immunity thing, I said “I say it is a lie” I did not intend to call you a liar and I apologise if it sounded that way. I am sure you believed it but I was referring to the person who said it first, Mr. Fleischer. And, just in case, because you never know who’s listening, I will add that I did not intend to call Mr. Fleischer a liar either, only to imply that the satement is not true.
Now,you made the statement and the burden is on you prove it. It is an extraordinary claim which would go against common usage in such kind of treaties and against the most common sense. It is up to you to prove it, not up to me to prove it is not true. And your finding support in the fact that other countries have not denied it is just plain silly. Mr. Fleisher, AFAIK, has not denied kidnapping and murdering that missing girl eveerybody’s looking for. What are we to make of that?
, I do not have
I can say that Fleischer is a liar and should be batted out of the White House pronto. He should be “going, going gone”. No knowledge of the 9/11 terrorists indeed.
Anyway, the barring of arms aid to countries that ratify is much more worrisome. At this rate, the only country we can legally sell arms to is Iraq.
