NationStates Jolt Archive

Since it's inception two years ago, the United States has enjoyed special exemption from prosecution for war crimes by the ICC. This is a yearly waiver and the current one runs out at the end of June. Last week, the US began lobbying the UN Security Council to extend the waiver another year. The vote was set to happen last Friday, but was delayed as the Chinese delegate needed word from Beijing on how to vote.

Obviously, in the wake of the prison abuse scandal, many countries are having second thoughts about allowing this extension. When it was passed last year, Kofi Annan even said this should not become an annual event. The US Deputy Ambassador to the UN has sworn that those involved in the scandal would be punished under US law. Many nations are still hesitant, though.

The specifics of the waiver are that, as the US is the only superpower left in the world, to allow members of it's forces serving on UN-backed peacekeeping mission would generate a huge number of wrongfully-filed lawsuits. As the US troops currently in Iraq are not, I believe, on official 'UN peacekeeping duty', this waiver would seemingly not apply to them in any event. I may be wrong in this interpretation, however.

It's also interesting to note that a Jacques Verges, a French lawyer who's previous clients included Klaus Barbie, Carlos the Jackal and Slobodan Milosevic, and who claims to have been asked to defend Saddam Hussein, intends to file a suit against the UK at the ICC over Iraqi detainee abuse. This suit carefully leaves out the US in direct prosecution, although Verges definitely links both the US and the UK together in his rationale. The suit, filed by Verges "on behalf of the familes of the prisoners," claims the UK is bound by the ICC, unlike the US, so may be brought up on charges.

Yes it should. One of its moral justifications for invading Iraq was based upon the idea that human values are universal and not constrained by legal or national boundaries, as a result it has no basis by which it can refute the legitimacy of a court that embodies these universal values which it claims to champion.

First one to vote yes.

And if its not extended, we'll just ignore it anyway.

What could they possibly do to us? Fine us? We won't pay anyways.

Why should the American taxpayer have to pay for the problems of his government?

While I agree that the US would be targetted more than pretty much anyone else, I haven't studied the procedural elements of the ICC to determine what processes are in place to ensure that frivolous lawsuits don't jam up their calendar.

And should the number of suits start to become excessive - I;m sur that those procedures would be tightened up.

However, I am not sure that you can automatically label the Vergas lawsuit as "frivolous". There is some pretty compelling evidence that crimes were commited. And it should be pointed out that the ICC only is permitted to step in as long as the offinding country will not. So as long as the US does bring charges against those soldiers who have been found to have transgressed - I do not believe that there is any way for them to wind up in front of this court anyway.

At any rate, the US based a good chunk of it's justification for this war as being Saddam's transgressions against UN resloutions. If you want to be able to use international laws as justification for your actions, it seems hypocritical to also expect exemptions from international regulation for yourself.

-Z-

The ICC currently hasn't made a comment on the Vergas lawsuit yet, even to say if it's actually been submitted. I base my opinion of that lawsuit on Vergas' client roster. Given the dubious nature of his prior defences, I find it hard to believe that he has suddenly decided to prosecute a case against the UK for the altruistic good of the familes of the prisoners in question. Also, as you said, Z, the ICC only steps in when a country is unwilling or unable to conduct an investigate themselves. The fact that Vergas has already jumped on this and accused UK troops of systemic abuses seems premature, to say the least. I'm not saying there isn't a case there, just that it appears that Vergas' motives are less than pure.

Also, I am unclear about this, but it's my understanding that the waiver specifically applies to US forces involved in UN-backed peacekeeping missions. In fact, to gain the initial waiver, the US threatened to remove all it's troops from peacekeeping missions if they weren't granted immunity.

Frankly, I'm not sure how I feel about this and that's why I posted the poll, to see what the reaction was. Both sides have points. It seems unreasonable to ask a country to submit to a system which is practically guaranteed to be used against it unfairly (although, it may also be used fairly). Like you said, though, it's hard to claim to be supporting UN resolutions when we ourselves feel we shouldn't have to abide by them.

First one to vote yes.

And if its not extended, we'll just ignore it anyway.

I'm with kwangistar though I don't feel we should be in the un etc. at all.

Furthermore you people act like these guys whom were abused were everyday iraqis they were murderers and terrorists I'm not saying what happened was just it wasn't that was some immoral shit right there! Should've just beat on em a little deprived them of food and sleep none of that freaky sex stuff. :D

Frivolous lawsuits would run wild

First one to vote yes.

And if its not extended, we'll just ignore it anyway.

I'm with kwangistar though I don't feel we should be in the un etc. at all.

Furthermore you people act like these guys whom were abused were everyday iraqis they were murderers and terrorists I'm not saying what happened was just it wasn't that was some immoral shit right there! Should've just beat on em a little deprived them of food and sleep none of that freaky sex stuff. :D

Frivolous lawsuits would run wild

For the last damn time, the Iraqis who were abused WERE EVERYDAY IRAQIS picked up at random during checkpoint sweeps across the country. Our figures put the number at 60% WHO HAD DONE NOTHING WRONG EXCEPT BE IRAQI IN THEIR OWN COUNTRY and were still incarcerated and subjected to this abuse. The International Red Cross (which, frankly, I currently hold in higher esteem than I do our C.Y.A. mentality) puts the number at 90%.

The prison abuse cases highlight the appalling hypocrisy of the Bush administration and U.S. foreign policy in general. So often, the U.S. complains about the human rights abuses of other countries and the U.S. often is one of the first countries to cite the Geneva Convention in terms of the treatment of prisoners of war.

Meanwhile, the reports and the images of the abuse point at a government that willfully ignored the Geneva Convention and members of the military that lawlessly did what they wanted to humiliate their captives.

President Bush, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and the commanding officers and military personnel who all either authorized the abuses or took part in them should stand trail for war crimes like anyone else would.

And before anyone complains about this, I'm an American IRL.

Ah...I think I see the chain of reasoning here:
Americans can rape and murder foreigners all they want at the risk of one year in jail.
But they won't hesitate to use gas-chambers and electric chairs if the victim is one of their own...

I guess skin color, nationality and religion *does* affect the value of a human life... :roll:

I voted that we should be exempt, but it doesn't matter anyway. If someone sues us for frivolous crap, we'll just ignore them. That's one of the great things about being the USA; nobody can make us do anything we don't want to. I don't mean to sound arrogant, but everyone knows that it's true.

Obviously not.

I voted that we should be exempt, but it doesn't matter anyway. If someone sues us for frivolous crap, we'll just ignore them. That's one of the great things about being the USA; nobody can make us do anything we don't want to. I don't mean to sound arrogant, but everyone knows that it's true.

:shock: So nobody makes you pay your taxes?

Cool

I voted that we should be exempt, but it doesn't matter anyway. If someone sues us for frivolous crap, we'll just ignore them. That's one of the great things about being the USA; nobody can make us do anything we don't want to. I don't mean to sound arrogant, but everyone knows that it's true.

:shock: So nobody makes you pay your taxes?

CoolI said "being the USA." As a nation, no one can make us do anything we don't want to do.

I voted that we should be exempt, but it doesn't matter anyway. If someone sues us for frivolous crap, we'll just ignore them. That's one of the great things about being the USA; nobody can make us do anything we don't want to. I don't mean to sound arrogant, but everyone knows that it's true.

:shock: So nobody makes you pay your taxes?

CoolI said "being the USA." As a nation, no one can make us do anything we don't want to do.

A couple embargos might make America reconsider ignoring international law however.

I voted that we should be exempt, but it doesn't matter anyway. If someone sues us for frivolous crap, we'll just ignore them. That's one of the great things about being the USA; nobody can make us do anything we don't want to. I don't mean to sound arrogant, but everyone knows that it's true.

:shock: So nobody makes you pay your taxes?

CoolI said "being the USA." As a nation, no one can make us do anything we don't want to do.

A couple embargos might make America reconsider ignoring international law however.That would end up causing more too much trouble for the embargoers for it to be worth it. We could screw them up real good, and not just in a military manner.

I voted that we should be exempt, but it doesn't matter anyway. If someone sues us for frivolous crap, we'll just ignore them. That's one of the great things about being the USA; nobody can make us do anything we don't want to. I don't mean to sound arrogant, but everyone knows that it's true.

:shock: So nobody makes you pay your taxes?

CoolI said "being the USA." As a nation, no one can make us do anything we don't want to do.

Oh...

*sits down and waits for the USA to sink into the ocean under the combined weight of its citizens*

I voted that we should be exempt, but it doesn't matter anyway. If someone sues us for frivolous crap, we'll just ignore them. That's one of the great things about being the USA; nobody can make us do anything we don't want to. I don't mean to sound arrogant, but everyone knows that it's true.

:shock: So nobody makes you pay your taxes?

CoolI said "being the USA." As a nation, no one can make us do anything we don't want to do.

A couple embargos might make America reconsider ignoring international law however.That would end up causing more too much trouble for the embargoers for it to be worth it. We could screw them up real good, and not just in a military manner.

An oil embargo against the US would bring it to it's knees, especially as long as they continue their drug prohibition, banning the growth of hemp, which is the most efficient product for bio-mass fuels.

I voted that we should be exempt, but it doesn't matter anyway. If someone sues us for frivolous crap, we'll just ignore them. That's one of the great things about being the USA; nobody can make us do anything we don't want to. I don't mean to sound arrogant, but everyone knows that it's true.

:shock: So nobody makes you pay your taxes?

CoolI said "being the USA." As a nation, no one can make us do anything we don't want to do.

A couple embargos might make America reconsider ignoring international law however.That would end up causing more too much trouble for the embargoers for it to be worth it. We could screw them up real good, and not just in a military manner.

An oil embargo against the US would bring it to it's knees, especially as long as they continue their drug prohibition, banning the growth of hemp, which is the most efficient product for bio-mass fuels.No it wouldn't. 1st of all, we have strategic oil reserves that could supply our military through WWIII. Second, we could drill for oil in protected wildlife areas and national parks if we got desperate enough. Third, we could take oil from countries like Venezuela and Irak if we wanted too, and the rest of the world could either a) let us, or b) prepare for WWIII, which would fuck everybody up.

I voted that we should be exempt, but it doesn't matter anyway. If someone sues us for frivolous crap, we'll just ignore them. That's one of the great things about being the USA; nobody can make us do anything we don't want to. I don't mean to sound arrogant, but everyone knows that it's true.
Exactly. You basically ignore EVERYTHING that you don't like, at the same time being the first to scream at anybody else who tries the same thing on you. If nothing else, this is bigoted and endlessly selfish, therefore it's one of the things I dislike most about the USA.
:x

A nation who constantly claims moral superiority should at least try to abide by the laws they force upon others or expect others to abide by.

I'd love to see someone make you pay for your unacceptable behaviour, but as it stands, this is not going to happen. :(

Anyway, I voted "No", which couldn't be a more definite "No". You ignoring such a decision would once more show you're not trustworthy.
:evil:

Equal rights and duties for everyone!

I'm sorry, but the USA lost all of my sympathy over the last 5 years (maybe because I'm looking more critical at politics in general since then, which doesn't make it any better, however.). I still don't hate you, but I certainly despise of you. Mostly, it's the governments fault, but that's what a country is being judged for, isn't it?

And as for the question why the taxpayers should pay for their government's behaviour: easy, because they elected it. If you don't bother to vote, you're ignoring your duty and therefore still have to pay for not even trying to change things. This applies to every democratic country in the world, btw..

I voted that we should be exempt, but it doesn't matter anyway. If someone sues us for frivolous crap, we'll just ignore them. That's one of the great things about being the USA; nobody can make us do anything we don't want to. I don't mean to sound arrogant, but everyone knows that it's true.
Exactly. You basically ignore EVERYTHING that you don't like, at the same time being the first to scream at anybody else who tries the same thing on you. If nothing else, this is bigoted and endlessly selfish, therefore it's one of the things I dislike most about the USA.
:x

A nation who constantly claims moral superiority should at least try to abide by the laws they force upon others or expect others to abide by.

I'd love to see someone make you pay for your unacceptable behaviour, but as it stands, this is not going to happen. :(

Anyway, I voted "No", which couldn't be a more definite "No". You ignoring such a decision would once more show you're not trustworthy.
:evil:

Equal rights and duties for everyone!

I'm sorry, but the USA lost all of my sympathy over the last 5 years (maybe because I'm looking more critical at politics in general since then, which doesn't make it any better, however.). I still don't hate you, but I certainly despise of you. Mostly, it's the governments fault, but that's what a country is being judged for, isn't it?

And as for the question why the taxpayers should pay for their government's behaviour: easy, because they elected it. If you don't bother to vote, you're ignoring your duty and therefore still have to pay for not even trying to change things. This applies to every democratic country in the world, btw..So you ignore all of the good things we do, like how we are the main power behind any U.N. action, and how we donate so much to foreign aid projects?

So you ignore all of the good things we do, like how we are the main power behind any U.N. action, and how we donate so much to foreign aid projects?

No, I don't ignore these things. That's keeping you above "hate" level. I don't say that the other countries were any better if the had the chance, but still this doesn't make wrong things right.

So you ignore all of the good things we do, like how we are the main power behind any U.N. action, and how we donate so much to foreign aid projects?

No, I don't ignore these things. That's keeping you above "hate" level. I don't say that the other countries were any better if the had the chance, but still this doesn't make wrong things right.Look, we're not perfect, but Americans are good people. We truly want to help the world; I see this every day. We may be a bit too enthusiastic about it, I admit, but at least our intentions are good. Americans feel the need to right all injustice in the world, not unlike your Marvel Comics superhero. One of the main reasons the majority of Americans supported Gulf War II was because we saw Saddam Hussein as a Hitler-like villain, not because we thought they had WMD. I know this because nearly everyone I talked to was like, "Yeah! Let's go get that bastard Saddam."

Sometimes we may get corrupt people in our government, but that is true of any nation.

So you ignore all of the good things we do, like how we are the main power behind any U.N. action, and how we donate so much to foreign aid projects?

No, I don't ignore these things. That's keeping you above "hate" level. I don't say that the other countries were any better if the had the chance, but still this doesn't make wrong things right.Look, we're not perfect, but Americans are good people. We truly want to help the world; I see this every day. We may be a bit too enthusiastic about it, I admit, but at least our intentions are good. Americans feel the need to right all injustice in the world, not unlike your Marvel Comics superhero. One of the main reasons the majority of Americans supported Gulf War II was because we saw Saddam Hussein as a Hitler-like villain, not because we thought they had WMD. I know this because nearly everyone I talked to was like, "Yeah! Let's go get that bastard Saddam."

Sometimes we may get corrupt people in our government, but that is true of any nation.

And in the 1940's everyone was like "Yeah! Let's go get those Jewish bastards" ... It doesn't make them good people...Just ill informed.

So you ignore all of the good things we do, like how we are the main power behind any U.N. action, and how we donate so much to foreign aid projects?

No, I don't ignore these things. That's keeping you above "hate" level. I don't say that the other countries were any better if the had the chance, but still this doesn't make wrong things right.Look, we're not perfect, but Americans are good people. We truly want to help the world; I see this every day. We may be a bit too enthusiastic about it, I admit, but at least our intentions are good. Americans feel the need to right all injustice in the world, not unlike your Marvel Comics superhero. One of the main reasons the majority of Americans supported Gulf War II was because we saw Saddam Hussein as a Hitler-like villain, not because we thought they had WMD. I know this because nearly everyone I talked to was like, "Yeah! Let's go get that bastard Saddam."

Sometimes we may get corrupt people in our government, but that is true of any nation.

And in the 1940's everyone was like "Yeah! Let's go get those Jewish bastards" ... It doesn't make them good people...Just ill informed.What? You're talking about a race. I am talking about an evil man. Don't try to tell me that Saddam was actually good.

So you ignore all of the good things we do, like how we are the main power behind any U.N. action, and how we donate so much to foreign aid projects?

No, I don't ignore these things. That's keeping you above "hate" level. I don't say that the other countries were any better if the had the chance, but still this doesn't make wrong things right.Look, we're not perfect, but Americans are good people. We truly want to help the world; I see this every day. We may be a bit too enthusiastic about it, I admit, but at least our intentions are good. Americans feel the need to right all injustice in the world, not unlike your Marvel Comics superhero. One of the main reasons the majority of Americans supported Gulf War II was because we saw Saddam Hussein as a Hitler-like villain, not because we thought they had WMD. I know this because nearly everyone I talked to was like, "Yeah! Let's go get that bastard Saddam."

Sometimes we may get corrupt people in our government, but that is true of any nation.

And in the 1940's everyone was like "Yeah! Let's go get those Jewish bastards" ... It doesn't make them good people...Just ill informed.What? You're talking about a race. I am talking about an evil man. Don't try to tell me that Saddam was actually good.

Isn't there an American saying that goes something like "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" ?

And in the 1940's everyone was like "Yeah! Let's go get those Jewish bastards" ... It doesn't make them good people...Just ill informed.
And, go into the decade before it, and you've got the "Yeah, peace works, we just have to use diplomacy instead of war" era of our idol Neville.

So you ignore all of the good things we do, like how we are the main power behind any U.N. action, and how we donate so much to foreign aid projects?

No, I don't ignore these things. That's keeping you above "hate" level. I don't say that the other countries were any better if the had the chance, but still this doesn't make wrong things right.Look, we're not perfect, but Americans are good people. We truly want to help the world; I see this every day. We may be a bit too enthusiastic about it, I admit, but at least our intentions are good. Americans feel the need to right all injustice in the world, not unlike your Marvel Comics superhero. One of the main reasons the majority of Americans supported Gulf War II was because we saw Saddam Hussein as a Hitler-like villain, not because we thought they had WMD. I know this because nearly everyone I talked to was like, "Yeah! Let's go get that bastard Saddam."

Sometimes we may get corrupt people in our government, but that is true of any nation.
I didn't say the american people were bad. I get the impression they're blinded by the governents propaganda and I think they are not questioning what they are told. After all, the american governent has always been a master of mass manipulation by media, but in times of the internet it's IMO more easyly possible to get a less manipulated view on the world. I see tis every day as important things (like the software patents desaster) don't even appear in the news or paper or anything but at the internet they do.
Of course, the info needs to be examined closely, but still it's valuable.

So I understand that the average citizen actually thought it was the right thing to do (while the rest of the world wasn't sure) because the governent told them something not entirely reliable. The current Bush administration looks like a very obvious case of constand lying, but I'm sure most other administrations have simply been more subtle.

I therefore only wish that the average citizen would not blindly trust the governent anymore. This way, government corruption would not have that much of an effect.

So you ignore all of the good things we do, like how we are the main power behind any U.N. action, and how we donate so much to foreign aid projects?

No, I don't ignore these things. That's keeping you above "hate" level. I don't say that the other countries were any better if the had the chance, but still this doesn't make wrong things right.Look, we're not perfect, but Americans are good people. We truly want to help the world; I see this every day. We may be a bit too enthusiastic about it, I admit, but at least our intentions are good. Americans feel the need to right all injustice in the world, not unlike your Marvel Comics superhero. One of the main reasons the majority of Americans supported Gulf War II was because we saw Saddam Hussein as a Hitler-like villain, not because we thought they had WMD. I know this because nearly everyone I talked to was like, "Yeah! Let's go get that bastard Saddam."

Sometimes we may get corrupt people in our government, but that is true of any nation.

And in the 1940's everyone was like "Yeah! Let's go get those Jewish bastards" ... It doesn't make them good people...Just ill informed.What? You're talking about a race. I am talking about an evil man. Don't try to tell me that Saddam was actually good.

Isn't there an American saying that goes something like "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" ?That has nothing to do with what you just said.

So you ignore all of the good things we do, like how we are the main power behind any U.N. action, and how we donate so much to foreign aid projects?

No, I don't ignore these things. That's keeping you above "hate" level. I don't say that the other countries were any better if the had the chance, but still this doesn't make wrong things right.Look, we're not perfect, but Americans are good people. We truly want to help the world; I see this every day. We may be a bit too enthusiastic about it, I admit, but at least our intentions are good. Americans feel the need to right all injustice in the world, not unlike your Marvel Comics superhero. One of the main reasons the majority of Americans supported Gulf War II was because we saw Saddam Hussein as a Hitler-like villain, not because we thought they had WMD. I know this because nearly everyone I talked to was like, "Yeah! Let's go get that bastard Saddam."

Sometimes we may get corrupt people in our government, but that is true of any nation.

And in the 1940's everyone was like "Yeah! Let's go get those Jewish bastards" ... It doesn't make them good people...Just ill informed.What? You're talking about a race. I am talking about an evil man. Don't try to tell me that Saddam was actually good.

Isn't there an American saying that goes something like "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" ?That has nothing to do with what you just said.

yes it does... Thinking that you're doing "the right thing" doesn't make you a good person, does it?

So you ignore all of the good things we do, like how we are the main power behind any U.N. action, and how we donate so much to foreign aid projects?

No, I don't ignore these things. That's keeping you above "hate" level. I don't say that the other countries were any better if the had the chance, but still this doesn't make wrong things right.Look, we're not perfect, but Americans are good people. We truly want to help the world; I see this every day. We may be a bit too enthusiastic about it, I admit, but at least our intentions are good. Americans feel the need to right all injustice in the world, not unlike your Marvel Comics superhero. One of the main reasons the majority of Americans supported Gulf War II was because we saw Saddam Hussein as a Hitler-like villain, not because we thought they had WMD. I know this because nearly everyone I talked to was like, "Yeah! Let's go get that bastard Saddam."

Sometimes we may get corrupt people in our government, but that is true of any nation.
I didn't say the american people were bad. I get the impression they're blinded by the governents propaganda and I think they are not questioning what they are told. After all, the american governent has always been a master of mass manipulation by media, but in times of the internet it's IMO more easyly possible to get a less manipulated view on the world. I see tis every day as important things (like the software patents desaster) don't even appear in the news or paper or anything but at the internet they do.
Of course, the info needs to be examined closely, but still it's valuable.

So I understand that the average citizen actually thought it was the right thing to do (while the rest of the world wasn't sure) because the governent told them something not entirely reliable. The current Bush administration looks like a very obvious case of constand lying, but I'm sure most other administrations have simply been more subtle.

I therefore only wish that the average citizen would not blindly trust the governent anymore. This way, government corruption would not have that much of an effect.But as I said, when I talked to people about why they though going to war was a good idea, very few of them mentioned WMD. Most of them said that Saddam needed to be taken out because he was a brutal dictator. The government made it out to be all about WMD, so the world gets the impression that that's what the American people wanted to go in for, thus creating the illussion that we blindly followed the claims of WMD. Most Americans were following their moral compass, not the government's claims.

So you ignore all of the good things we do, like how we are the main power behind any U.N. action, and how we donate so much to foreign aid projects?

No, I don't ignore these things. That's keeping you above "hate" level. I don't say that the other countries were any better if the had the chance, but still this doesn't make wrong things right.Look, we're not perfect, but Americans are good people. We truly want to help the world; I see this every day. We may be a bit too enthusiastic about it, I admit, but at least our intentions are good. Americans feel the need to right all injustice in the world, not unlike your Marvel Comics superhero. One of the main reasons the majority of Americans supported Gulf War II was because we saw Saddam Hussein as a Hitler-like villain, not because we thought they had WMD. I know this because nearly everyone I talked to was like, "Yeah! Let's go get that bastard Saddam."

Sometimes we may get corrupt people in our government, but that is true of any nation.

And in the 1940's everyone was like "Yeah! Let's go get those Jewish bastards" ... It doesn't make them good people...Just ill informed.What? You're talking about a race. I am talking about an evil man. Don't try to tell me that Saddam was actually good.

Isn't there an American saying that goes something like "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" ?That has nothing to do with what you just said.

yes it does... Thinking that you're doing "the right thing" doesn't make you a good person, does it?Okay, let's recap.

I said: One of the main reasons the majority of Americans supported Gulf War II was because we saw Saddam Hussein as a Hitler-like villain, not because we thought they had WMD. I know this because nearly everyone I talked to was like, "Yeah! Let's go get that bastard Saddam."

You said: And in the 1940's everyone was like "Yeah! Let's go get those Jewish bastards" ... It doesn't make them good people...Just ill informed.

You were comparing the Jews with Saddam. The Jews are a race, Saddam was an evil dictator, so stopping him was a good thing. Are you going to tell me that we're bad people for wanting Saddam gone?

yes it does... Thinking that you're doing "the right thing" doesn't make you a good person, does it?

Well, trying to make sure you're doing the right thing would, but even this way, you'd be better than someone who knowingly does the wrong thing. OTOH, deliberately not verifying that one's belief is correct might border on knowingly accepting false reasons, making the person a bad person. :?

And uh, if we are put on trial, who is going to force us to pay or give up whatever the trial may be over? We are the world's only superpower, we do what we want (as was proved in Iraq.), their is no one to stop us, except ourselves. And also, France needs to realise that they are no longer a superpower, they have been going on a power trip lately, and you all remember what happened last time, Hitler put them in their place, to bad the lesson was wasted on them.

And uh, if we are put on trial, who is going to force us to pay or give up whatever the trial may be over? We are the world's only superpower, we do what we want (as was proved in Iraq.), their is no one to stop us, except ourselves. And also, France needs to realise that they are no longer a superpower, they have been going on a power trip lately, and you all remember what happened last time, Hitler put them in their place, to bad the lesson was wasted on them.You just opened a whole new can of shit.

Yes it should. One of its moral justifications for invading Iraq was based upon the idea that human values are universal and not constrained by legal or national boundaries, as a result it has no basis by which it can refute the legitimacy of a court that embodies these universal values which it claims to champion.
This issue goes to the roots of democracy and justice. If there is no true justice then democracy will eventual sputter and die.

But as I said, when I talked to people about why they though going to war was a good idea, very few of them mentioned WMD. Most of them said that Saddam needed to be taken out because he was a brutal dictator. The government made it out to be all about WMD, so the world gets the impression that that's what the American people wanted to go in for, thus creating the illussion that we blindly followed the claims of WMD. Most Americans were following their moral compass, not the government's claims.
OK, that's a good point. However there are (and have been for long times) many many other brutal dictators in many other countries in the world. The fact that there is oil in Iraq actually leads the world to question the US government's moral motivation for this war.
You must admit that this is a compelling reasoning which the USA'll have a hard time proving wrong.
This means that the government told the citizens Saddam was evil (what he was) and that this was a reason to go to war (while the same wasn't true with other dictators just as evil as Saddam, but Bush certainly wouldn't tell that), and the citizens didn't question it.

So you ignore all of the good things we do, like how we are the main power behind any U.N. action, and how we donate so much to foreign aid projects?

No, I don't ignore these things. That's keeping you above "hate" level. I don't say that the other countries were any better if the had the chance, but still this doesn't make wrong things right.Look, we're not perfect, but Americans are good people. We truly want to help the world; I see this every day. We may be a bit too enthusiastic about it, I admit, but at least our intentions are good. Americans feel the need to right all injustice in the world, not unlike your Marvel Comics superhero. One of the main reasons the majority of Americans supported Gulf War II was because we saw Saddam Hussein as a Hitler-like villain, not because we thought they had WMD. I know this because nearly everyone I talked to was like, "Yeah! Let's go get that bastard Saddam."

Sometimes we may get corrupt people in our government, but that is true of any nation.

And in the 1940's everyone was like "Yeah! Let's go get those Jewish bastards" ... It doesn't make them good people...Just ill informed.What? You're talking about a race. I am talking about an evil man. Don't try to tell me that Saddam was actually good.

Isn't there an American saying that goes something like "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" ?That has nothing to do with what you just said.

yes it does... Thinking that you're doing "the right thing" doesn't make you a good person, does it?Okay, let's recap.

I said: One of the main reasons the majority of Americans supported Gulf War II was because we saw Saddam Hussein as a Hitler-like villain, not because we thought they had WMD. I know this because nearly everyone I talked to was like, "Yeah! Let's go get that bastard Saddam."

You said: And in the 1940's everyone was like "Yeah! Let's go get those Jewish bastards" ... It doesn't make them good people...Just ill informed.

You were comparing the Jews with Saddam. The Jews are a race, Saddam was an evil dictator, so stopping him was a good thing. Are you going to tell me that we're bad people for wanting Saddam gone?

I wasn't comparing the Jewish people with Saddam... I was merely pointing out how people may think they are doing the "right" thing while they aren't.
And I think warmongerers are bad people...

And uh, if we are put on trial, who is going to force us to pay or give up whatever the trial may be over? We are the world's only superpower, we do what we want (as was proved in Iraq.), their is no one to stop us, except ourselves. And also, France needs to realise that they are no longer a superpower, they have been going on a power trip lately, and you all remember what happened last time, Hitler put them in their place, to bad the lesson was wasted on them.

I just say "France's souvereignity needs nukes". :x

Ignoring everybody else in the world they threw them at this islan (Murora, I believe it was). Just to prove that they can get away with it. Worst thing, they did get away with it just fine. :(

yes it does... Thinking that you're doing "the right thing" doesn't make you a good person, does it?

Well, trying to make sure you're doing the right thing would, but even this way, you'd be better than someone who knowingly does the wrong thing. OTOH, deliberately not verifying that one's belief is correct might border on knowingly accepting false reasons, making the person a bad person. :?

I understand that less than half your country thinks they are doing the right thing, while the rest knows it's not.

But as I said, when I talked to people about why they though going to war was a good idea, very few of them mentioned WMD. Most of them said that Saddam needed to be taken out because he was a brutal dictator. The government made it out to be all about WMD, so the world gets the impression that that's what the American people wanted to go in for, thus creating the illussion that we blindly followed the claims of WMD. Most Americans were following their moral compass, not the government's claims.
OK, that's a good point. However there are (and have been for long times) many many other brutal dictators in many other countries in the world. The fact that there is oil in Iraq actually leads the world to question the US government's moral motivation for this war.
You must admit that this is a compelling reasoning which the USA'll have a hard time proving wrong.
This means that the government told the citizens Saddam was evil (what he was) and that this was a reason to go to war (while the same wasn't true with other dictators just as evil as Saddam, but Bush certainly wouldn't tell that), and the citizens didn't question it.I agree that it must seem very suspicious to the rest of the world, so all I can say is that only time will tell if we really did do it for oil. I personally would like us to try to topple all inhumane dictators, but I know that it would just upset the world even more and cost us too much money.

No, proving a point, why did the league of nations fail? The US did not join giving them little power. The UN would most likely be called on to force us to agree by whatever terms a "trial" would decide. When we went into Iraq the UN did not agree to support us, what did we do? We went in anyways, what did the UN do? Nothing, the UN without the US us powerless, we are the muscle behind the UN, and we would never carry out a UN directive against ourselves.

Besides, their are 5 permanent members on the Security council, the US being one of them, if military action were called upon to force a trial's decisions on the US we would veto it, simple as that. Unlike the Soviet Union, we realise that little good comes from simply boycotting the UN.

So their you have two arguments playing into the US' hands, we can ignore the UN since they have very little real power without us, or we can use our veto power, either way, we win, well for the most part. Everyone else in the world will think we are bastards but hey, you already hate us right?

It is like the Iraqi prisoner abuse v. the beheading of Nick Berg, they only see us the people who come over and harass their people (while I disagree with that, it seems to be what Al Jazeera wants us to believe) and we only know them as those little terrorist who come to bomb our buildings and kill our people. We know that not all Arabs are terrorist, you will have to ask someone from the middle east if they think all americans like to abuse and harass other people.

So you ignore all of the good things we do, like how we are the main power behind any U.N. action, and how we donate so much to foreign aid projects?

No, I don't ignore these things. That's keeping you above "hate" level. I don't say that the other countries were any better if the had the chance, but still this doesn't make wrong things right.Look, we're not perfect, but Americans are good people. We truly want to help the world; I see this every day. We may be a bit too enthusiastic about it, I admit, but at least our intentions are good. Americans feel the need to right all injustice in the world, not unlike your Marvel Comics superhero. One of the main reasons the majority of Americans supported Gulf War II was because we saw Saddam Hussein as a Hitler-like villain, not because we thought they had WMD. I know this because nearly everyone I talked to was like, "Yeah! Let's go get that bastard Saddam."

Sometimes we may get corrupt people in our government, but that is true of any nation.

And in the 1940's everyone was like "Yeah! Let's go get those Jewish bastards" ... It doesn't make them good people...Just ill informed.What? You're talking about a race. I am talking about an evil man. Don't try to tell me that Saddam was actually good.

Isn't there an American saying that goes something like "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" ?That has nothing to do with what you just said.

yes it does... Thinking that you're doing "the right thing" doesn't make you a good person, does it?Okay, let's recap.

I said: One of the main reasons the majority of Americans supported Gulf War II was because we saw Saddam Hussein as a Hitler-like villain, not because we thought they had WMD. I know this because nearly everyone I talked to was like, "Yeah! Let's go get that bastard Saddam."

You said: And in the 1940's everyone was like "Yeah! Let's go get those Jewish bastards" ... It doesn't make them good people...Just ill informed.

You were comparing the Jews with Saddam. The Jews are a race, Saddam was an evil dictator, so stopping him was a good thing. Are you going to tell me that we're bad people for wanting Saddam gone?

I wasn't comparing the Jewish people with Saddam... I was merely pointing out how people may think they are doing the "right" thing while they aren't.
And I think warmongerers are bad people...Saddam was evil, which means that we were good people for wanting to take him out.

yes it does... Thinking that you're doing "the right thing" doesn't make you a good person, does it?

Well, trying to make sure you're doing the right thing would, but even this way, you'd be better than someone who knowingly does the wrong thing. OTOH, deliberately not verifying that one's belief is correct might border on knowingly accepting false reasons, making the person a bad person. :?

I understand that less than half your country thinks they are doing the right thing, while the rest knows it's not.I'm not exactly sure how to read this but in any case one needs to make one's belief is justified if the consequence is war (regardless of where and with whom).

yes it does... Thinking that you're doing "the right thing" doesn't make you a good person, does it?

Well, trying to make sure you're doing the right thing would, but even this way, you'd be better than someone who knowingly does the wrong thing. OTOH, deliberately not verifying that one's belief is correct might border on knowingly accepting false reasons, making the person a bad person. :?

I understand that less than half your country thinks they are doing the right thing, while the rest knows it's not.I'm not exactly sure how to read this but in any case one needs to make one's belief is justified if the consequence is war (regardless of where and with whom).He is pretty hard to read.

yes it does... Thinking that you're doing "the right thing" doesn't make you a good person, does it?

Well, trying to make sure you're doing the right thing would, but even this way, you'd be better than someone who knowingly does the wrong thing. OTOH, deliberately not verifying that one's belief is correct might border on knowingly accepting false reasons, making the person a bad person. :?

I understand that less than half your country thinks they are doing the right thing, while the rest knows it's not.I'm not exactly sure how to read this but in any case one needs to make one's belief is justified if the consequence is war (regardless of where and with whom).He is pretty hard to read.

Hard? This isn't really complicated... You state that people are much more evil if they KNOW that they are doing the wrong thing. About half the US population knows that the war in Iraq is wrong. So what does that make them?

yes it does... Thinking that you're doing "the right thing" doesn't make you a good person, does it?

Well, trying to make sure you're doing the right thing would, but even this way, you'd be better than someone who knowingly does the wrong thing. OTOH, deliberately not verifying that one's belief is correct might border on knowingly accepting false reasons, making the person a bad person. :?

I understand that less than half your country thinks they are doing the right thing, while the rest knows it's not.I'm not exactly sure how to read this but in any case one needs to make one's belief is justified if the consequence is war (regardless of where and with whom).He is pretty hard to read.

Hard? This isn't really complicated... You state that people are much more evil if they KNOW that they are doing the wrong thing. About half the US population knows that the war in Iraq is wrong. So what does that make them?First of all, I never said that. Second, you're hard to read because you post things that don't answer the previous post. Third, most of the country agrees with the war in Irak. I was having a pleasant conversation with Zhudor, but I can see that this thread is going downhill.

yes it does... Thinking that you're doing "the right thing" doesn't make you a good person, does it?

Well, trying to make sure you're doing the right thing would, but even this way, you'd be better than someone who knowingly does the wrong thing. OTOH, deliberately not verifying that one's belief is correct might border on knowingly accepting false reasons, making the person a bad person. :?

I understand that less than half your country thinks they are doing the right thing, while the rest knows it's not.I'm not exactly sure how to read this but in any case one needs to make one's belief is justified if the consequence is war (regardless of where and with whom).He is pretty hard to read.

Hard? This isn't really complicated... You state that people are much more evil if they KNOW that they are doing the wrong thing. About half the US population knows that the war in Iraq is wrong. So what does that make them?First of all, I never said that. Second, you're hard to read because you post things that don't answer the previous post. Third, most of the country agrees with the war in Irak. I was having a pleasant conversation with Zhudor, but I can see that this thread is going downhill.

Ok, I was wrong about the approval of the war in the USA.
But I really don't think that people are all that sure that what they are doing is the right thing. Which was my point.

At what point does the war become wrong in the minds of Americans?

No, half the US rather we let the Iraqi's take care of themselve's, we all know saddam is evil and that he should be removed. See we fought for our own independence and we have taken care of ourselves ever since, we kind of resent being called in to help other countries gain their own independence from tyrants and other countries.

I personally see what we are doing in Iraq as a good thing, Saddam had been killing hundreds of Kerds a day, we should have had him removed from power back in 1991, but American's are odd, we don't like to go avove and beyond our mission statement unless we were attacked first, in WWII we were bombed at Pearl Harbor, we utterly destroyed Japan during WWII. In 1991 we were not attacked, so we settled for liberating Kuwait and not ousting Saddam from power. Afterall, Bush Sr. was not looking good in the polls, he thought that if he brought the troops home before cristmas people would remember that. Also, I saw this on the History Channle about post gulf war Iraq: "America has a bad habit, that is we are too nice to the people we have beaten so severely, so we try to make up for it." That was about us allowing Iraqis to use attack helicopters in the no fly zone on the Kurdish rebels, those helicopters were used very well in puting down the rebellion.

At what point does the war become wrong in the minds of Americans?

It is wrong in the minds of some Americans. I've been saying it was wrong from the outset.

No, proving a point, why did the league of nations fail? The US did not join giving them little power. The UN would most likely be called on to force us to agree by whatever terms a "trial" would decide. When we went into Iraq the UN did not agree to support us, what did we do? We went in anyways, what did the UN do? Nothing, the UN without the US us powerless, we are the muscle behind the UN, and we would never carry out a UN directive against ourselves.

Besides, their are 5 permanent members on the Security council, the US being one of them, if military action were called upon to force a trial's decisions on the US we would veto it, simple as that. Unlike the Soviet Union, we realise that little good comes from simply boycotting the UN.

So their you have two arguments playing into the US' hands, we can ignore the UN since they have very little real power without us, or we can use our veto power, either way, we win, well for the most part. Everyone else in the world will think we are bastards but hey, you already hate us right?

Exactly what I said. The USA do whatever they want without anybody else having the guts or the power to oppose them. Which doesn't make it any better. Still, this behaviour isn't a good ground for claiming moral reasons for war, apart from being just plain wrong anyway (the behaviour).

It is like the Iraqi prisoner abuse v. the beheading of Nick Berg, they only see us the people who come over and harass their people (while I disagree with that, it seems to be what Al Jazeera wants us to believe) and we only know them as those little terrorist who come to bomb our buildings and kill our people. We know that not all Arabs are terrorist, you will have to ask someone from the middle east if they think all americans like to abuse and harass other people.

Yes, you gave them a real reason to terrorize you. :(

I don't know enough about Nick Berg (as I'm confused by the dubious circumstances being cited everywhere), but would this make one american outweigh many, many iraqis who are just as innocent?
I don't say that killing him was right, don't get me wrong here. But this abuse stuff isn't a smart (or good) thing to do, especially as the iraqi people aren't too keen about your presence anymore, be it justified or not. It's going to convince more people that you are oppressing them and therefore will make matters worse by driving moderate people into the terrorist camp.
I see the need for extraction of information, but there are other ways for that. Yes, it's a tradeoff, but a better one. And it should be clear that such measures need to be applied only to people who are at least known terrorists. If the prisoners were just being routinely grabbed off the streets, that would not justify any sort of hard interrogation.

Anyway, I must go off now, sry. and bye. Thx for the discussion so far!

Two questions:

1. What should the penalty be for those who beheaded Nick Berg?

2. What should the penalty be for those who were responsible for Iraqi prisoner deaths?

I personally think it is possible to do the right thing for the WRONG reason. And if this is about oil, then why is the damn gas so expensive still, with prices climbing, and averaging at 3.00$ a gallon?

Not to mention that I don't think terrorists should be protected by the Geneva Convention, since their tactics rest on attacking civilians and using civilians to protect themselves from retribution....

Besides, Jews were persecuted much more in Europe and the rest of the world than they ever were in the USA, so go yell at someone else for that one, since as far as I can the US saved millions of them from dying, and this was while half of France (Vichi France) was willingly collaborating with Hitler.

Not to mention that I don't think terrorists should be protected by the Geneva Convention, since their tactics rest on attacking civilians and using civilians to protect themselves from retribution....

Don't you think that they should be captured and stand trial for their crimes?

Two questions:

1. What should the penalty be for those who beheaded Nick Berg?

That is easy, death.

2. What should the penalty be for those who were responsible for Iraqi prisoner deaths?

That is tougher, see they were not killed but rather humiliated into giving information. And they were just following orders, or so they say, if that is the case shouldn't they get the same penalty as the soldiers in Nazi Germany, even though their crimes were far more severe, they were also just following orders.

Terrorist do not represent a sovereign nation so theirfore they are not subject to the rules of the Geneva Convention. Hence why we can lock up all those prisoners from Afganhistan and not care about them, their are no laws or regulations dictating what do to with terrorist.

Two questions:

1. What should the penalty be for those who beheaded Nick Berg?

That is easy, death.

2. What should the penalty be for those who were responsible for Iraqi prisoner deaths?

That is tougher, see they were not killed but rather humiliated into giving information. And they were just following orders, or so they say, if that is the case shouldn't they get the same penalty as the soldiers in Nazi Germany, even though their crimes were far more severe, they were also just following orders.

So 37 confirmed deaths were "death from shame" ?

Two questions:

1. What should the penalty be for those who beheaded Nick Berg?

That is easy, death.

2. What should the penalty be for those who were responsible for Iraqi prisoner deaths?

That is tougher, see they were not killed but rather humiliated into giving information. And they were just following orders, or so they say, if that is the case shouldn't they get the same penalty as the soldiers in Nazi Germany, even though their crimes were far more severe, they were also just following orders.


So 37 confirmed deaths were "death from shame" ?

I be most, if not all of those, were purely do to health problems, things like heart attacks and what not, nothing to do with the humilations those few pervs put them threw.

Two questions:

1. What should the penalty be for those who beheaded Nick Berg?

That is easy, death.

Since I am against the death penalty, then life in prison would be adequate. Death would be the easy way out for those guys.

2. What should the penalty be for those who were responsible for Iraqi prisoner deaths?


That is tougher, see they were not killed but rather humiliated into giving information. And they were just following orders, or so they say, if that is the case shouldn't they get the same penalty as the soldiers in Nazi Germany, even though their crimes were far more severe, they were also just following orders.

I don't believe that "following orders" is a justifiable excuse?

[quote:a17c42d245="Ryanania"]So you ignore all of the good things we do, like how we are the main power behind any U.N. action, and how we donate so much to foreign aid projects?

No, I don't ignore these things. That's keeping you above "hate" level. I don't say that the other countries were any better if the had the chance, but still this doesn't make wrong things right.Look, we're not perfect, but Americans are good people. We truly want to help the world; I see this every day. We may be a bit too enthusiastic about it, I admit, but at least our intentions are good. Americans feel the need to right all injustice in the world, not unlike your Marvel Comics superhero. One of the main reasons the majority of Americans supported Gulf War II was because we saw Saddam Hussein as a Hitler-like villain, not because we thought they had WMD. I know this because nearly everyone I talked to was like, "Yeah! Let's go get that bastard Saddam."

Sometimes we may get corrupt people in our government, but that is true of any nation.

And in the 1940's everyone was like "Yeah! Let's go get those Jewish bastards" ... It doesn't make them good people...Just ill informed.What? You're talking about a race. I am talking about an evil man. Don't try to tell me that Saddam was actually good.

Isn't there an American saying that goes something like "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" ?That has nothing to do with what you just said.

yes it does... Thinking that you're doing "the right thing" doesn't make you a good person, does it?Okay, let's recap.

I said: One of the main reasons the majority of Americans supported Gulf War II was because we saw Saddam Hussein as a Hitler-like villain, not because we thought they had WMD. I know this because nearly everyone I talked to was like, "Yeah! Let's go get that bastard Saddam."

You said: And in the 1940's everyone was like "Yeah! Let's go get those Jewish bastards" ... It doesn't make them good people...Just ill informed.

You were comparing the Jews with Saddam. The Jews are a race, Saddam was an evil dictator, so stopping him was a good thing. Are you going to tell me that we're bad people for wanting Saddam gone?

I wasn't comparing the Jewish people with Saddam... I was merely pointing out how people may think they are doing the "right" thing while they aren't.
And I think warmongerers are bad people...Saddam was evil, which means that we were good people for wanting to take him out.[/quote:a17c42d245]

Bush is evil, does that mean the Al-Queda are nice people?

Terrorist do not represent a sovereign nation so theirfore they are not subject to the rules of the Geneva Convention. Hence why we can lock up all those prisoners from Afganhistan and not care about them, their are no laws or regulations dictating what do to with terrorist.
If this were true, then how could the US justify an armed assault of Afghanistan?

I wasn't comparing the Jewish people with Saddam... I was merely pointing out how people may think they are doing the "right" thing while they aren't.
And I think warmongerers are bad people...

++++++++++++++++++++++

So by your definition - Washington, Lincoln, Roosevelt, Truman, Johnson, Kennedy, and Clinton (to name a few Presidents) are bad people.

I wasn't comparing the Jewish people with Saddam... I was merely pointing out how people may think they are doing the "right" thing while they aren't.
And I think warmongerers are bad people...

++++++++++++++++++++++

So by your definition - Washington, Lincoln, Roosevelt, Truman, Johnson, Kennedy, and Clinton (to name a few Presidents) are bad people.

How so?

I don't believe that "following orders" is a justifiable excuse?

********************

All soldiers are told that they only have to obey legal orders and to report all illegal orders to the upper chain of command. The soldiers that committed the abuses must have been to stupid to understand what a legal order is or lacked the disipline to carry out their jobs correctly. They will be punished quickly and fairly.

I wasn't comparing the Jewish people with Saddam... I was merely pointing out how people may think they are doing the "right" thing while they aren't.
And I think warmongerers are bad people...

++++++++++++++++++++++

So by your definition - Washington, Lincoln, Roosevelt, Truman, Johnson, Kennedy, and Clinton (to name a few Presidents) are bad people.

How so?

++++++++++++++++++++++

Noun-warmonger: A person who advocates war or warlike policies.

Revolutionary War, Civil War, WW2, WW2, Viet Nam War, Viet Nam War,
Bosnia/Iraq. Need I write more?

First one to vote yes.

And if its not extended, we'll just ignore it anyway.

I'm with kwangistar though I don't feel we should be in the un etc. at all.

Furthermore you people act like these guys whom were abused were everyday iraqis they were murderers and terrorists I'm not saying what happened was just it wasn't that was some immoral shit right there! Should've just beat on em a little deprived them of food and sleep none of that freaky sex stuff. :D

Frivolous lawsuits would run wild

For the last damn time, the Iraqis who were abused WERE EVERYDAY IRAQIS picked up at random during checkpoint sweeps across the country. Our figures put the number at 60% WHO HAD DONE NOTHING WRONG EXCEPT BE IRAQI IN THEIR OWN COUNTRY and were still incarcerated and subjected to this abuse. The International Red Cross (which, frankly, I currently hold in higher esteem than I do our C.Y.A. mentality) puts the number at 90%.

Do you know for a fact that those abused were just every day Iraqis? The wing where the abuses occured only housed the terrorists or insurgents?

No American will ever be tried in a world court. We are a sovereign nation, and we will punish our own. No international organization will ever interfere with the sovereignity of the United States in any way. The U.N. can go meet in Amsterdam.

No.

The United States is sovereign over its affairs and it should decide whether ICC rulings apply to it or not. Just like any other nation. The ICC as far as I'm concerned is already gimped, because of its failure to provide for a speedy trail for Mr.Milosevic (who by the way is quite a learned man and spins rings around the dull judges).

If this were true, then how could the US justify an armed assault of Afghanistan?

Well lets see, the Taliban supported Al-Qeada, Al-Qeada was resonsible for 9/11, that is why we went into Afganhistan, that and Al-Qeada's main training bases were located in Afganhistan, later they were moved to Iraq so hence we invaded Iraq. (We never really suspected Iraq had WMD's, we had been attacked, we were hoping that saying Iraq had WMD's we get the rest of the world to get off their asses and let us go into Iraq. But then again France did have a good reason to try and stop us from going into Iraq, we found french weapons that were illegally sold to Iraq, and we did nothing to France, why, we have decided to overlook that highly illegal act by Frace for the sake of "World Unity". Atleast France became a lot more helpful after we found those weapons, perhaps Bush said a few choice words to the French Ambassador for the Prime Minister behind closed doors.

WTF? As one of the most powerful nations on earth we should be held responible for everything we do!!! Who's the jerk who had us exempt from ICC trials?

Isn't there an American saying that goes something like "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" ?

Actually, that quote is attributed to Samuel Johnson, but that is incorrect. Boswell's Life of Johnson has him making this statement around April 16, 1775 and the quote was "Hell is paved with good intentions." Boswell's editor indicated in a foot note that this was a proverbial saying and gave an initial quote at around 1651. However, there are perhaps even other sources. John Ray in 1670 is quoted as describing the proverb, "Hell is paved with good intentions", so it was theoretically already in common usage by that time. The earlier reference to it that I'm aware of came from Saint Bernard of Clairvaux (1091-1153) with, "Hell is full of good intentions and desires." So who actually said what and when is a source of conjecture, but it's incorrect to think this is an "American" saying only.

However, Samuel Johnson did say something which is particularly relevent to both this debate and the recent actions of the US in general. On commenting on the behavior of the British Colonists in America, said in his book An Introduction to the Political State of Britain, "No people can be great who have ceased to be virtuous." While I don't think the people of the US have competely surrendered their virtue, it is without a doubt tarnished and we must repolish it or face losing that almost divine mandate which we put so much faith in.

WTF? As one of the most powerful nations on earth we should be held responible for everything we do!!! Who's the jerk who had us exempt from ICC trials?

That was a move by BushCo because we didn't want to be hasseled by frivolous international lawsuits. We threatened to remove all our troops from UN peacekeeping missions if they were not granted immunity from prosecution in the ICC.

That was a move by BushCo because we didn't want to be hasseled by frivolous international lawsuits. We threatened to remove all our troops from UN peacekeeping missions if they were not granted immunity from prosecution in the ICC.

*sarcasm* thank you BushCo */sarcasm*

Well lets see, the Taliban supported Al-Qeada, Al-Qeada was resonsible for 9/11, that is why we went into Afganhistan, that and Al-Qeada's main training bases were located in Afganhistan, later they were moved to Iraq so hence we invaded Iraq. We never really suspected Iraq had WMD's, we had been attacked, we were hoping that saying Iraq had WMD's we get the rest of the world to get off their asses and let us go into Iraq.

Interesting. So you're claiming the Bush administration clearly and willingly lied and manipulated facts in order to advance an agenda? Why would they do this if they knew there were terrorist ties to Al-Qeada? It seems much more obvious that they would simply display that evidence and use the tremendous international support for the "War on Terror" that existed at the time to justify and rally for an invasion of Iraq. However, to date, there has been no proof putting Al-Qeada controlled bases in Saddam-controlled Iraq and certainly no proof of WMDs in Iraq (which you've already said Bush knew to be a lie anyway).

No.

The United States is sovereign over its affairs and it should decide whether ICC rulings apply to it or not. Just like any other nation. The ICC as far as I'm concerned is already gimped, because of its failure to provide for a speedy trail for Mr.Milosevic (who by the way is quite a learned man and spins rings around the dull judges).

But the purpose of the ICC is not to serve as the ultimate world judicial body, but instead to be a venue of last recourse when the state or nation guilty of breaking international law is either unable or unwilling to investigate and prosecute the crime itself. As we claim to be both investigating and prosecuting the Iraq prison abuse affair and, furthermore, as we claim to be a nation of laws and a vital force for peace, justice, freedom and liberty in the world, what would we have to fear from the ICC (assuming our PR is true)? It's the same rationale that Ashcroft uses to justify the Patriot Act. If you're innocent, you have nothing to fear.

History tells us just how true that line of reasoning is.

No American will ever be tried in a world court. We are a sovereign nation, and we will punish our own. No international organization will ever interfere with the sovereignity of the United States in any way. The U.N. can go meet in Amsterdam.

Well, along the same lines as my argument to West Pacific, the ICC is a venue of last resort. If we're already punishing our own transgressions, then why remain separate from every other nation on the planet who has signed and agreed? The political good will this action alone would engender is certainly worth more than some point of order that we already claim to be observing.

Do you know for a fact that those abused were just every day Iraqis? The wing where the abuses occured only housed the terrorists or insurgents?

I'm going to link again to Sy Hersh's article in the New Yorker. It's not the only one out there and even the Pentagon now has stopped denying it's veracity. The abuse occured initially as part of a intelligence gathering probe initiated in Afghanistan. Innocent civilians were, in effect, tortured and blackmailed into being moles for US military intelligence. The abuse in Abu Ghraib spiraled out of control when this probe was somehow broadened to Iraq and everyday soldiers were not only officially involved but took the limited-scope suspension of the Geneva Conventions as the status quo and began to treat all prisoners like that.

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040524fa_fact

The fact is, Salishe, that the International Red Cross was reporting this abuse last year in Afghanistan, Guantanemo Bay and, later, in Iraq. The US military either ignored these complaints or simply chose not to act on them, a fact which they themselves now admit. General Sanchez called the military response to the IRC reports "haphazard." Our own estimate of people wrongly detained is at 60%, and this number is in line with the new military policy of reducing the number of detainees in Abu Ghraib by 1500 (of the 3000 that are currently there) by June.

Even if some of these men were terrorists, how can we claim to be better than them by violating the same codes of human decency that we say they are criminally in violation of? Does that not make us guilty of our own crime?

Terrorist do not represent a sovereign nation so theirfore they are not subject to the rules of the Geneva Convention. Hence why we can lock up all those prisoners from Afganhistan and not care about them, their are no laws or regulations dictating what do to with terrorist.
If this were true, then how could the US justify an armed assault of Afghanistan?

Because, at the time, the Taliban regime in Afghanistan was openly and clearly supporting terrorist causes aimed both at US interests and global entities.

I'm not sure I buy West Pacific's reasoning regarding why it's acceptable to treat terrorists as not being covered by Geneva Conventions, though. It wasn't my understanding that they only applied to people who claimed citizenship in a country that had signed off on them. Regardless, however, of the point of terrorists not being part of a country and therefore not covered, the US made a pledge to support the Geneva Conventions and a certain basic level of human decency in interrogation and prisoner taking. We are bound to uphold that on all prisoners we take, whatever their official national affiliation may be. The terrorists may not be covered under the Geneva Conventions, but the US most certainly is and it is our responsibility to uphold them. Otherwise, we risk being seen as little better than terrorists ourselves.

We should invoke the Invasion of the Hague Provision and blow up the ICC.

No, seriously though, I don't think we should even be IN it, much less subject to it.

And yes, I strongly opposed the War on Iraq. If we want our national sovereignity respected, we should respect others' as well.

I voted that we should be exempt, but it doesn't matter anyway. If someone sues us for frivolous crap, we'll just ignore them. That's one of the great things about being the USA; nobody can make us do anything we don't want to. I don't mean to sound arrogant, but everyone knows that it's true.

:shock: So nobody makes you pay your taxes?

CoolI said "being the USA." As a nation, no one can make us do anything we don't want to do.

A couple embargos might make America reconsider ignoring international law however.That would end up causing more too much trouble for the embargoers for it to be worth it. We could screw them up real good, and not just in a military manner.

An oil embargo against the US would bring it to it's knees, especially as long as they continue their drug prohibition, banning the growth of hemp, which is the most efficient product for bio-mass fuels.No it wouldn't. 1st of all, we have strategic oil reserves that could supply our military through WWIII.

Actually, all experts agree that the American "strategic oil reserves" would last about 86 days..so, if you think WWIII would only last three months.. then sure.. :roll: :lol:

Actually, all experts agree that the American "strategic oil reserves" would last about 86 days..so, if you think WWIII would only last three months.. then sure.. :roll: :lol:

Well, with nukes, that's not an unreasonable timeframe...

Actually, all experts agree that the American "strategic oil reserves" would last about 86 days..so, if you think WWIII would only last three months.. then sure.. :roll: :lol:

Well, with nukes, that's not an unreasonable timeframe...

So, are you saying that America would start WWIII if a country dared (or a few countries) to impose an oil embargo upon it and start nuking people? If so, what does that say about the USA? Nothing good..

Actually, all experts agree that the American "strategic oil reserves" would last about 86 days..so, if you think WWIII would only last three months.. then sure.. :roll: :lol:

Well, with nukes, that's not an unreasonable timeframe...

So, are you saying that America would start WWIII if a country dared (or a few countries) to impose an oil embargo upon it and start nuking people? If so, what does that say about the USA? Nothing good..

Hell, Steph, I have no idea what this administration is capable of doing should they feel sufficiently threatened. My comment was more by way of a smart ass reply to a smart ass reply. :D

However, I do think that an oil embargo is highly unlikely as the economic chaos it would cause to the world in general far outweighs any much-needed lesson the US Government might learn from such an act.

Actually, all experts agree that the American "strategic oil reserves" would last about 86 days..so, if you think WWIII would only last three months.. then sure.. :roll: :lol:

Well, with nukes, that's not an unreasonable timeframe...

So, are you saying that America would start WWIII if a country dared (or a few countries) to impose an oil embargo upon it and start nuking people? If so, what does that say about the USA? Nothing good..

Hell, Steph, I have no idea what this administration is capable of doing should they feel sufficiently threatened. My comment was more by way of a smart ass reply to a smart ass reply. :D

However, I do think that an oil embargo is highly unlikely as the economic chaos it would cause to the world in general far outweighs any much-needed lesson the US Government might learn from such an act.

On that we agree...

Hey, wanna take side bets that the price of gas comes down by the end of the summer? :P

Actually, all experts agree that the American "strategic oil reserves" would last about 86 days..so, if you think WWIII would only last three months.. then sure.. :roll: :lol:

Well, with nukes, that's not an unreasonable timeframe...

So, are you saying that America would start WWIII if a country dared (or a few countries) to impose an oil embargo upon it and start nuking people? If so, what does that say about the USA? Nothing good..

Hell, Steph, I have no idea what this administration is capable of doing should they feel sufficiently threatened. My comment was more by way of a smart ass reply to a smart ass reply. :D

However, I do think that an oil embargo is highly unlikely as the economic chaos it would cause to the world in general far outweighs any much-needed lesson the US Government might learn from such an act.

On that we agree...

Hey, wanna take side bets that the price of gas comes down by the end of the summer? :P

Heh, sorry, I don't bet for religious reasons. Plus, I can't afford to be against a sure thing because I need all my money to pay for gas now. :D

Actually, all experts agree that the American "strategic oil reserves" would last about 86 days..so, if you think WWIII would only last three months.. then sure.. :roll: :lol:

Well, with nukes, that's not an unreasonable timeframe...

So, are you saying that America would start WWIII if a country dared (or a few countries) to impose an oil embargo upon it and start nuking people? If so, what does that say about the USA? Nothing good..

Hell, Steph, I have no idea what this administration is capable of doing should they feel sufficiently threatened. My comment was more by way of a smart ass reply to a smart ass reply. :D

However, I do think that an oil embargo is highly unlikely as the economic chaos it would cause to the world in general far outweighs any much-needed lesson the US Government might learn from such an act.

On that we agree...

Hey, wanna take side bets that the price of gas comes down by the end of the summer? :P

Heh, sorry, I don't bet for religious reasons. Plus, I can't afford to be against a sure thing because I need all my money to pay for gas now. :D

I actually don't bet either, not for religious reasons.. just cause it seems like a waste of money if you're wrong.. but I will assume, I'm going to be right.. :)

I actually don't bet either, not for religious reasons.. just cause it seems like a waste of money if you're wrong.. but I will assume, I'm going to be right.. :)

Yeah, even when I didn't have the religious reason, I didn't gamble because I could never quite rap my brain around why I would want to give away my money for nothing, knowing full well that the odds were heavily stacked against me.

As for the gas thing, you're absolutely right. I imagine gas will be affordable again sometime around October. After squeezing us till we squeal all summer, it'll seem like a god-send by then and Bush will claim credit.

Of course, if I was a conspiracy theorist, I might predict a double whammy in October with gas prices reaching near record lows and the sudden "capture" of Osama. Lucky for us I'm not a conspiracy theorist, eh? :D

If this were true, then how could the US justify an armed assault of Afghanistan?

Well lets see, the Taliban supported Al-Qeada, Al-Qeada was resonsible for 9/11, that is why we went into Afganhistan, that and Al-Qeada's main training bases were located in Afganhistan, later they were moved to Iraq so hence we invaded Iraq. (We never really suspected Iraq had WMD's, we had been attacked, we were hoping that saying Iraq had WMD's we get the rest of the world to get off their asses and let us go into Iraq. But then again France did have a good reason to try and stop us from going into Iraq, we found french weapons that were illegally sold to Iraq, and we did nothing to France, why, we have decided to overlook that highly illegal act by Frace for the sake of "World Unity". Atleast France became a lot more helpful after we found those weapons, perhaps Bush said a few choice words to the French Ambassador for the Prime Minister behind closed doors.
You might want to check your FACTS regarding the movement of Al-Queda into Iraq. In other words do you have a source for this information?

Remember also that it was you that insisted that Al Queda was not nation based, and therefore exempt from the Geneva Conventions.

Well lets see, the Taliban supported Al-Qeada, Al-Qeada was resonsible for 9/11, that is why we went into Afganhistan, that and Al-Qeada's main training bases were located in Afganhistan, later they were moved to Iraq so hence we invaded Iraq. We never really suspected Iraq had WMD's, we had been attacked, we were hoping that saying Iraq had WMD's we get the rest of the world to get off their asses and let us go into Iraq.

Interesting. So you're claiming the Bush administration clearly and willingly lied and manipulated facts in order to advance an agenda? Why would they do this if they knew there were terrorist ties to Al-Qeada? It seems much more obvious that they would simply display that evidence and use the tremendous international support for the "War on Terror" that existed at the time to justify and rally for an invasion of Iraq. However, to date, there has been no proof putting Al-Qeada controlled bases in Saddam-controlled Iraq and certainly no proof of WMDs in Iraq (which you've already said Bush knew to be a lie anyway).

You fuckers wouldn't support the war on terror past Afganhistan, that is why we had to say they had WMD's, oh, and we have found them, mortar and artillery rounds filled with nerve gas, two semi-trailors which were converted to produce chemical weapons, oh, but you guys said that was not enough, you want us to find huge stockpiles of bilogical or chemical weapons, which have been buried in the middle of the Iraqi desert and probably wont be found for years. What about those missiles they fired on Kuwait when the Iraqi War started? Those were banned after Desert Storm, yet they started firing them. Or how about those French weapons that were taken off of dead Iraqi soldiers? The French have been illegally trying to make money off of Iraq since the end of Desert Storm. I still remember when a French tanker was boarded about 6 years ago because it was carrying Iraqi oil which was still banned at the time.

Either way, the point is mute, the US is more powerful than and 2, I would be willing to bet any 3 countries in the world and we have enough power in other countries that no one would dare go to war with us and try to touch the mainland. I see China in maybe 40 years as the only country with the balls or the power to try and go to all out war with the US, and by then the EU might even have enough to actually do more than protest US actions. But one thing is for sure, Canada will still be our b*tch.

I actually don't bet either, not for religious reasons.. just cause it seems like a waste of money if you're wrong.. but I will assume, I'm going to be right.. :)

Yeah, even when I didn't have the religious reason, I didn't gamble because I could never quite rap my brain around why I would want to give away my money for nothing, knowing full well that the odds were heavily stacked against me.

As for the gas thing, you're absolutely right. I imagine gas will be affordable again sometime around October. After squeezing us till we squeal all summer, it'll seem like a god-send by then and Bush will claim credit.

Of course, if I was a conspiracy theorist, I might predict a double whammy in October with gas prices reaching near record lows and the sudden "capture" of Osama. Lucky for us I'm not a conspiracy theorist, eh? :D

Actually, the Saudies announced today the intent to boost oil production by 28% next month. Now figure in that three-month lag to get the refined oil to market, and you have prices dropping sometime in September.

go figure....

Well lets see, the Taliban supported Al-Qeada, Al-Qeada was resonsible for 9/11, that is why we went into Afganhistan, that and Al-Qeada's main training bases were located in Afganhistan, later they were moved to Iraq so hence we invaded Iraq. We never really suspected Iraq had WMD's, we had been attacked, we were hoping that saying Iraq had WMD's we get the rest of the world to get off their asses and let us go into Iraq.

Interesting. So you're claiming the Bush administration clearly and willingly lied and manipulated facts in order to advance an agenda? Why would they do this if they knew there were terrorist ties to Al-Qeada? It seems much more obvious that they would simply display that evidence and use the tremendous international support for the "War on Terror" that existed at the time to justify and rally for an invasion of Iraq. However, to date, there has been no proof putting Al-Qeada controlled bases in Saddam-controlled Iraq and certainly no proof of WMDs in Iraq (which you've already said Bush knew to be a lie anyway).

You f--- wouldn't support the war on terror past Afganhistan, that is why we had to say they had WMD's, oh, and we have found them, mortar and artillery rounds filled with nerve gas, two semi-trailors which were converted to produce chemical weapons, oh, but you guys said that was not enough, you want us to find huge stockpiles of bilogical or chemical weapons, which have been buried in the middle of the Iraqi desert and probably wont be found for years. What about those missiles they fired on Kuwait when the Iraqi War started? Those were banned after Desert Storm, yet they started firing them. Or how about those French weapons that were taken off of dead Iraqi soldiers? The French have been illegally trying to make money off of Iraq since the end of Desert Storm. I still remember when a French tanker was boarded about 6 years ago because it was carrying Iraqi oil which was still banned at the time.


Ah yes... the old "We HAD to lie!" excuse.... adding in more lies since those trailers have been indicated by the CIA as NOT being related to WMD use, and the fact that "those missiles" were known air-to-sea weapons which had not been deemed in violation of range restrictions... and possibly a couple of the remaining Al Samoud IIs that Saddam WAS destroying up until it became clear that GW didn't really care if he did or didn't comply anyway.

Funny how you forget to mention Cheney's company making money off of Iraq during the embargo.....

Either way, the point is mute, the US is more powerful than and 2, I would be willing to bet any 3 countries in the world and we have enough power in other countries that no one would dare go to war with us and try to touch the mainland. I see China in maybe 40 years as the only country with the balls or the power to try and go to all out war with the US, and by then the EU might even have enough to actually do more than protest US actions. But one thing is for sure, Canada will still be our b*tch.

Now if only you were "mute"....

Actually, all experts agree that the American "strategic oil reserves" would last about 86 days..so, if you think WWIII would only last three months.. then sure.. :roll: :lol:

Well, with nukes, that's not an unreasonable timeframe...

So, are you saying that America would start WWIII if a country dared (or a few countries) to impose an oil embargo upon it and start nuking people? If so, what does that say about the USA? Nothing good..

Or we would tap into the Alaskan Wildlige refuge, yeah, experst agree, their is enough oil up there to last the US 200 years. Besides, an oil embargo probably isn't the correct term, that would imply that other countries were using their armed forces to stop the flow of oil to the US. A boycot would be more appropriate, other countries would just stop selling oil to us, but not enough, because of rising gas prices Saudi Arabia is increasing their oil output by 23% next month, with or without Opec's consent. See what these Middle Eastern countries don't realise is that yes, we are dependent on their oil, but they are also dependent on the money we give them for that oil. It is called interdependence, we rely on each other.

Let's face it people, we can talk about the US and the rest of the World going to war all we want, but it wont happen, cooler heads always prevel, and we don't really hate each other, it is more of a friendly, but tense rivalry, like when two really good soccer, or football for those of you from Europe, never get to play each other in a season, you can only guess who would have won.

I don't truly hate all French people, I am upset about the French selling weapons to Iraq and their olympic judge getting paid off by the Russians at Salt Lake City and so their was a draw between Canada and Russia in the couple's figure skating competition. I will always argue as to whether it is Football or Soccer, I will always claim that the US is the greatest country in the World, and I will never understand the French quisine and why they eat snails. If all these exotic foods taste like Chicken, why not eat chicken? Who do the British drive down the other side of the road? Will Athens be ready for the Olympics? And if British and Americans both speak english why can't we understand each other?

Hey, is the ICC going to charge the people who used the "Food for Oil program" to steal from the Iraqi people and line Saddam's and their pockets.

The USA is a sovereign nation and should NEVER open that Pandora's Box of letting other Nations try American soldiers for "war crimes". Not till you pry our gun from our dead cold hand.

Hey, is the ICC going to charge the people who used the "Food for Oil program" to steal from the Iraqi people and line Saddam's and their pockets.

The USA is a sovereign nation and should NEVER open that Pandora's Box of letting other Nations try American soldiers for "war crimes". Not till you pry our gun from our dead cold hand.

Well said, I agree fully, the ICC wont be able to take anything signifigant from the US, we may award $1,000,000 here, another million there, but we wont give them anything of great value, territory disputes, well their will be a war over those. And we do give money for damages done during wars, the guy who turned in Saddam's suns, he got $30 million, the guy who turned in Saddam, he got $25million. We paid afganhi families for their losses from US misfires, we did the same in Iraq, while that money does not make up for the loss of a loved one, it will enable them to keep from starving in the absence of their husband.

Hey, is the ICC going to charge the people who used the "Food for Oil program" to steal from the Iraqi people and line Saddam's and their pockets.

The USA is a sovereign nation and should NEVER open that Pandora's Box of letting other Nations try American soldiers for "war crimes". Not till you pry our gun from our dead cold hand.

If you guys don't go by the geneva convention and other laws concerning war crimes, then you don't have the right to comlain when other soldiers rape and torture American soldiers.

Well lets see, the Taliban supported Al-Qeada, Al-Qeada was resonsible for 9/11, that is why we went into Afganhistan, that and Al-Qeada's main training bases were located in Afganhistan, later they were moved to Iraq so hence we invaded Iraq. We never really suspected Iraq had WMD's, we had been attacked, we were hoping that saying Iraq had WMD's we get the rest of the world to get off their asses and let us go into Iraq.

Interesting. So you're claiming the Bush administration clearly and willingly lied and manipulated facts in order to advance an agenda? Why would they do this if they knew there were terrorist ties to Al-Qeada? It seems much more obvious that they would simply display that evidence and use the tremendous international support for the "War on Terror" that existed at the time to justify and rally for an invasion of Iraq. However, to date, there has been no proof putting Al-Qeada controlled bases in Saddam-controlled Iraq and certainly no proof of WMDs in Iraq (which you've already said Bush knew to be a lie anyway).

You f--- wouldn't support the war on terror past Afganhistan, that is why we had to say they had WMD's, oh, and we have found them, mortar and artillery rounds filled with nerve gas, two semi-trailors which were converted to produce chemical weapons, oh, but you guys said that was not enough, you want us to find huge stockpiles of bilogical or chemical weapons, which have been buried in the middle of the Iraqi desert and probably wont be found for years. What about those missiles they fired on Kuwait when the Iraqi War started? Those were banned after Desert Storm, yet they started firing them. Or how about those French weapons that were taken off of dead Iraqi soldiers? The French have been illegally trying to make money off of Iraq since the end of Desert Storm. I still remember when a French tanker was boarded about 6 years ago because it was carrying Iraqi oil which was still banned at the time.

Either way, the point is mute, the US is more powerful than and 2, I would be willing to bet any 3 countries in the world and we have enough power in other countries that no one would dare go to war with us and try to touch the mainland. I see China in maybe 40 years as the only country with the balls or the power to try and go to all out war with the US, and by then the EU might even have enough to actually do more than protest US actions. But one thing is for sure, Canada will still be our b*tch.

The chemical weapons trucks had pesticides on them, not nerve gas, did you ever read the follow up to that story?

PS: Canada is more like the US's little(but more mature) brother. You can bitch at us all you like, but as soon as your back is turned we do our own thing again.

Hey, is the ICC going to charge the people who used the "Food for Oil program" to steal from the Iraqi people and line Saddam's and their pockets.

The USA is a sovereign nation and should NEVER open that Pandora's Box of letting other Nations try American soldiers for "war crimes". Not till you pry our gun from our dead cold hand.

If you guys don't go by the geneva convention and other laws concerning war crimes, then you don't have the right to comlain when other soldiers rape and torture American soldiers.

+++++++++++++++++++++++

The soldiers that committed the abuses are being Court Marshalled as we debate this. Did any American Soldiers cut off any heads, cut up civilians and hang them from a bridge? Mmmm I didn't think so.

I'll take wearing woman's panties on my head over losing my head any day.

Hey, is the ICC going to charge the people who used the "Food for Oil program" to steal from the Iraqi people and line Saddam's and their pockets.

The USA is a sovereign nation and should NEVER open that Pandora's Box of letting other Nations try American soldiers for "war crimes". Not till you pry our gun from our dead cold hand.

If you guys don't go by the geneva convention and other laws concerning war crimes, then you don't have the right to comlain when other soldiers rape and torture American soldiers.

+++++++++++++++++++++++

The soldiers that committed the abuses are being Court Marshalled as we debate this. Did any American Soldiers cut off any heads, cut up civilians and hang them from a bridge? Mmmm I didn't think so.

I'll take wearing woman's panties on my head over losing my head any day.

Usually there are consequences for "accidentally" snapping someones neck (not in the US army though).
Those court martials are a joke at best. One year for torture and rape? Not even in my country, which is one of the most liberal in the world, would a court be so lenient.

The Military admits to 37 deaths of prisoners in custody. Cutting off someones head, beating someone to death... Not really much difference, the results are the same.

Hey, is the ICC going to charge the people who used the "Food for Oil program" to steal from the Iraqi people and line Saddam's and their pockets.

The USA is a sovereign nation and should NEVER open that Pandora's Box of letting other Nations try American soldiers for "war crimes". Not till you pry our gun from our dead cold hand.

If you guys don't go by the geneva convention and other laws concerning war crimes, then you don't have the right to comlain when other soldiers rape and torture American soldiers.

+++++++++++++++++++++++

The soldiers that committed the abuses are being Court Marshalled as we debate this.
It will be interesting to see how severe the penalties are?


Did any American Soldiers cut off any heads,
That was an act that Al-Queda has claimed responsibility for and from what I understand, a few of those involved have been captured by US forces.


cut up civilians and hang them from a bridge? Mmmm I didn't think so.
From what I understand, those actions were committed by Iraqi civilians. The US kinda replied to these actions by those civilians by laying siege to Fallujah and over 600 Iraqis were killed in the process. So 150 to 1 ratio is adequate compensation?


I'll take wearing woman's panties on my head over losing my head any day.
If it were only so simple as you state. Far worse atrocities were carried out on those prisoners, up to and including the death of some. I believe the number of dead prisoners totals around 30 so far.

Besides, Tumaniaa stated it correctly:


If you guys don't go by the geneva convention and other laws concerning war crimes, then you don't have the right to complain when other soldiers rape and torture American soldiers.

What concerns me is the fact that you make a big deal out of the beheading of an American, yet you want to trivialize the brutal punishment that some Iraqis received at the hands of US troops and/or intelligence agents. Why is that?

What could they possibly do to us? Fine us? We won't pay anyways.

Why should the American taxpayer have to pay for the problems of his government?

The American taxpayer is the one who allowed the current government in, thus if the mass of Americans dont support the government for what they are doing they should never of voted for them. A bit of research is needed bofore you vote!

Hey, is the ICC going to charge the people who used the "Food for Oil program" to steal from the Iraqi people and line Saddam's and their pockets.

The USA is a sovereign nation and should NEVER open that Pandora's Box of letting other Nations try American soldiers for "war crimes". Not till you pry our gun from our dead cold hand.

If you guys don't go by the geneva convention and other laws concerning war crimes, then you don't have the right to comlain when other soldiers rape and torture American soldiers.

+++++++++++++++++++++++

The soldiers that committed the abuses are being Court Marshalled as we debate this.
It will be interesting to see how severe the penalties are?


Did any American Soldiers cut off any heads,
That was an act that Al-Queda has claimed responsibility for and from what I understand, a few of those involved have been captured by US forces.


cut up civilians and hang them from a bridge? Mmmm I didn't think so.
From what I understand, those actions were committed by Iraqi civilians. The US kinda replied to these actions by those civilians by laying siege to Fallujah and over 600 Iraqis were killed in the process. So 150 to 1 ratio is adequate compensation?


I'll take wearing woman's panties on my head over losing my head any day.
If it were only so simple as you state. Far worse atrocities were carried out on those prisoners, up to and including the death of some. I believe the number of dead prisoners totals around 30 so far.

Besides, Tumaniaa stated it correctly:


If you guys don't go by the geneva convention and other laws concerning war crimes, then you don't have the right to complain when other soldiers rape and torture American soldiers.

What concerns me is the fact that you make a big deal out of the beheading of an American, yet you want to trivialize the brutal punishment that some Iraqis received at the hands of US troops and/or intelligence agents. Why is that?

++++++++++++++

I am not trivializing, I am trying to show that some things are abuse and others are torture. How many of the 30 odd deaths were caused by American soldiers/operatives? How many American soldiers died trying to clean out the rats nest in Fallujah?

I do not condone abuse or torture, nor do I equate abuse with torture. At present you wish to paint with a large paintbrush over all US soldiers by the acts of 12 (present count). The US Military Justise system is quick and fair. We do not have to go by the Geneva Convention - what these people did was against our laws.

I do not blame all Iraqis for the torture of Americans - just the few that participated in it. Nor do I blame Mr. Rumsfeld or President Bush.

I didn't say the american people were bad. I get the impression they're blinded by the governents propaganda and I think they are not questioning what they are told. After all, the american governent has always been a master of mass manipulation by media, but in times of the internet it's IMO more easyly possible to get a less manipulated view on the world. I see tis every day as important things (like the software patents desaster) don't even appear in the news or paper or anything but at the internet they do.
Of course, the info needs to be examined closely, but still it's valuable.

So I understand that the average citizen actually thought it was the right thing to do (while the rest of the world wasn't sure) because the governent told them something not entirely reliable. The current Bush administration looks like a very obvious case of constand lying, but I'm sure most other administrations have simply been more subtle.

I therefore only wish that the average citizen would not blindly trust the governent anymore. This way, government corruption would not have that much of an effect.

Here's what I don't get. If the American public is so blinded by their government's manipulation of the mass media, what about all the other countries out there with less freedom of press than in America? Yeah, those quasi-dictatorships and socialist countries are totally not affected by their governments. Yeah, that's the ticket.

I didn't say the american people were bad. I get the impression they're blinded by the governents propaganda and I think they are not questioning what they are told. After all, the american governent has always been a master of mass manipulation by media, but in times of the internet it's IMO more easyly possible to get a less manipulated view on the world. I see tis every day as important things (like the software patents desaster) don't even appear in the news or paper or anything but at the internet they do.
Of course, the info needs to be examined closely, but still it's valuable.

So I understand that the average citizen actually thought it was the right thing to do (while the rest of the world wasn't sure) because the governent told them something not entirely reliable. The current Bush administration looks like a very obvious case of constand lying, but I'm sure most other administrations have simply been more subtle.

I therefore only wish that the average citizen would not blindly trust the governent anymore. This way, government corruption would not have that much of an effect.

Here's what I don't get. If the American public is so blinded by their government's manipulation of the mass media, what about all the other countries out there with less freedom of press than in America? Yeah, those quasi-dictatorships and socialist countries are totally not affected by their governments. Yeah, that's the ticket.

You say socialist like it's a bad thing.

Hey, is the ICC going to charge the people who used the "Food for Oil program" to steal from the Iraqi people and line Saddam's and their pockets.

The USA is a sovereign nation and should NEVER open that Pandora's Box of letting other Nations try American soldiers for "war crimes". Not till you pry our gun from our dead cold hand.

If you guys don't go by the geneva convention and other laws concerning war crimes, then you don't have the right to comlain when other soldiers rape and torture American soldiers.

+++++++++++++++++++++++

The soldiers that committed the abuses are being Court Marshalled as we debate this.
It will be interesting to see how severe the penalties are?


Did any American Soldiers cut off any heads,
That was an act that Al-Queda has claimed responsibility for and from what I understand, a few of those involved have been captured by US forces.


cut up civilians and hang them from a bridge? Mmmm I didn't think so.
From what I understand, those actions were committed by Iraqi civilians. The US kinda replied to these actions by those civilians by laying siege to Fallujah and over 600 Iraqis were killed in the process. So 150 to 1 ratio is adequate compensation?


I'll take wearing woman's panties on my head over losing my head any day.
If it were only so simple as you state. Far worse atrocities were carried out on those prisoners, up to and including the death of some. I believe the number of dead prisoners totals around 30 so far.

Besides, Tumaniaa stated it correctly:


If you guys don't go by the geneva convention and other laws concerning war crimes, then you don't have the right to complain when other soldiers rape and torture American soldiers.

What concerns me is the fact that you make a big deal out of the beheading of an American, yet you want to trivialize the brutal punishment that some Iraqis received at the hands of US troops and/or intelligence agents. Why is that?

++++++++++++++


I am not trivializing, I am trying to show that some things are abuse and others are torture.
I beg to differ. You are suggesting that Iraqis are only being forced to wear panties, when in fact the punishment has been far worse than that, up to and including death. Some according to the report at the start of this section died as a result of being beaten about the head. So it is not a simple case of an Iraqi wearing panties. All of these deaths are serious matters and equal given the result.


How many of the 30 odd deaths were caused by American soldiers/operatives?
That is still under investigation.

How many American soldiers died trying to clean out the rats nest in Fallujah?
What has this got to do with anything?

I do not condone abuse or torture, nor do I equate abuse with torture. At present you wish to paint with a large paintbrush over all US soldiers by the acts of 12 (present count).
It is noble not to condone abuse or torture. Where have I painted ALL US troops as being guilty of war crimes?

The US Military Justise system is quick and fair. We do not have to go by the Geneva Convention - what these people did was against our laws.
What US troops are doing is against the Geneva Conventions, and how does American law apply in the sovereign state of Iraq?
[
I do not blame all Iraqis for the torture of Americans - just the few that participated in it.
Some of the other posters have suggested otherwise and called for the extermination of all Iraqis for retribution.

Nor do I blame Mr. Rumsfeld or President Bush.
I certainly blame Bush for invading Iraq in the first place. Whether he or Rumsfield had any knowledge about the abuse in Iraq remains to be seen. At least one respected American journalist has suggested that there was in fact complicity.

You f--- wouldn't support the war on terror past Afganhistan,

First off, don't you dare swear at me. Anything you say after that loses impact because you are obviously incapable of phrasing your argument in any manner approaching civilized discourse.

As for supporting the war on terror past Afghanistan, I'm not sure I even agreed with that. Then again, I'm a pacifist for both religious and rational reasons, so I don't support war. However, even if I did, I have serious trouble with an open ended conflict which we are expected to keep ponying up money for and simply take our leaders word that they're going after the right targets. May I just point out that, four years into this grand and glorious crusade on terror, we still have caught few if any of Al-Qaeda's top men and most certainly have not aprehended Osama? Support for a war comes only when the government is true. If they had sufficient reason to pursue the conflict into Iraq, then they should have stuck with that and trusted that it would have garnered them enough support. Instead they lied. You admitted it. They've now admitteded it. A single old shell full of a small amount or Sarin certainly doesn't qualify as a weapon of mass destruction. I don't support a government that lies. The Republican's tried to get Clinton impeached for a lesser lie, so why is this one where people are dying any better?

So, you're right, in a way. I didn't support invading Iraq on some shady rationale based on smoke and mirrors and I don't believe this administration is worthy of serving the US public because they lied.



that is why we had to say they had WMD's,

There is no excuse to justify a lie. Period.


oh, and we have found them, mortar and artillery rounds filled with nerve gas, two semi-trailors which were converted to produce chemical weapons, oh, but you guys said that was not enough, you want us to find huge stockpiles of bilogical or chemical weapons,

YEAH, WE DO. You want to know why? Because the whole reason we were told we had to go to war in Iraq (which you know admit was a lie) was because they presented a CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER. One single shell of unknown origin and age with a small amout of Sarin gas presents more clear and present danger to the person who's getting ready to fire it than to us, but this is the best they've been able to come up with. How DARE you suggest that it's enough to justify the invasion of a sovergn nation, the besoiling of the American National Reputation and the murder of thousands of innocent Iraqis and Americans. You seem to hold human life pretty damn cheap.


which have been buried in the middle of the Iraqi desert and probably wont be found for years.

Proof? Evidence? Anything? So far you've said over and over that we never thought they actually had them and the only reason we said that was to galvanize support for an unwarrented invasion. Now you're saying that they're there but buried in the middle of the desert. So which is it? Are they there or aren't they?


What about those missiles they fired on Kuwait when the Iraqi War started? Those were banned after Desert Storm, yet they started firing them.

No, those missles were not banned after Desert Storm. There is no reason to believe they were the type banned by the agreement that ended the Desert Storm conflict as they were fired well within the range that Iraqis were still allowed to have. Besides, THEY WERE NOT AN IMMEDIATE DANGER TO US UNTIL WE CROSSED INTO THEIR TERRITORY. Again, it's either a lie or deliberate and gross incompetence.
Either way, the Bush Administration is out of control and the war in Iraq should have NEVER happened.


Or how about those French weapons that were taken off of dead Iraqi soldiers?

That Sarin shell you were so happy about was AMERICAN. Because we sold it to them back in the Iran-Iraq war.


The French have been illegally trying to make money off of Iraq since the end of Desert Storm.

Yes, well, we made our money off of them before Desert Storm so why should we begrudge the French earning some sheckles?


I still remember when a French tanker was boarded about 6 years ago because it was carrying Iraqi oil which was still banned at the time.

So what? This justifies the wholesale slaughter of both us and them over there with no end in sight and no reason to believe we have done anything more than completely destabilize a shaky reason?


Either way, the point is mute, the US is more powerful than and 2, I would be willing to bet any 3 countries in the world and we have enough power in other countries that no one would dare go to war with us and try to touch the mainland.

How dare you use the justification of "might makes right" and then claim to be an American? The whole of our society was founded and based on the protection of individual rights and freedoms, the idea that all men are created equal and deserve fair and equal treatment. This is one hundred and fifty percent AGAINST the whole "might makes right" way of thought. Just because we are the most powerful (right now...theoretically), does not make our actions any less criminal or deplorable and the fact that you seem to think it does speaks to your own corrupt sense of morality than to any sort of pure truth. We have failed our own citizens and the Iraqi citizens miserably in our rush to make a colonial land grab and history will hold this out and when people in the future read about our era, this is what will be remembered and it will not be glorious. It will be shameful.


I see China in maybe 40 years as the only country with the balls or the power to try and go to all out war with the US, and by then the EU might even have enough to actually do more than protest US actions. But one thing is for sure, Canada will still be our b*tch.

You know, I started writing this post before I read that last line. Had I read it, I wouldn't have bothered. You're obviously a twit and trying to have a discussion with you is pointless.

Hey, is the ICC going to charge the people who used the "Food for Oil program" to steal from the Iraqi people and line Saddam's and their pockets.

The USA is a sovereign nation and should NEVER open that Pandora's Box of letting other Nations try American soldiers for "war crimes". Not till you pry our gun from our dead cold hand.

If you guys don't go by the geneva convention and other laws concerning war crimes, then you don't have the right to comlain when other soldiers rape and torture American soldiers.

I disagree. As many people have pointed out before, simply because one side breaks the law, doesn't shatter it for all sides, including the side that originally broke the law. If a US solider is tortured and raped, it is still as reprehensibile a crime as when we do it to other soldiers. What is wrong is always wrong, regardless of who does it, who it's done to and what blood they may have on their hands.

Hey, is the ICC going to charge the people who used the "Food for Oil program" to steal from the Iraqi people and line Saddam's and their pockets.

The USA is a sovereign nation and should NEVER open that Pandora's Box of letting other Nations try American soldiers for "war crimes". Not till you pry our gun from our dead cold hand.

If you guys don't go by the geneva convention and other laws concerning war crimes, then you don't have the right to comlain when other soldiers rape and torture American soldiers.

+++++++++++++++++++++++

The soldiers that committed the abuses are being Court Marshalled as we debate this. Did any American Soldiers cut off any heads, cut up civilians and hang them from a bridge? Mmmm I didn't think so.

I'll take wearing woman's panties on my head over losing my head any day.

The point is you shouldn't have to choose between either of those things if you are a POW and certainly if you're just a private citizen either wrongly arrested or kidnapped.

The Military admits to 37 deaths of prisoners in custody. Cutting off someones head, beating someone to death... Not really much difference, the results are the same.

Where did you get that number? The last I heard they had only admitted to two wrongful deaths and were investigating about 20 others that happend while prisoners in custody. I'm not disputing that number, I'd just like to know where it came from.

I really should tell Amnesty my new address so they can send me newsletters again; I had no idea that the US has an exemption.

Put simply, I find it unacceptable that the US should be held above justice. And at the risk of diverting the thread a little, I'll provide this interesting link to a Michael Berg comment...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1221644,00.html

Apologies if it's been posted before, I've not been on general in a while.

Were the ICC used in a truly unbiased fashion, then it could be a wonderful tool for all countries in this world. But as it stands currently, I would never wish to see Americans tried in front of them. I have a recurring fear that the ICC would make an example of an American and it just frightens me to no end. Unfortunately, I hold little belief that the Bush Administration would provide any less bias in holding those guilty of criminal action responsible, unless they do so with political intent in mind. As we're currently seeing, the low man on the totem pole is going to get the brunt of the punishment while those who gave the orders will be allowed to fly free. Where is the happy medium? Do we allow the Bush Adminstration to dole out judgment in such a manner or do we allow the ICC to do such, knowing the potential hostile repercussions that might take place? To quote from a favorite movie of mine, that's not exactly a soup question.

Another wrench into the system stems from the fact that it may be civilians who are to blame for what is currently transpiring in Iraq. If anyone looks, they will find a presidential order signed by Bush that exempts civilian contractors from any legal wrongdoing in Iraq. That is sickening, but it is the harsh reality that we do have to face. I'd like to believe that we will hold those who are guilty accountable for their actions without ICC involvement, but it may end up being a necessary evil that America allows the ICC in, if only to improve the image we're projecting around the world.

West Pacific, I'd respond to what you had to say but I think Berkylvania said it better. I especially agree with his assessment that anyone who feels it necessary to use profanity to strengthen their argument generally don't have an argument to begin with.

++++++++++++++


I am not trivializing, I am trying to show that some things are abuse and others are torture.
I beg to differ. You are suggesting that Iraqis are only being forced to wear panties, when in fact the punishment has been far worse than that, up to and including death. Some according to the report at the start of this section died as a result of being beaten about the head. So it is not a simple case of an Iraqi wearing panties. All of these deaths are serious matters and equal given the result.
**********
I have yet to see any evidence of these supposed deaths by the hands of American soldiers.
**********

How many of the 30 odd deaths were caused by American soldiers/operatives?
That is still under investigation.

How many American soldiers died trying to clean out the rats nest in Fallujah?
What has this got to do with anything?
**********
150 to 1... remember?
**********


I do not condone abuse or torture, nor do I equate abuse with torture. At present you wish to paint with a large paintbrush over all US soldiers by the acts of 12 (present count).
It is noble not to condone abuse or torture. Where have I painted ALL US troops as being guilty of war crimes?
********
By inference.
********


The US Military Justise system is quick and fair. We do not have to go by the Geneva Convention - what these people did was against our laws.
What US troops are doing is against the Geneva Conventions, and how does American law apply in the sovereign state of Iraq?
***********
Iraq is not a sovereign state. Presently it is an occupied state. Someone killed their leaders that were to help setup a new government.
***********

[
I do not blame all Iraqis for the torture of Americans - just the few that participated in it.
Some of the other posters have suggested otherwise and called for the extermination of all Iraqis for retribution.

Nor do I blame Mr. Rumsfeld or President Bush.
I certainly blame Bush for invading Iraq in the first place. Whether he or Rumsfield had any knowledge about the abuse in Iraq remains to be seen. At least one respected American journalist has suggested that there was in fact complicity.[/quote]

Where have I heard that statement before? Funny how seldom the "journalist" backs up their reports with facts. Most do not even say "Hehehe - oops sorry I made a mistake.

If the US breaks the law, it should be tried as just.

I think that the bottom line is this: The US simply doesn't trust the ICC to be unbiased. Period. Why would we trust an organization to honestly represent the interests of the world when people have made it quite clear they would love to see President Bush put on trial for things so trivial that it makes the UN look pro-US? It's just silly, if you ask me.

I think that the bottom line is this: The US simply doesn't trust the ICC to be unbiased. Period. Why would we trust an organization to honestly represent the interests of the world when people have made it quite clear they would love to see President Bush put on trial for things so trivial that it makes the UN look pro-US? It's just silly, if you ask me.

++++++
Aahhh! A breathe of fresh air.

U.S. citizens have a Constitution that protects their rights - not perfectly but a whole lot better than you would get from the ICC.

We can wash our own dirty laundry - we do not need other nations instructing us on how to do it.

The United States of America is a sovereign nation and should NEVER give up it's sovereignty to any other nation without a fight, and I do not mean with words.

If the US breaks the law, it should be tried as just.

++++++++++++++

Who's law?

International law? The US didn't break any international laws.

I think that the bottom line is this: The US simply doesn't trust the ICC to be unbiased. Period. Why would we trust an organization to honestly represent the interests of the world when people have made it quite clear they would love to see President Bush put on trial for things so trivial that it makes the UN look pro-US? It's just silly, if you ask me.

++++++
Aahhh! A breathe of fresh air.

U.S. citizens have a Constitution that protects their rights - not perfectly but a whole lot better than you would get from the ICC.

We can wash our own dirty laundry - we do not need other nations instructing us on how to do it.

The United States of America is a sovereign nation and should NEVER give up it's sovereignty to any other nation without a fight, and I do not mean with words.

So let me get this straight - Saddam Hussein is alleged to break international law, the U.S response: Invade and occupy.

The U.S breaks international law, the response: "Ah don't bother with that whole international law business, we've got our own laws that are really good and the whole thing is run by a bunch of people that hate our country anyway".

Since it's inception two years ago, the United States has enjoyed special exemption from prosecution for war crimes by the ICC. This is a yearly waiver and the current one runs out at the end of June. Last week, the US began lobbying the UN Security Council to extend the waiver another year. The vote was set to happen last Friday, but was delayed as the Chinese delegate needed word from Beijing on how to vote.

Obviously, in the wake of the prison abuse scandal, many countries are having second thoughts about allowing this extension. When it was passed last year, Kofi Annan even said this should not become an annual event. The US Deputy Ambassador to the UN has sworn that those involved in the scandal would be punished under US law. Many nations are still hesitant, though.

The specifics of the waiver are that, as the US is the only superpower left in the world, to allow members of it's forces serving on UN-backed peacekeeping mission would generate a huge number of wrongfully-filed lawsuits. As the US troops currently in Iraq are not, I believe, on official 'UN peacekeeping duty', this waiver would seemingly not apply to them in any event. I may be wrong in this interpretation, however.

It's also interesting to note that a Jacques Verges, a French lawyer who's previous clients included Klaus Barbie, Carlos the Jackal and Slobodan Milosevic, and who claims to have been asked to defend Saddam Hussein, intends to file a suit against the UK at the ICC over Iraqi detainee abuse. This suit carefully leaves out the US in direct prosecution, although Verges definitely links both the US and the UK together in his rationale. The suit, filed by Verges "on behalf of the familes of the prisoners," claims the UK is bound by the ICC, unlike the US, so may be brought up on charges.
As good an idea as the ICC is, it unfortunatly can't work. Verges is just the latest example of US fears on the ICC: Americans and American troops will be prosecuted simply because they're from the US. Whatever Verges actually feels about US policy, he knows that with the ICC in place, he can pick on foreign nations helping the US, as that'll bring him in money. If this waiver isn't extended, he, and others, will file lawsuits at rapid-fire pace.
I also doubt if an ICC will be truely unbiased. As the US is only one nation, and the other 181 want to be the next superpower, this court may be just a session of picking US nationales apart, ultimately making it unsafe for US citizens to travel outside the US, unless they want to possibly be targeted by greedy lawyers and biased judges. As they are also picking on our allies, the ICC would be better off not existing.

I think that the bottom line is this: The US simply doesn't trust the ICC to be unbiased. Period. Why would we trust an organization to honestly represent the interests of the world when people have made it quite clear they would love to see President Bush put on trial for things so trivial that it makes the UN look pro-US? It's just silly, if you ask me.

++++++
Aahhh! A breathe of fresh air.

U.S. citizens have a Constitution that protects their rights - not perfectly but a whole lot better than you would get from the ICC.

We can wash our own dirty laundry - we do not need other nations instructing us on how to do it.

The United States of America is a sovereign nation and should NEVER give up it's sovereignty to any other nation without a fight, and I do not mean with words.

Then I'll put the question to you again because no one has seen fit to answer it. Knowing that the ICC is a venue of last resort that only steps in when a country can not or will not investigate charges and knowing that the US is a country of laws that claims to be spreading globally the laws the ICC is designed to uphold, then why is there any conflict? It should just be a mere formality because, if we are as up and up as we claim, we should never be in conflict with the ICC. It's the same rationale that gave rise to the Patriot Act: If you're innocent, you have nothing to fear.

So, which is it? Are we innocent, but hypocritical, forcing other nations to abide by the ICC but considering ourselves above it? Are we guilty and just covering it up? Or are we innocent and just concerned of the number of false charges that will be made against us?

I think that the bottom line is this: The US simply doesn't trust the ICC to be unbiased. Period. Why would we trust an organization to honestly represent the interests of the world when people have made it quite clear they would love to see President Bush put on trial for things so trivial that it makes the UN look pro-US? It's just silly, if you ask me.

++++++
Aahhh! A breathe of fresh air.

U.S. citizens have a Constitution that protects their rights - not perfectly but a whole lot better than you would get from the ICC.

We can wash our own dirty laundry - we do not need other nations instructing us on how to do it.

The United States of America is a sovereign nation and should NEVER give up it's sovereignty to any other nation without a fight, and I do not mean with words.

Then I'll put the question to you again because no one has seen fit to answer it. Knowing that the ICC is a venue of last resort that only steps in when a country can not or will not investigate charges and knowing that the US is a country of laws that claims to be spreading globally the laws the ICC is designed to uphold, then why is there any conflict? It should just be a mere formality because, if we are as up and up as we claim, we should never be in conflict with the ICC. It's the same rationale that gave rise to the Patriot Act: If you're innocent, you have nothing to fear.

So, which is it? Are we innocent, but hypocritical, forcing other nations to abide by the ICC but considering ourselves above it? Are we guilty and just covering it up? Or are we innocent and just concerned of the number of false charges that will be made against us?

++++++++++++++

The United States is not a party of the ICC - we thankfully have not ratified a treaty to be part of the ICC. We did not force any other States to join the ICC. Hence we cannot be a hypocrit.

I do not like the Patriot Act and it should be repealed or modified to insure that it will not be abused like the Racketeering Act is.

Being innocent does not stop anyone from bringing suit and wasting your time and money to defend yourself. If that Pandora's Box is never opened then you do not have to worry about it. Ideas like the ICC sound good but you end up getting screwed by the pooch.

I'll agree to a Global Government when it has a Constitution like ours. Till then, let's withdraw from the UN, and never join the ICC.

The United States is not a party of the ICC - we thankfully have not ratified a treaty to be part of the ICC. We did not force any other States to join the ICC. Hence we cannot be a hypocrit.


I'll agree to a Global Government when it has a Constitution like ours. Till then, let's withdraw from the UN, and never join the ICC.

Since you don’t feel that the US has to answer to the ICC and should not answer to the UN, that would imply that the US would be above ALL other legal jurisdictions.

When you really think about all of the possible negative ramifications of withdrawing from the UN, I am quite sure that you will realize that it would not be in the best interests of the US to do so.

Giving the USA an 'exemption' would give the ICC publicity and legitimacy it doesn't need or deserve. Let's just ignore the self-righteous monkeys at the Hague.

i don't see how we can pretend to support international law on the one hand, and pretend to be above it on the other. i think the u.s. needs to come clean one way or the other.

of course there are those who want all nations to be above any law and so don't even want any sort of international law to exist.

but if one takes that possition, then where is the ligitimacy of any claim to be enforcing it?

=^^=
.../\...

First one to vote yes.

And if its not extended, we'll just ignore it anyway.

You cant ignore a UN resolution.

You cant do whatever you like.

America is in serious jeopardy of losing all its allies in europe.

China is pissed off with america
Most of europe is pissed of with america
Britain is pissed of with america, and even good old tony's having doubts

So, no you cant ignore the ICC, 'cos the rest of hte worls willl come down on you like a ton of bricks.

You cant ignore a UN resolution.

Why not - Saddam Hussein did.


You cant do whatever you like.

If noone stops you - you sure can!


America is in serious jeopardy of losing all its allies in europe.

China is pissed off with america
Most of europe is pissed of with america
Britain is pissed of with america, and even good old tony's having doubts

So, no you cant ignore the ICC, 'cos the rest of hte worls willl come down on you like a ton of bricks.

Please name your factual sources. There are none.

Giving the USA an 'exemption' would give the ICC publicity and legitimacy it doesn't need or deserve. Let's just ignore the self-righteous monkeys at the Hague.

Too bad the rest of the world can't ignore the self-righteous monkeys in the White House.

You cant ignore a UN resolution.

You cant do whatever you like.

America is in serious jeopardy of losing all its allies in europe.

China is pissed off with america
Most of europe is pissed of with america
Britain is pissed of with america, and even good old tony's having doubts

So, no you cant ignore the ICC, 'cos the rest of hte worls willl come down on you like a ton of bricks.Wow, someone who actually thinks the UN has any real power in the real world. When has the UN seriously come down on anyone like 'a ton of bricks'? They talk smack, but can't enforce their own referendums. They are a virtually powerless community without US enforcement. America is not losing any allies in Europe - this is just one more case of someone believing too much the propoganda of the 'talking heads' media reports. Most of those reports don't even come from journalists in the field but from speculators with no real credibility.