Was Bush right to withdraw from the International Criminal Court?

[ISiddiqui]

yet you chide Jodi because his opinions are "wholy irrelevant in this case. " While it is highly unlikely that the United States as we know it today will remain the world’s lone Superpower, it’s nothing but speculation on your part that we will be at the mercy of nations we’re pissing off by being nationalistic today. You also claim the argument against the Treaty is fear. That is also an opinion. Many Americans, me included, feel it’s not in our best interests to cede these rights to an international body. We would characterize the argument for the Treaty as “asinine”, but that’s opinion as well. The fear mongering here is “we’d better not thumb our nose at people”. While sound advice in most cases, including (I have been persuaded) in the cases of withdrawing the signature unilaterally, it’s a rather foolish basis for signing these rights away.

so… why are your completely unproven (and unprovable) opinions allowed as part of the debate when Jodi’s aren’t?

Because his ‘opinions’ were totally opposed to how the world actually works. His believing that how international diplomacy works isn’t right doesn’t matter.

If you don’t feel it is in the best interest of the US to give the rights of prosecuting war crimes to an international body (I disagree) then you should keep your signature on the treaty, and not remove it. Removing your signature from a treaty is a “thumbing your nose at others”. Hell, if it isn’t ratified, it isn’t ratified, fine. But just removing your signature from the treaty is a shit thing to do, diplomatically speaking. It shows no respect for the international consensus. We don’t have to pass it, but keeping our signature doesn’t mean that we are subject to the provisions.

And no, the fear mongering is the idiotic and ludicrous idea that American servicemen would be hauled in front of the court at a moment’s notice. That is just plain false, but has been repeated over and over. That is the argument against the treaty and it is fear mongering, nothing more.

‘We better not thumb our nose at the international community’ is sound advice. Seeing as we live in a commonwealth of nations, it is in our INTEREST to be civil to them. That means keep the signature on the treaty, even if we don’t ratify it. But making a big show about taking our signature off the treaty (same with Kyoto), is simply rude.

Now that I think of it, Germany tried to take over the fucking world 60 years ago. It was disastrous in the short run, but so much for the “we’ll be pariahs in 50 years” argument.

Since World War II, they’ve changed their tune A LOT. They are one of the most international countries out there, trying hard to accede to all international UN treaties it can. It has also been loath to send troops, even peacekeepers anywhere. If it hadn’t done a complete 180, they would have been pariahs. Hell, it took them long enough to be trusted in the first place.

All we are doing, it seems is saying we are the big kid on the block, so we are taking our ball and going home, instead of saying, ok, we don’t like this game, but since you guys are playing with our ball, we’ll just wait this game out and join in the next go around.

[jshore]

*Originally posted by december *
Let’s be clear. If Kyoto were approved and followed for the next 100 years, the reduction in global warming would be minimal, acccording to the models that support Kyoto. (There would be no reduction at all, according to the models that attribute global warming to other-than-man-causes.)

Well, this statement is lacking in the clarity department for me. I don’t even know what you mean by “if Kyoto were approved and followed for the next 100 years.” Kyoto mandates emission reductions by 2012 with future negotiations to determine where we go from there (based partly of course in advances in our scientific understanding as well as our understanding of technological developments). Do you mean that after 2012, you imagine emissions staying flat at those values? If so, you are going to have to provide a cite that this would have a “minimal” effect; at any rate, it is hoped that we can make deeper cuts in the future once other technologies come on line.

Also, would you care to elaborate on the models that attribute global warming to other-than-man causes. I know of no such models…As far as I know, models without anthrogenic forcing predict some oscillations in temperature over time but not dramatic warming on any sort of short time scale.

It’s unclear when, if ever, the world will agree on a treaty as restrictive as Kyoto.

Well, in fact, Kyoto is not dead yet…despite the attempts of the largest emitter of greenhouse gases to kill it. Admittedly, it is handicapped by U.S. intransigence but it looks like, partly as a result of Kyoto, other countries will be putting in the kind of incentives that will lead to the development of new technologies, and even forward-thinking people in the U.S. will be working on such technologies.

Personally, I am not as pessimistic as you. I am not ready to throw up my hands and say, “Nothing can be done.” I understand how conservation can make a big difference in the short term and how technologies such as fusion, solar, wind, and hydrogen fuel cells will eventually come on line. (Fuel cells is admittedly more of a storage technology than an energy-generation technology, but it opens up the possibility to allow for energy generation for things like automobiles without combustion and resulting CO2 emission.)

In some strange sense, I think I might a stronger believer in the power of markets than you are on this whole issue. I just believe that one has to force markets to internalize the costs of various choices in order for them to work. Other people favor continued subsidization of inefficient, destructive, and outdated technology. Unfortunately, some of them happen to live at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

[Sgt.J]

Isiddiqui-

If you don’t feel it is in the best interest of the US to give the rights of prosecuting war crimes to an international body (I disagree) then you should keep your signature on the treaty, and not remove it. Removing your signature from a treaty is a “thumbing your nose at others”.

Agreed.
I had thought removing the siganture WAS a good idea, but after weighing arguments presented here, changed my mind.
I still don’t agree to my government signing away my rights to as an American (as they relate to the US Justice System) to an international body. Both the laws of the land and the Uniform Code of Military Justice criminalize the acts covered in this treaty and list appropriate punishment guidelines. We have no need for other countries to intervene. There is no “up side” of this treaty for me as a Service Member. It only serves to put me in further (you say highly unlikely) jeopardy. I’m packing to go to the Middle East region with the military RIGHT NOW. I leave on the 15th. This can only hurt me, nothing in it adds to the rights I have as an American. It only detracts form my rights.

How should I sell this to the men who work under me next week?

“On top of poor pay, substandard housing for your families, risking your life as a vocation, working in highly dangerous conditions, all for your country (and voluntarily)… Your Government has decided to waive your rights to the Justice System the people you fight for enjoy.”

I’ve got a little rank on my shoulder, but on the other hand I’m a reservist now so… I’d have to say it’s 50/50 weather I’d get my ass kicked.