NationStates Jolt Archive

After making a big fuss in the UN about the alleged genocide in the Darfur province of Sudan, the US has backtracked and decided that bringing people to trial is a bad idea. Its reason is its long-held opposition to the idea of an international war crimes court.

Quick to point the finger, reluctant to act. Seems that yet again the US is every bit as guilty of spouting empty ineffectual rhetoric as the UN. :rolleyes:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/4225353.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/4226067.stm

After making a big fuss in the UN about the alleged genocide in the Darfur province of Sudan, the US has backtracked and decided that bringing people to trial is a bad idea. Its reason is its long-held opposition to the idea of an international war crimes court.
The idea was to get it to stop, not hold silly trials in the ICC. Holding trials will have little to no effect on the violence. Maybe 5-20 years down the road you MIGHT see an effect.

The US is not opposed to intervening in Sudan, or even to a trial. Only to the ICC. It's a fact that the UN is far from an impartial body and the ICC could be used as a weapon against the USA.

The idea was to get it to stop, not hold silly trials in the ICC. Holding trials will have little to no effect on the violence. Maybe 5-20 years down the road you MIGHT see an effect.

There was no intention then, to attempt to deter any other ethnic cleansing program that might arise elsewhere, by punishing the perpetrators?

Reluctant to act? The US just doesn't want to legitimize the ICC in the slightest. America is perfectly willing to punish the badguys.

The US is not opposed to intervening in Sudan, or even to a trial. Only to the ICC. It's a fact that the UN is far from an impartial body and the ICC could be used as a weapon against the USA.
Please explain how the International Criminal Court could be used as a weapon against the USA. By holding them up to the same standards as everyone else? Typical American whining.

The US is not opposed to intervening in Sudan, or even to a trial. Only to the ICC. It's a fact that the UN is far from an impartial body and the ICC could be used as a weapon against the USA.


As opposed to politically defined "special courts" such as they want for the Sudan.... because we all know that the politicians who vote to set up these courts ARE impartial - unlike the ICC...

I mean, after all - there have never been any politically-motivatd tribunals or special investigations in US (or any other democracy's) history, so what's to worry about?

:p

Reluctant to act? The US just doesn't want to legitimize the ICC in the slightest. America is perfectly willing to punish the badguys.
Though not through legitimate means, such as recognised international bodies created by UN treaty. Always on its own terms. It strikes me as rather selfish, considering it is not the US which is suffering here. :(

Please explain how the International Criminal Court could be used as a weapon against the USA. By holding them up to the same standards as everyone else? *snip unnecessary snipping*

I too, am curious as to how a court of justice can be used as a weapon against a state, unless that state is doing unjust things of course. :)

Reluctant to act? The US just doesn't want to legitimize the ICC in the slightest. America is perfectly willing to punish the badguys.
Under what laws? The US has no jurisdiction in Sudan; the ICC, by treaty, does. And the ICC is a perfectly legitimate body. What the US doesn't want is to adhere to it.

I'm sure that the US could invade Sudan without much trouble. Of course, instead of occupying the country, the US could just kill everyone, and of course, the UN would not be able to say it was "genocide".

Since we wouldn't be taking any prisoners (we could do this all from the air, so that we wouldn't be in the uncomfortable position of having to accept surrenders), there wouldn't be the brouhaha about mistreatment of captured persons.

And no pesky insurgents to kill US soldiers - because we wouldn't put in ground troops and we wouldn't leave anyone alive.

Please explain how the International Criminal Court could be used as a weapon against the USA. By holding them up to the same standards as everyone else? Typical American whining.

Should the UN actually get something to pass "Internationally" like gun control laws, the ICC could then be put against the US, to strip the rights of the citizenry.

Should the UN actually get something to pass "Internationally" like gun control laws, the ICC could then be put against the US, to strip the rights of the citizenry.

Bullshit.

The ICC has a very narrow mandate only to try individuals who have violated certain serious laws in the international arena and crimes against humantiy, and only comes into force should the country of origin refuse to prosecute the offender.

It has no mandate to interfere with domestic laws whatsoever.

Then why do so many Democrats in the US want to establish "laws" at the level of the UN that would essentially strip the US citizens of their gun rights?

It's not world government, and so much is written into its charter that it's essentially inert.

Should the UN actually get something to pass "Internationally" like gun control laws, the ICC could then be put against the US, to strip the rights of the citizenry.

The jurisdiction of the ICC is severely limited. It covers:
Link (http://www.icc-cpi.int/library/about/officialjournal/Rome_Statute_120704-EN.pdf)
PART 2. JURISDICTION, ADMISSIBILITY AND APPLICABLE LAW
Article 5
Crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court
1. The jurisdiction of the Court shall be limited to the most serious crimes of concern to the
international community as a whole. The Court has jurisdiction in accordance with this Statute
with respect to the following crimes:
(a) The crime of genocide;
(b) Crimes against humanity;
(c) War crimes;
(d) The crime of aggression.
2. The Court shall exercise jurisdiction over the crime of aggression once a provision is adopted in accordance with articles 121 and 123 defining the crime and setting out the conditions under which the Court shall exercise jurisdiction with respect to this crime. Such a provision shall be consistent with the relevant provisions of the Charter of the United Nations.

I fail to see how this could possibly threaten the sovereignty of any state.

Then why do so many Democrats in the US want to establish "laws" at the level of the UN that would essentially strip the US citizens of their gun rights?

It's not world government, and so much is written into its charter that it's essentially inert.


Frankly I have never heard that "so many" of the Democrats are attempting to establish laws at the UN level in order to affect domestic policy. The lobbyists on that issue seem to target your domestic institutions which is the correct place to be targetting their efforts because, as you mention, the UN is NOT a world government.


It's not supposed to be one, it was never supposed to be one, and it never will be one - despite what certain people still think and invent silly conspiracy theories about.

You should read more Chuck Schumer and Dianne Feinstein.

If you kept up to date on their positions, you would notice that since they can't get the legislation to eliminate guns through the Federal government, they want to somehow get the UN involved.

Please explain how the International Criminal Court could be used as a weapon against the USA. By holding them up to the same standards as everyone else? Typical American whining.
By bringing unjust accusations of warcrimes and crimes of aggression. It would be used by unfriendly regimes to harras and attempt to discredit us.

There was no intention then, to attempt to deter any other ethnic cleansing program that might arise elsewhere, by punishing the perpetrators?
Beating the shit out of them would probably work, at least as well as anything else anyway.

By bringing unjust accusations of warcrimes and crimes of aggression. It would be used by unfriendly regimes to harras and attempt to discredit us.

If they were unjust accusations, you would want that to be shown clearly in a neutral, (i.e. non US) court, wouldn't you?

The US only wants justice on their terms. But they're not important. This is about Sudanese justice, African justice and Arab justice. Those affected deserve to have their rights acknowledged. The US has no reason to feel affected (only by the fact that it happened, mental shock is different from being raped, dogged and persecuted). This incident is why the ICC was created, and it's not concerning the USA in any bit. If Sudan needs justice, the ICC will bring it to them. If the USA needs justice they are on their own. Their can neither be affected nor can they affect the decision of the ICC. Bush's cohorts are sticking their noses where they don't belong.

For that matter, anyone know how the Milosivic trial is proceeding?

Beating the shit out of them would probably work, at least as well as anything else anyway.

Then you become the cleansers, maybe not ethnic, but simply saying, we are stronger, ergo you are wrong, is exactly what these groups are doing in their own countries. How does "beating the shit out of them" do anything but reinforce the idea that might is right?

For that matter, anyone know how the Milosivic trial is proceeding?

Different court. Not the ICC, but the International Court at The Hague.
Current situation see here (http://www.un.org/icty/glance/milosevic.htm)

Then you become the cleansers, maybe not ethnic, but simply saying, we are stronger, ergo you are wrong, is exactly what these groups are doing in their own countries. How does "beating the shit out of them" do anything but reinforce the idea that might is right?
No, we would be saying to the petulant Janjaweed fucks backed by the Khartoum gov. that their reign of killing is over and that they're about to learn what it feels like to have the shit kicked out of them. They obviously can't learn on their own how to treat other humans and so that ability will be forced on them, like it or not.

For that matter, what exactly would the ICC even do? Send them a harshly written letter?

You should read more Chuck Schumer and Dianne Feinstein.

If you kept up to date on their positions, you would notice that since they can't get the legislation to eliminate guns through the Federal government, they want to somehow get the UN involved.


Well, that's two... which hardly comprises "so many". And those two have ALWAYS been very clear on their anti-gun positions. Given that their constituents keep voting them into office, then being active on anti-gun issues wherever available (such as when Feinstein was sent as a delegate to the UN small Arms convention (or whatever it was called)), then they are serving their constituency by living up to their positions.

That being said, if a person is anti-gun and wants to also work in that area at the UN then it has no real bearing on the issue internal to the US. A UN treaty only matters to your country if you elect to ratify it.

So the fact that people like Feinstein work on this issue from that point of view in both the international and domestic arenas should be construed as largely seperate items. They only overlap should they make successfull headway in both venues, which clearly is unlikely within the US.

No, we would be saying to the petulant Janjaweed fucks backed by the Khartoum gov. that their reign of killing is over and that they're about to learn what it feels like to have the shit kicked out of them. They obviously can't learn on their own how to treat other humans and so that ability will be forced on them, like it or not.

Substitute the words Janjaweed for Christian Right, and Khartoum for Washington and you have pretty well summed up the way a lot of the world feels about the USA. Using brute force to correct injustice is no solution. It just perpetuates the injustice, creates long term feuds, and otherwise fucks things up. But you won't see or believe that, so carry on thinking that muscle is always the answer.

I'm beginning to wonder what role the UN plays, if any.
And, I'm wondering what the power of ratifying a treaty might be.
Treaties, even after being written, are subject to interpretation.
And a country can always back out of a treaty.

I don't foresee a time in my lifetime when nations will give up their sovereignty to a world government.

If the US and Europe (fat chance, I'm smoking major dope) got together with Russia and China and formed a world government, and then took the rest of the world over by force (economic force or military force), then you could have world government.

But you would also have world tyranny.

Substitute the words Janjaweed for Christian Right, and Khartoum for Washington and you have pretty well summed up the way a lot of the world feels about the USA. Using brute force to correct injustice is no solution. It just perpetuates the injustice, creates long term feuds, and otherwise fucks things up. But you won't see or believe that, so carry on thinking that muscle is always the answer.
Really? I wasn't aware we were just butchering people for the hell of it. For that matter, I wasn't aware we were butchering innocents for the hell of it. In fact, I'm failing to see any elections going on in Sudan.

The US only wants justice on their terms. But they're not important. This is about Sudanese justice, African justice and Arab justice. Those affected deserve to have their rights acknowledged. The US has no reason to feel affected (only by the fact that it happened, mental shock is different from being raped, dogged and persecuted). This incident is why the ICC was created, and it's not concerning the USA in any bit. If Sudan needs justice, the ICC will bring it to them. If the USA needs justice they are on their own. Their can neither be affected nor can they affect the decision of the ICC. Bush's cohorts are sticking their noses where they don't belong.Well except that, like the US, Sudan has not ratified the Rome Treaty (creating the ICC). It looks like, given the history of the ICC and the Sudan, that the real purpose of using the ICC to prosecute in Sudan is to establish that the ICC has jurisdiction over nationals of nations which have not accepted the ICC (the US for example).
Thus if the ICC has jurisdiction over the Sudan, it also has jurisdiction over the US.

If we look at the history of international "justice" and the US, there is good reason for the US to want it on the US"s terms, the US has lost every single international case brought by or against it in the World Court, including 2 cases which no body ruling on the merits could have ruled against the US. I suspect if the US wants justice in the ICC, it is indeed on it's own and must resort to violence to obtain it, since it certainly can expect that the ICC (like the World Court) will not rule on the evidence but on the politics. Perhaps this is wrong, and the ICC might be able to render justice to US defendants instead of politics, but the "international community" has refused to agree to any safeguards of this. Indeed, one must wonder why, if the ICC is concerned with rendering justice over politics, it has consistantly refused the US's proposals to ensure that politics is removed from the ICC ruling process.

"U.N. report: Sudan not guilty of genocide
But panel says grave, mass atrocities merit international trials

UNITED NATIONS - Sudan’s government and the Janjaweed militia are not guilty of genocide but did commit mass killings, torture, rape and other atrocities in the Darfur region that merit trials in the International Criminal Court, a U.N.-appointed panel said in a new report."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6890261/

So... in one breath, the UN gives the verdict, in another it asks for a rubber stamp... while it failed to lift a finger to help the region. Why bother with a trial, when this report will no doubt be used to effect the outcome?

-Markreich

Do you know who Queensryche is? Vote here!! : http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=389278

The ICC is nothing more than an extension of the do-nothing UN. The UN has done nothing about the genocide in Sudan, and is trying to absolve itself by placing the responsibility on its next do-nothing organization, the ICC.

The ICC is not trusted by the US. It could conceivably pick up any random US soldier in Iraq and charge them with war crimes. Or do something like these websites seem to relish - charge Bush with war crimes:
Stupidity (http://www.etherzone.com/2002/dewe042302.shtml)
Or this, where Belgium became a venue for charging (insert conservative of your choice) with war crimes:
More Stupidity (Belgian Stupidity)

Substitute the words Janjaweed for Christian Right, and Khartoum for Washington and you have pretty well summed up the way a lot of the world feels about the USA. Using brute force to correct injustice is no solution. It just perpetuates the injustice, creates long term feuds, and otherwise fucks things up. But you won't see or believe that, so carry on thinking that muscle is always the answer.
Brute force is one tool among many to correct injustice. It's sometimes the most effective tool. BTW, the Janjaweed commit an organized campaign of rape and mass murder to drive people they consider inferior by virtue of skin color off of thier land. How is this in any way like the US? If a lot of the world thinks that US/Janjaweed is a good analogy then a lot of the world is retarded.

Should the UN actually get something to pass "Internationally" like gun control laws, the ICC could then be put against the US, to strip the rights of the citizenry.
The UN is not a world government and has no such powers to make or enforce laws like that.

Then why do so many Democrats in the US want to establish "laws" at the level of the UN that would essentially strip the US citizens of their gun rights?
Sorry, I don't know what Democrats in the US do. It sounds highly unusual for members of an opposition party in one country to pushing for global laws such as this.

By bringing unjust accusations of warcrimes and crimes of aggression. It would be used by unfriendly regimes to harras and attempt to discredit us.
1. How is the US any more vulnerable to this sort of thing than any other country?

2. If the accusations were unjust they would quickly be found to be unjust.

Substitute the words Janjaweed for Christian Right, and Khartoum for Washington and you have pretty well summed up the way a lot of the world feels about the USA. Using brute force to correct injustice is no solution.
The Christian Right are annoying, but I don't think they are going around killing people, nor do they have much of an impact on US foreign policy.

2. If the accusations were unjust they would quickly be found to be unjust.



Sorry, no. The ICC doesn't have any safeguards built in to protect against its members acting on their politics instead of evidence.

Just like the rest of the UN. It's the politics that make it impossible for the UN to act in a rational manner. The ICC would just be more of the same.

Really? I wasn't aware we were just butchering people for the hell of it. For that matter, I wasn't aware we were butchering innocents for the hell of it. In fact, I'm failing to see any elections going on in Sudan.

Fair enough, the butchering part has stopped for a while, (the US has an appalling record for civillian casualties in all of its conflicts, maybe justified in some cases, but surely not in all). The bit that goes:

They obviously can't learn on their own how to treat other humans and so that ability will be forced on them, like it or not.

still applies though. The idea that a non US court could decide what is right or wrong, appears to be the problem. If it is not, then please do tell us, what is the problem, from a US patriot point of view, with the ICC.

1. How is the US any more vulnerable to this sort of thing than any other country?

2. If the accusations were unjust they would quickly be found to be unjust.

.
The US is more vulnerable because there are many nations who want superpower status, like China, and who see weakening the US as a step toward realizing their ambitions. Also there is a wave of Anti-Americanism which is not completely justified.

The ICC, like the UN has no real interest in justice, only in politics.

The Christian Right are annoying, but I don't think they are going around killing people, nor do they have much of an impact on US foreign policy.

Please do me the favour of not eliminating the point in your editing of the quote.
:(
Maybe I should have edited Armed Bookworms post to eliminate the killing and butchering part, as the reference I was making was to the "telling others how to live" part.

still applies though. The idea that a non US court could decide what is right or wrong, appears to be the problem. If it is not, then please do tell us, what is the problem, from a US patriot point of view, with the ICC.
Not necessarily a US patriot point of view, but the point of view of the US government: No safeguards that rulings are based upon evidence and facts instead of politics, insufficient safeguards that defendants rights are protected. The US's objections to the Rome Treaty are long standing and well known.

The UN is not a world government and has no such powers to make or enforce laws like that.



Some in our illustrious left-wing Democratic party have advanced the arguement that our Constitution would support such a law passed by the UN -Article VI

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The theory being we get a Democrat for President, and Congress to approve, an international treaty banning private ownership of guns, thereby getting around the much more difficult prospect of amending the Constitution.

The jurisdiction of the ICC is severely limited. It covers:


I fail to see how this could possibly threaten the sovereignty of any state.

For now, it doesn't. I don't like the road it will take, were it to get any sort of "power"

The US is more vulnerable because there are many nations who want superpower status, like China, and who see weakening the US as a step toward realizing their ambitions. Also there is a wave of Anti-Americanism which is not completely justified.

The ICC, like the UN has no real interest in justice, only in politics.

I am pleased to see that you recognise that the wave of anti-americanism is at least partially justified. Only the USA really worries about "superpower" status. Maybe Russia does, but not as much. Other countries really could not give a damn. They are generally more concerned with their own internal politics or with local International politics. The argument that other countries would raise false accusations as a way of weakening the US to raise their own power simply does not proceed. Firstly, if unfounded, they would not weaken the US (International public opinion simply can not get much more opposed to the USA than it is right now), nor would it strengthen, in any way the position of the accuser.

Justice, is inevitably linked to a set of political values. The ICC is rooted in western culture, with the associated concepts of fairness and justice. If the ICC were rooted in Chinese, or Islam culture, then maybe, just maybe, the USA would have a point. However as the USA is one of the main sources of the culture that the ICC is based in, the political argument is simply a waste of space and time.

Fair enough, the butchering part has stopped for a while, (the US has an appalling record for civillian casualties in all of its conflicts, maybe justified in some cases, but surely not in all).

Every conflict is like this. The US, as compared to most other nations has a much better record.

Since WW II, the ratio of civilian to military casualties in a conflict has risen in every conflict - it's not a US problem alone. And the US, unlike other nations, spends more money on making more precise weapons.

There's even a trend now to make the precision bombs ten times smaller, in order to further reduce civilian casualties. The air dropped bomb of the near future will only weigh 100kg instead of 1000kg. And only half of its weight will be actual explosives.

There will be civilian casualties in war, especially since the ONLY way to fight the US and do it any damage at all is to engage in a guerilla and terror war. You can't fight the US as a regular military - you get slaughtered in a matter of days.

Put insurgents and guerillas into conflict - and you're going to get civilian casualties. In fact, you'll get more than if you had a regular military trying to fight the US. Because the US will have to go house to house and that's really hard on the people that just happen to be living there.

So the option is for the US to not fight an insurgency under any circumstances, because someone might get killed. In a war. Thus, to win against the US, you only have to form an insurgency, and then call the press, because they'll talk bad about the US and how many innocent civilians are being killed. Insurgency wins, US loses - no matter how careful the US tries to be.

I don't hear anyone crying about how the Russians dealt with Grozny. If you compare the operation against Grozny and our operation against Fallujah, you'll see a huge difference. There's nothing like leveling a city with bombs and artillery, and then using flamethrowers on the rubble and shooting every man, woman, and child that tries to escape.

Oh, that wasn't the Americans. Those cruel indiscriminate killers of innocent civilians.

It was the Russians. Oh my.

I am pleased to see that you recognise that the wave of anti-americanism is at least partially justified. Only the USA really worries about "superpower" status. Maybe Russia does, but not as much. Other countries really could not give a damn. They are generally more concerned with their own internal politics or with local International politics. The argument that other countries would raise false accusations as a way of weakening the US to raise their own power simply does not proceed. Firstly, if unfounded, they would not weaken the US (International public opinion simply can not get much more opposed to the USA than it is right now), nor would it strengthen, in any way the position of the accuser.

Justice, is inevitably linked to a set of political values. The ICC is rooted in western culture, with the associated concepts of fairness and justice. If the ICC were rooted in Chinese, or Islam culture, then maybe, just maybe, the USA would have a point. However as the USA is one of the main sources of the culture that the ICC is based in, the political argument is simply a waste of space and time.

I think you are naive. China certainly does worry about superpower status. Also many European nations would love to see the US weakened and discredited.

The ICC may be rooted in western concepts of fairness and justice, but so were the Southern US courts which refused to convict clansmen of any crimes and routinely convicted blacks of whatever they were accused of. The ICC, in my opinion, is open to similar bias against the US.

Not necessarily a US patriot point of view, but the point of view of the US government: No safeguards that rulings are based upon evidence and facts instead of politics, insufficient safeguards that defendants rights are protected. The US's objections to the Rome Treaty are long standing and well known.

Slightly hipocritical, considering a few hundred people waiting at their leisure in a holiday resort in Cuba.
The US objections to the Rome Statute (not treaty as that was what created the European Union) are far from clear. The same protection of the defendent exists as in any international court, as do the same safeguards. The USA was happy with this after WWII, but apparently not so now. Without any clear explanation as to why this change occurred having been given.

Just to put this thread into context.. how are those war crimes courts doing over in Rwanda ? Last i heard.. after several years a grand total of 9 people have been indited, and the most grave of offenders has yet to even be aprehended. At at the end of this year, UN members are no longer obligated to fund the court. The grand solution to genocide ? Like the US wants.. the primary concern should be to get it to stop .. NOW.

Just to put this thread into context.. how are those war crimes courts doing over in Rwanda ? Last i heard.. after several years a grand total of 9 people have been indited, and the most grave of offenders has yet to even be aprehended. At at the end of this year, UN members are no longer obligated to fund the court. The grand solution to genocide ? Like the US wants.. the primary concern should be to get it to stop .. NOW.
Amen, brother!

I think you are naive. China certainly does worry about superpower status. Also many European nations would love to see the US weakened and discredited.

The ICC may be rooted in western concepts of fairness and justice, but so were the Southern US courts which refused to convict clansmen of any crimes and routinely convicted blacks of whatever they were accused of. The ICC, in my opinion, is open to similar bias against the US.

I would be interested to see something more than just an emphasised assertion that China is concerned with being a "superpower". From what I have seen of Chinese foreign policy, they are much more concerned with being a regional power, rather than a world power. Maybe there are some Aussies or people resident in Japan that could comment. I do not think I am being naive here, but then one never thinks that one is. If I am then I will learn something.
There is no denying that many countries, not just European ones, would love to see the US taken down a peg or two. It is just that a false accusation to the ICC would not achieve this in any way.
The courts in the Southern US were not based on the concepts of fairness that the western culture represents, they were based on a concept of racial difference that was integral to the culture of the region at the time. It maybe that the problem is here. The USA is worried that it could be seen to be unfair, by the standards that its own constitution promotes. As was the case in those trials in the South.

If the primary objection of the US is that a UN court cannot be impartial (how can that be possible when it is the product of the whole planet?), what makes it so sure that its solution is impartial?

I believe that the main fear of the US is not a biased body, but a genuinely impartial one. Because by definition, such a body would be outside of its control. America's unhealthy preoccupation with its superpower status leads it to automatically fear any entity lying outside of its sphere of influence. Thus anything it cannot influence, is perceived as a threat.

I think this nicely explains the attitude of the US to not only the ICC, but every other international body, and treaty.

If you read the UN Charter, or if you read the Geneva Conventions, you get the impression that the people who wrote those documents (and not just the US) have a dim view of subordinating their sovereignty and the freedom of their citizens to an outside power.

It's not just a US thing. And it's not because the US is evil. It's because the US sees a lot of political enemies, especially right now. I can see that if the ICC had any real power, there would be frivolous prosecutions brought by third world nations seeking to arrest the President, etc.

You might say, the court will be impartial, or that the court will find the true answer.

Let us for a moment assume that is true. How long will the President of the US remain arrested and held in prison pending the outcome?

Assuming that each and every time, the false accusations don't fly, and the President is released - to be taken back to jail to await the conclusion of the next accusation.

If the primary objection of the US is that a UN court cannot be impartial (how can that be possible when it is the product of the whole planet?), what makes it so sure that its solution is impartial?

I believe that the main fear of the US is not a biased body, but a genuinely impartial one. Because by definition, such a body would be outside of its control. America's unhealthy preoccupation with its superpower status leads it to automatically fear any entity lying outside of its sphere of influence. Thus anything it cannot influence, is perceived as a threat.

I think this nicely explains the attitude of the US to not only the ICC, but every other international body, and treaty.
I think that nicely explains the attitude of all countries that are signatories to the UN. Not a blessed one of them wants a truly impartial court - every single one of them would get in trouble one way or the other if such a court were possible.

Of course the US solutions are not impartial - as are all the other countries.

I would also argue that it is not the US that is preoccupied with its superpower status, but the EU countries, particularly France, that are obsessed with it, and believes it must be the counterbalance.

If the primary objection of the US is that a UN court cannot be impartial (how can that be possible when it is the product of the whole planet?), what makes it so sure that its solution is impartial?

I believe that the main fear of the US is not a biased body, but a genuinely impartial one. Because by definition, such a body would be outside of its control. America's unhealthy preoccupation with its superpower status leads it to automatically fear any entity lying outside of its sphere of influence. Thus anything it cannot influence, is perceived as a threat.

I think this nicely explains the attitude of the US to not only the ICC, but every other international body, and treaty.
The ICC cannot be impartial. Nations look out for their own interests, not for justice. If one has something that everyone either covets or hates should he let them vote on what is to be done with it?

All this debate about the impartiality of the international court is just dandy but lets acknowledge the real reason the US doesn't want to pursue this.
They don't want to alienate the Sudanese government. Lot's of money is at stake for the same guys who brought you the Iraqi war, they don't want their lucrative contracts screwed up.

Yes, Sudan has oil.

I would be interested to see something more than just an emphasised assertion that China is concerned with being a "superpower". From what I have seen of Chinese foreign policy, they are much more concerned with being a regional power, rather than a world power. Maybe there are some Aussies or people resident in Japan that could comment. I do not think I am being naive here, but then one never thinks that one is. If I am then I will learn something.
There is no denying that many countries, not just European ones, would love to see the US taken down a peg or two. It is just that a false accusation to the ICC would not achieve this in any way.
The courts in the Southern US were not based on the concepts of fairness that the western culture represents, they were based on a concept of racial difference that was integral to the culture of the region at the time. It maybe that the problem is here. The USA is worried that it could be seen to be unfair, by the standards that its own constitution promotes. As was the case in those trials in the South.

You are being a smite Naive here.. China is expected within the next century to be the next superpower next to the US. Their economy now is exploding, and have 1/5 the worlds population under its umbrella its economy has much farther to go. This is not to say there is much more for China to accomplish before even comming close to a compeition for the US but, as current state of affairs it is China backrolling the United States economy.

What i find more interesting is the desire of European leaders to now begin to refocuse toward China as it is the emerging superpower as they hold such discontent with Bush. Here they are ready to turn their backs on the country who has primarly facilitated to given invalubable supplimental force ending the bosnian ethnic cleansing, bring sadam to justice (reguardless of weather the war was right or wrong), played an intergral role in Rwandan operations. In each of these the UN was powerless ... Instead, they run to support the next "supposed" world power, never mind THEIR (the chinese) appauling human rights violations or that they arn't even a democracy.

All this debate about the impartiality of the international court is just dandy but lets acknowledge the real reason the US doesn't want to pursue this.
They don't want to alienate the Sudanese government. Lot's of money is at stake for the same guys who brought you the Iraqi war, they don't want their lucrative contracts screwed up.

Yes, Sudan has oil.
Sudan's oil goes to China, not the US. Any sanctions against Sudan would be vetoed by China. Also Russia sells them military hardware, so Russia would oppose any sanctions. Therefore the Sudanese government will be allowed to do whatever it wants. After all, what do the lives of a bunch of Blacks matter when weighed against fuel for China's economy and hard currency for Russia?

You might say, the court will be impartial, or that the court will find the true answer.

Let us for a moment assume that is true. How long will the President of the US remain arrested and held in prison pending the outcome?

Assuming that each and every time, the false accusations don't fly, and the President is released - to be taken back to jail to await the conclusion of the next accusation.

Let us look at the procedure for the accused:


Source (http://www.icc-cpi.int/defence/defaccused.html)
Rights of the Accused

Everyone is presumed innocent until proved guilty before the Court in accordance with the applicable law. The Prosecutor has the onus to prove the guilty of the accused in full respect of his/her rights and must disclose to the defence, as soon as practicable, any material that could mitigate the charges or tend to show the innocence of the accused.

According to article 67 of the Rome Statute, in the determination of any charge, the accused is entitled to a public hearing, to a fair hearing conducted impartially, and to the following minimum guarantees, in full equality:

(a) To be informed promptly and in detail of the nature, cause and content of the charge, in a language which the accused fully understands and speaks;

(b) To have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of the defence and to communicate freely with counsel of the accused’s choosing in confidence;

(c) To be tried without undue delay;

(d) To be present at the trial, to conduct the defence in person or through legal assistance of the accused’s choosing, to be informed, if the accused does not have legal assistance, of this right and to have legal assistance assigned by the Court in any case where the interests of justice so require, and without payment if the accused lacks sufficient means to pay for it;

(e) To examine, or have examined, the witnesses against him or her and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his or her behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him or her. The accused shall also be entitled to raise defences and to present other evidence admissible under this Statute;

(f) To have, free of any cost, the assistance of a competent interpreter and such translations as are necessary to meet the requirements of fairness, if any of the proceedings of or documents presented to the Court are not in a language which the accused fully understands and speaks;

(g) Not to be compelled to testify or to confess guilt and to remain silent, without such silence being a consideration in the determination of guilt or innocence;

(h) To make an unsworn oral or written statement in his or her defence; and

(i) Not to have imposed on him or her any reversal of the burden of proof or any onus of rebuttal.

Considering the parts in red, how would a false charge inconvenience in any way the President of the USA. It would just make some extra money for some government lawyers. Paid for from the UN coffers. (This could be an argument against the ICC, but it is not one that has been presented so far.)

All this debate about the impartiality of the international court is just dandy but lets acknowledge the real reason the US doesn't want to pursue this.
They don't want to alienate the Sudanese government. Lot's of money is at stake for the same guys who brought you the Iraqi war, they don't want their lucrative contracts screwed up.

Yes, Sudan has oil.

The US always seems to have these alterior motives for oil.. yet we are still paying 50 bucks a barrel ? so when is it we actually get to take this oil ?

why dont YOU really talk about the real reasons why the US dosn't want to persue this.. the clear reality that such tribunals are ineffective and inapropriate to speak about when the killing is still ongoing.

All this debate about the impartiality of the international court is just dandy but lets acknowledge the real reason the US doesn't want to pursue this.
They don't want to alienate the Sudanese government. Lot's of money is at stake for the same guys who brought you the Iraqi war, they don't want their lucrative contracts screwed up.

Yes, Sudan has oil.
Oh, yes. I forgot. It's all about the oil. "No More Blood for Oil", etc.
And your evidence of the US's motives? Your own psychic powers?

The US is not opposed to intervening in Sudan, or even to a trial. Only to the ICC. It's a fact that the UN is far from an impartial body and the ICC could be used as a weapon against the USA.
...or as justice against the USA.

The US is not opposed to intervening in Sudan, or even to a trial. Only to the ICC. It's a fact that the UN is far from an impartial body and the ICC could be used as a weapon against the USA.

What does Sudan have to do with ICC being used against the US???

What does Sudan have to do with ICC being used against the US???
The US has refused to be a signatory to the ICC. The UN wants the ICC to oversee war crimes in the Sudan, and the US opposes that, because it believes the ICC is a flawed institution, and would be ineffective. It could be used as saying "we're doing something", when they are really not doing anything, as the UN typically does nothing.

What does Sudan have to do with ICC being used against the US???

If the US didn't opposed the ICC, it would lend it legitimacy.
Kind of like how some people today equate Pope Pius XII not condemning the 3rd Reich with giving it tacit approval.

-Markreich

Do you know who Queensryche is? Vote here!! : http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=389278

Oh, yes. I forgot. It's all about the oil. "No More Blood for Oil", etc.
And your evidence of the US's motives? Your own psychic powers?What's your explanation for no oil consuming nation interferring in the last 6 months? I'm not alone in this belief, it's been in the news as much as the genocide has.

And just because oil is still 50 bucks a barrel doesn't change things. You're incredibly niave if you think protecting or even securing a oil supply will drop the price. That's one thing you can count on not happening. The government inaction is due to pressure from the oil industry not the oil consumer. Their profits will continue or increase, the consumer is only relevant in how much they can squeeze out of him before he squeaks too loudly.

I'm beginning to wonder what role the UN plays, if any.
And, I'm wondering what the power of ratifying a treaty might be.
Treaties, even after being written, are subject to interpretation.
And a country can always back out of a treaty.

I don't foresee a time in my lifetime when nations will give up their sovereignty to a world government.

If the US and Europe (fat chance, I'm smoking major dope) got together with Russia and China and formed a world government, and then took the rest of the world over by force (economic force or military force), then you could have world government.

But you would also have world tyranny.
I think we can all thank Brad that the UN is not and never will be a world government.

The role of the UN is clearly stated in the first lines of the preamble to the Charter of the United Nations:
We the Peoples of the United Nations Determined
to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and

to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and

to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and

to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom

...

Have Resolved to Combine our Efforts to Accomplish these Aims

What does Sudan have to do with ICC being used against the US???
This post was in response to sombody, perhaps the lost planets, who said the US doesn't want anything to happen to the Sudanese regime because they have oil.

You are being a smite Naive here.. China is expected within the next century to be the next superpower next to the US. Their economy now is exploding, and have 1/5 the worlds population under its umbrella its economy has much farther to go. This is not to say there is much more for China to accomplish before even comming close to a compeition for the US but, as current state of affairs it is China backrolling the United States economy.

In economic terms, there is no doubt that China will be a major force. My problem is with the cold war connotations of "superpower". I think that this concept is one that is very American in nature. Chinese thought simply does not work in the same way.

What i find more interesting is the desire of European leaders to now begin to refocuse toward China as it is the emerging superpower as they hold such discontent with Bush.
I am not so sure that the advances in Sino-European relations are in any way related to the state of the US-European relations. China is an emerging market, Europe is in an economic quagmire, there is a natural attraction. The approach would have happened anyway, Bush or no Bush.

Here they are ready to turn their backs on the country who has primarly facilitated to given invalubable supplimental force ending the bosnian ethnic cleansing, bring sadam to justice (reguardless of weather the war was right or wrong), played an intergral role in Rwandan operations. In each of these the UN was powerless ... Instead, they run to support the next "supposed" world power, never mind THEIR (the chinese) appauling human rights violations or that they arn't even a democracy.

Why does an economic interest in a developing market signify that "they are ready to turn their backs" on the USA? If the USA decides to strengthen its trade links with Mexico, or Argentina, for example, the European reaction is not one of a cuckolded husband. It is one of pragmatic realism.
If the USA was really concerned about the human rights violations of the South East Asian region, then their industries would not outsource so much of their manual labour there. Human rights are a dificult subject, in that, if they even exist is not clearly established (legally it is, but philosophically, it is not).
Democracy is just one form of government. It may be the holy grail of the American people, but it is not so much so for the Europeans. That China is not a real democracy is no more a problem for Europe, than buying oil from Saudi Arabia, another non democracy with human rights issues, is for the USA.

What's your explanation for no oil consuming nation interferring in the last 6 months? I'm not alone in this belief, it's been in the news as much as the genocide has.

And just because oil is still 50 bucks a barrel doesn't change things. You're incredibly niave if you think protecting or even securing a oil supply will drop the price. That's one thing you can count on not happening. The government inaction is due to pressure from the oil industry not the oil consumer. Their profits will continue or increase, the consumer is only relevant in how much they can squeeze out of him before he squeaks too loudly.
Not sure I understand that first sentence there, but aren't most nations "oil-consuming"? And no, you are not alone in your belief, as it seems you are spouting propaganda directly from democracynow.org and MoveOn.org. Once again, I ask for evidence for any of your claims.

Should the UN actually get something to pass "Internationally" like gun control laws, the ICC could then be put against the US, to strip the rights of the citizenry.

Indeed, the USA has proven it has no respect for international laws. It seems to think it can act as it pleases, whether that means invading countries illegally or less extreme actions.

A sidepoint, is it not the rights of the citizenery not to everyday face the risk of facing a gunwielding lunatic who could very well kill them?

Not sure I understand that first sentence there, but aren't most nations "oil-consuming"? And no, you are not alone in your belief, as it seems you are spouting propaganda directly from democracynow.org and MoveOn.org. Once again, I ask for evidence for any of your claims. :rolleyes: Lame.

What evidence? Do you actually think the Bush (or any other) administration issued a press release saying "this is why we're not interferring in Darfur". It's an informed opinion based upon observation and knowledge of corporate interests in the area. And of course it will be flatly denied by all associated parties.

That denial would come regardless of truth.

So what's your point except you don't agree?

Indeed, the USA has proven it has no respect for international laws. It seems to think it can act as it pleases, whether that means invading countries illegally or less extreme actions.

A sidepoint, is it not the rights of the citizenery not to everyday face the risk of facing a gunwielding lunatic who could very well kill them?
Absolutely! So, when guns are outlawed, no one will have any guns, and everything will be hunky-dory, and we will all live happily ever after - until the criminal who does not obey the law and does have a gun robs and pillages from the law-abiding citizenry.

A sidepoint, is it not the rights of the citizenery not to everyday face the risk of facing a gunwielding lunatic who could very well kill them?
No. There is no right to absolute safety. There is a right to defend yourself from a threat, and a right to prosecute and sue the person who attacked you, but nobody can guarantee a right to safety. That's my last comment on this issue in this thread. I don't want to hijack it.

Indeed, the USA has proven it has no respect for international laws. It seems to think it can act as it pleases, whether that means invading countries illegally or less extreme actions.

A sidepoint, is it not the rights of the citizenery not to everyday face the risk of facing a gunwielding lunatic who could very well kill them?
It is not, at least not in the same sense that owning a firearm is.

Absolutely! So, when guns are outlawed, no one will have any guns, and everything will be hunky-dory, and we will all live happily ever after - until the criminal who does not obey the law and does have a gun robs and pillages from the law-abiding citizenry.

The simple fact is that in a society where guns are found in very many places, they are more likely to be used. Sure, it's impossible to keep them out of the hands of the most determined of criminals. But if you look at the statistics regarding gun crime, you are far more likely to be a victim of it in USA than in countries with tighter legal regulations on this matter. I remember seeing some statistics a while back that stated a substantial (I don't believe it was the majority, but a significant minority) number of people injured/killed by guns in USA were victims of their own guns used against them (i.e. burgler breaks into house, uses the gun of the household against the householder).

If you make guns illegal or tightly regulate them, you have less in circulation, and are therefore less likely to be a victim of one.

... And now this thread is down the tubes.

:p

The US is more vulnerable because there are many nations who want superpower status, like China, and who see weakening the US as a step toward realizing their ambitions. Also there is a wave of Anti-Americanism which is not completely justified.

The ICC, like the UN has no real interest in justice, only in politics.
Just like the rest of the UN. It's the politics that make it impossible for the UN to act in a rational manner. The ICC would just be more of the same.
What politics are those?

Why do you paranoid Americans think that every country is against you? The USA has more allies than most other countries.

What politics are those?

Why do you paranoid Americans think that every country is against you? The USA has more allies than most other countries.
The politics of the Islamic world which use the UN to attack Israel and any nation who supports it, the politics of many European nations who think the US is too strong and needs to be counterbalanced, and the politics of China and Russia who seek to weaken the US in order to strengthen themselves.

Will people please STFU about gun ownership? Gun ownership and the UN have absolutely nothing to do with each other (unless you're a redneck living on a mountain in Iowa believing the Black Helicopters are out to get you).

Back to the topic...let us assume the ICC in future becomes involved in war crimes trials, as Sudanese people (and victims of other civil conflicts) file accusations with the court. Would the US not be obliged to step aside and allow the world to administer its justice through this body?

I think we can agree that the US and various other countries are opposed to the existence of any world court, due to potential conflicts with self-interest. But once such a body is operational, would it really be right to interfere in its affairs? Bearing in mind it has the backing of most of the world's democracies.

The US frequently says that whether it is popular or not, it is going to take military action to solve some problem. What if the international community were to do the same using legal process?

It seems to me that while the US has a right to refuse to join the body, it has no right to actually hinder it.

The politics of the Islamic world which use the UN to attack Israel and any nation who supports it, the politics of many European nations who think the US is too strong and needs to be counterbalanced, and the politics of China and Russia who seek to weaken the US in order to strengthen themselves.

The Islamic world has had a problem with the Jewish people for far longer than the USofA has existed. The fact that the US supports Israel makes thatm an enemy, by association, of the Islamic world. The UN is there just for this kind of dispute. Let the arguments be made with words and not with bombs. Let us debate and not kill. The USA does not like any criticism at all, even less if it is public, so the UN is a body, impartial, which it does not like.
The European nations do not think the US is too strong. They think the US is too beligerent. Look up the difference between strong and belligerent. China and Russia are trying to strengthen themselves, so are South Africa, India, Pakistan, Australia, Canada, Mexico, Argentina, Marocco etc. etc. etc. and so is the USA. Therefore the USA hatres the USA because, using your argument, if it is to get stronger, the USA has to get weaker. Something does not work here :eek:

Will people please STFU about gun ownership? Gun ownership and the UN have absolutely nothing to do with each other (unless you're a redneck living on a mountain in Iowa believing the Black Helicopters are out to get you).

Back to the topic...let us assume the ICC in future becomes involved in war crimes trials, as Sudanese people (and victims of other civil conflicts) file accusations with the court. Would the US not be obliged to step aside and allow the world to administer its justice through this body?

I think we can agree that the US and various other countries are opposed to the existence of any world court, due to potential conflicts with self-interest. But once such a body is operational, would it really be right to interfere in its affairs? Bearing in mind it has the backing of most of the world's democracies.

The US frequently says that whether it is popular or not, it is going to take military action to solve some problem. What if the international community were to do the same using legal process?

It seems to me that while the US has a right to refuse to join the body, it has no right to actually hinder it.
It has a right to hinder it if it sees it as a threat to national sovereignty, i.e. taking US military prisoners and putting on trial internationally. I realize that I am something of an idealist, but I believe the US, as the world's only superpower, has a moral obligation to help the oppressed, in whatever country they might be. While it is not practical to do that in every country it occurs, those that have some tie to US interests, as well as a high international profile in the news, should be helped. I surmise the following two reasons for the US objection to the ICC being used in Sudan:
1. It won't do anything, just like anything else at the UN, and could hinder any real progress.
2. Even though it won't do anything, it will be used as an excuse by the UN that it is "doing something" to stop the mass murders there (not genocide, according to its hairsplitting lawyers).

The fallacy with the argument that the rest of the world has "bad politics" is that the US has politics of its own. Who is to say whose are Good and whose are Bad? It is only a matter of opinion.

The fact that politics is a matter of opinion is nothing new. The whole point of the UN is to serve as a forum where contentious issues can be discussed without nations resorting to war. That was its aim when it was created in 1945, out of the ruins of WW2.

Today the US argues that nations faced with a problem should stop wasting their time talking, and go to war instead, as that is a far faster way of getting results.

Such an argument however is not productive, as we have already seen above.

The Islamic world has had a problem with the Jewish people for far longer than the USofA has existed. The fact that the US supports Israel makes thatm an enemy, by association, of the Islamic world. The UN is there just for this kind of dispute. Let the arguments be made with words and not with bombs. Let us debate and not kill. The USA does not like any criticism at all, ebven less if it is public, so the UN is a body, impartial, which it does not like.
The European nations do not think the US is too strong. They think the US is too beligerent. Look up the difference between strong and belligerent. China and Russia are treying to strengthen themselves, so are South Africa, India, Pakistan, Australia, Canada, Mexico, Argentina, Marocco etc. etc. etc. and so is the USA. Therefore the USA hatres the USA because, using your argument, if it is to get stronger, the USA has to get weaker. Something does not work here :eek:
No, the UN is not impartial. For instance, the UN's constant condemnation of Israel for such things as building a fence to prevent terrorists from crossing into their territory and killing civilians is motivated not by a sense of justice, but by the hatred of all muslim nations for israel, and the desire of many European nations to keep friendly relations with the middle east so they can keep the oil flowing in and manufactured goods flowing out.

I didn't quite get the second part of your post. If the USA gets stronger the USA gets weaker therefore the USA hates the USA? Please tell me you just typed badly because otherwise it makes no sense.

It has a right to hinder it if it sees it as a threat to national sovereignty, i.e. taking US military prisoners and putting on trial internationally.
Perhaps that is a discussion that can be had the day the court tries to do that, instead of killing the idea the moment it has been aired?

The US is deliberately prejudging a judicial body set up by the world's democracies. How can it complain about European countries for example, being unsupportive, when it destroys their own efforts at addressing the world's problems?

The conclusion I draw is that the world's democracies have the choice to support the US on its terms as it carries out its "moral duty", but any ideas of their own over which it has little influence, are too dangerous to be allowed the chance of implementation.

EDIT: What then is the incentive of any other country to aid the US? It complain that it stands alone, but it seems to me that this is largely through its own doing.

The simple fact is that in a society where guns are found in very many places, they are more likely to be used. Sure, it's impossible to keep them out of the hands of the most determined of criminals. But if you look at the statistics regarding gun crime, you are far more likely to be a victim of it in USA than in countries with tighter legal regulations on this matter. I remember seeing some statistics a while back that stated a substantial (I don't believe it was the majority, but a significant minority) number of people injured/killed by guns in USA were victims of their own guns used against them (i.e. burgler breaks into house, uses the gun of the household against the householder).

If you make guns illegal or tightly regulate them, you have less in circulation, and are therefore less likely to be a victim of one.
But instead you do not have the means to defend yourself, so basically anyone that is either bigger or nastier than you can beat the shit out of you and take your stuff and you'll be screwed.

No, the UN is not impartial. For instance, the UN's constant condemnation of Israel for such things as building a fence to prevent terrorists from crossing into their territory and killing civilians is motivated not by a sense of justice, but by the hatred of all muslim nations for israel, and the desire of many European nations to keep friendly relations with the middle east so they can keep the oil flowing in and manufactured goods flowing out.

I didn't quite get the second part of your post. If the USA gets stronger the USA gets weaker therefore the USA hates the USA? Please tell me you just typed badly because otherwise it makes no sense.

Starting with the second part first. The point was that it does not make sense. China and Russia want to grow: true. This does not mean that they want to weaken the USA. The proof of this is the USA wants to grow as well.

The wall, in Israel, is to be on a border between two states. with the sacred holy sites for both sides on one side of the wall. Israel would be effectively excluding muslims from one of their holiest sites. This was declared to be illegal, and rightly so. The fence issue is much more complicated than just the issue of hamas terrorists or Israeli troops crossing the border. It goes to the roots of the whole dispute. Until this dispute is resolved then one side, unilaterally building a barrier to serve their legitimate interests and to the detriment of the other sides legitimate interest, would simply be illegal under international law.

If both the USA and Canada had vested strong religious claim on the Niagra falls, then Canada would be wrong if it walled them off. This is not bias, this is absence of bias.

Starting with the second part first. The point was that it does not make sense. China and Russia want to grow: true. This does not mean that they want to weaken the USA. The proof of this is the USA wants to grow as well.

The wall, in Israel, is to be on a border between two states. with the sacred holy sites for both sides on one side of the wall. Israel would be effectively excluding muslims from one of their holiest sites. This was declared to be illegal, and rightly so. The fence issue is much more complicated than just the issue of hamas terrorists or Israeli troops crossing the border. It goes to the roots of the whole dispute. Until this dispute is resolved then one side, unilaterally building a barrier to serve their legitimate interests and to the detriment of the other sides legitimate interest, would simply be illegal under international law.

If both the USA and Canada had vested strong religious claim on the Niagra falls, then Canada would be wrong if it walled them off. This is not bias, this is absence of bias.
It's absence of justice, not absence of bias. You are saying that a nation using non-violent means to try to protect it's citizens from being shot, stabbed and blown up at random is at fault for restricting the travel of the people who seek to commit those terrorist acts. Unfortunately your view is all too common among many "foreward thinking" nations in Europe.

For that matter, what exactly would the ICC even do? Send them a harshly written letter?
I still haven't gotten a reply to this, Alien Born. I want to EXACTLY how the ICC proposes to stop the Janjaweed and the Khartoum government.

I still haven't gotten a reply to this, Alien Born. I want to EXACTLY how the ICC proposes to stop the Janjaweed and the Khartoum government.
How do they even get the accused to show up in court?

I still haven't gotten a reply to this, Alien Born. I want to EXACTLY how the ICC proposes to stop the Janjaweed and the Khartoum government.
Do courts in the US or any other nation prevent crime? Of course not. They deal with the perpetrator after it has taken place.

The ICC was never set up to prevent war crimes, only deal with the perpetrators after the fact. Because of the complexity of international law, years after the fact. And what's more, it has never pretended otherwise.

There really isn't a magic solution for crime, you know.

Do courts in the US or any other nation prevent crime? Of course not. They deal with the perpetrator after it has taken place.

The ICC was never set up to prevent war crimes, only deal with the perpetrators after the fact. Because of the complexity of international law, years after the fact. And what's more, it has never pretended otherwise.

There really isn't a magic solution for crime, you know.
By imposing penalties on the criminals courts can prevent future crimes. A man in prison will have a hard time robbing another bank for example. How does the ICC plan to arrest the accused for their day in court? If it can't isn't it powerless to punish as well as stop crime?

Do courts in the US or any other nation prevent crime? Of course not. They deal with the perpetrator after it has taken place.

The ICC was never set up to prevent war crimes, only deal with the perpetrators after the fact. Because of the complexity of international law, years after the fact. And what's more, it has never pretended otherwise.

There really isn't a magic solution for crime, you know.
Not really, most US courts can keep the criminals from commiting MORE crimes if they know where the criminals are. You generally don't hear of murderers awaiting trial being allowed to continue to murder people during their trial.

Look at Bosnia. Dozens have been arrested and stood trial there. Small numbers, yes, but it is a proof of principle. No-one ever achieved anything by not bothering to try. The US frequently complains that it is the only nation willing to do anything about the world's problems, perhaps it should stop whining and step aside occasionally to let someone else have a go?

Look at Bosnia. Dozens have been arrested and stood trial there. Small numbers, yes, but it is a proof of principle. No-one ever achieved anything by not bothering to try. The US frequently complains that it is the only nation willing to do anything about the world's problems, perhaps it should stop whining and step aside occasionally to let someone else have a go?
Only after military intervention. Do you really think China and Russia would authorize military intervention in Sudan?

The US is not opposed to intervening in Sudan, or even to a trial. Only to the ICC. It's a fact that the UN is far from an impartial body and the ICC could be used as a weapon against the USA.
Hmm never thought of it like that. I like it. :)

Should the UN actually get something to pass "Internationally" like gun control laws, the ICC could then be put against the US, to strip the rights of the citizenry.
Not that I care about your rights. But I think your government is on top of that.

Only after military intervention. Do you really think China and Russia would authorize military intervention in Sudan?
Remember Rwanda? It was the US and UK who blocked it then.

In the US, this is frequently attributed to a UN failing, but in reality it was the US and UK that blocked any UN intervention. Resulting in France, Belgium and India having no choice but to stand by and do nothing. At least now they are bringing a few of the war criminals there to justice. The US and UK, not bothering to lift a finger.

By bringing unjust accusations of warcrimes and crimes of aggression. It would be used by unfriendly regimes to harras and attempt to discredit us.
You doing a fine job of discrediting yourself without help. :D

Remember Rwanda? It was the US and UK who blocked it then.

In the US, this is frequently attributed to a UN failing, but in reality it was the US and UK that blocked any UN intervention. Resulting in France, Belgium and India having no choice but to stand by and do nothing. At least now they are bringing a few of the war criminals there to justice. The US and UK, not bothering to lift a finger.
I'm not saying the US is spotless. I'm just saying the UN is worthless in these matters. Rawanda is another case in point. Without the US and UK to do the heavy lifting nothing gets done.

I'm not saying the US is spotless. I'm just saying the UN is worthless in these matters.
How interesting. Whenever uncomfortable facts such as these are pointed out to people, they mumble about the other side being even less competent. Weak.

Rwanda is another case in point. Without the US and UK to do the heavy lifting nothing gets done.
I agree. So when the US and UK decide not to bother getting out of bed, the resulting mess is all their fault. Not the fault of countries like Belgium and India, who have neither the money nor the heavy-lift capability, but still try to do something. This is an excellent reason why the ICC's likely inadequacy can in future be blamed on the US for failing to play a helpful, constructive role.

How interesting. Whenever uncomfortable facts such as these are pointed out to people, they mumble about the other side being even less competent. Weak.


I agree. So when the US and UK decide not to bother getting out of bed, the resulting mess is all their fault. Not the fault of countries like Belgium and India, who have neither the money nor the heavy-lift capability, but still try to do something. This is an excellent reason why the ICC's likely inadequacy can in future be blamed on the US for failing to play a helpful, constructive role.
1 Weak and corrupt would be a better description of the UN.

2 So France could do nothing in Rawanda? Nor the African Union? Why does it always have to be the US? Everyone loves to bitch about the USA until something hard needs to be done.

2 So France could do nothing in Rawanda? Nor the African Union? Why does it always have to be the US? Everyone loves to bitch about the USA until something hard needs to be done.

Because the US made special effort to not use the word genocide. Even after everbody knew about it, the US still said it was looking into the possibility of genocide. By that time it was over.

Why the US? We are the superpower. If the US had dumped 5000 soldiers there, the others would have done the same.

General Dallaire said he only needed 4500 soldiers and it would have been averted. He had 2500 on the ground and many of those were withdrawn

It would have been a cake walk because it is such a poor country, they didn't even have much in the way of guns. Most of the killing was by spears and Machettes.

----
Edit:

I should add that of the soldiers sent they went in to clear out the whites.....
----

Justice, is inevitably linked to a set of political values. The ICC is rooted in western culture, with the associated concepts of fairness and justice. If the ICC were rooted in Chinese, or Islam culture, then maybe, just maybe, the USA would have a point. However as the USA is one of the main sources of the culture that the ICC is based in, the political argument is simply a waste of space and time.Sorry, wrong answer. The US has a peculiar cultural attitude towards justice distinct form that of "civil law" (Napoleonic law?) Europe, which is the culture which spawned the ICJ. Nor is Justice ineveitably linked to politics (or "political values" which is not a synonym for "cultural values"), although politics may decide indiivdual cases in legal bodies, these cases are not considered to be just (for example consider the Dryfus Affair, which was decided on politics and is almost universally considered to be unjust).

Slightly hipocritical, considering a few hundred people waiting at their leisure in a holiday resort in Cuba.
The US objections to the Rome Statute (not treaty as that was what created the European Union) are far from clear. The same protection of the defendent exists as in any international court, as do the same safeguards. The USA was happy with this after WWII, but apparently not so now. Without any clear explanation as to why this change occurred having been given. Let me see if I get the WWII part straight first. I presume this refers to the Nuremberg trials, which were admitted to be political trials not aimed for justice. To quote the chief US prosecutor the tribunals were " a continuation of the war effort of the Allied nations". And the US was so happy about this that Senator Taft praised them by saying "about this whole judgment there is the spirit of vengeance, and vengeance is seldom justice. The hanging of the eleven men convicted will be a blot on the American record which we will long regret. In these trials we have accepted the Russian idea of the purpose of trials -- government policy and not justice -- with little relation to Anglo-Saxon heritage.". It drew similar priase from some US Representatives, Lawernce Smith saying ""The Nuremberg trials are so repugnant to the Anglo-Saxon principles of justice that we must forever be ashamed of that page in our history." and John Rankin managed to express his happiness with "As a representative of the American people I desire to say that what is taking place in Nuremberg, Germany, is a disgrace to the United States.". Perhaps the closest to real happiness in the US with the Nuremberg tribunals comes from Chief Justice of the US Stone with his "[Chief US prosecutor] Jackson is away conducting his high-grade lynching party in Nuremberg. I don't mind what he does to the Nazis, but I hate to see the pretense that he is running a court and proceeding according to common law."


But let's ignore the question of whether or not the US was really happy with the Nuremberg trials or merely took part in them feeling dissatisfied with them. They were not criminal courts meting out justice, they were political courts designed to punish those who lost a war and held the wrong views. This is your model for the ICC, a body unconcerned with justice and dedicated to meting piniishment to the politically unpopular? No wonder the US objects to the ICC, if this is your idea of the purpose of the ICC.


To adress the concept of Guatanamo: the detention there is not an accepted form of justice in the US.

First, assuming it is decided that it is legal (an open question up next), it is not conducted in the name of Justice, but as an extension of War Making. The US government does not justify the detention in terms of criminal acts, but in terms of threats to the US, some may latter be tried for criminal acts in criminal courts, but neither the detention nor any of the tribunals conducted have been concerned with punishment for crimes. So if we accept that the ICC is similar in concept to the Guatanamo detention, then the IC is waging war against defendants. Hmm, the US is bad for not wanting to risk having war declared upon it by the ICC? An interesting argument, and an interestig view of the ICC.

Second, the US has not accepted the legality of the Guatanmo detentions. This is an open question being resolved in US courts right now. If the US decides that these detentions are illegal then, the US will have committed an illegal act which the US considers illegal, in which case they are open to a charge of breaking the law but not hipocrasy. The US legal decisions hinge far more upon the question of whether or not the detentions are in the name of Justice or the name of Military Necessity. It is not hippocritical to declare the principal "that Miltary Necessity may at times outweigh Justice, although this is rare" (as the US has done) and then act so, while later second guessing oneself and determining that in a specific case, Miltary Necessity should not have outweighed Justice - the country remains true to the principal articulated.

Which again returns us to the whole purpose of the ICC. The ICC, unlike the Nuremberg Tribunals or the US with regards to the Guantanamo detainees, has decalred that it is interested in Justice, not punishing those with unpopular politics. If it were to function, as you argue, like the Nuremberg Tribunals or the US with regards to Guantanmo, it would be hippocritical.


With regards to the Rome Treaty, first let's be honest. It is a treaty, and calling it a statute (as is becoming popular) is merely a way to extend it's jurisdiction to states which have not ratified it. Unless you accept that nations have the right to force thier will upon other nations, it is not a statute. But if you accept that right, it is merely the same right being exercised by the US and it's allies in enforcing thier will upon other nations, and the ICC is once again merely a political device of those who created it. In this case the ICC is not an impartial meter out of justice but a tool of an alliance of nations to force their will upon the rest of the world, much like the US military is a tool for enforcing the US's will upon other nations. If the ICC arrogates jurisdiction over states which have not acceded to it, then it is on the same moral plane as the US invading Mexico to enforce it's will upon Mexico.

Regardless, the US has stated it's objections clearly many times, and if you haven't heard them it is probably because you are willfully ignoring them. Off the top of my head I know Rostov restated them in 2002, so I'll quote him:"The reasons for U.S. opposition to the Rome Statute as finally adopted are well known. I shall restate the fundamental points today.

First, however, let me reiterate that the United States does not seek to undermine the International Criminal Court. We respect the right of states to become parties to the Rome Statute if they wish. At the same time, our decision not to be a party also should be respected.

Our position has three principal parts.

First, the United States is concerned about the danger of politically motivated prosecutions. Examples of investigations or prosecutions based on political agenda, not evidence and neutral prosecutorial judgment, abound. The structure of the ICC makes such unacceptable proceedings possible. A prosecutor's office, housed in a democratically responsible political branch of government, perforce is democratically accountable in a system of checks and balances. This situation will not exist in the ICC.

Second, as we stated before this body last year, the ICC has problems in the related areas of jurisdiction and due process. The power of this international tribunal is independent of consent. While sovereigns have the right to try non-citizens who have committed offenses against their citizens or on their territory, the United States has never recognized the right of an international organization to do so absent consent or a UN Security Council mandate and Security Council oversight. The ICC lacks all three. In addition, the Rome Statute raises, but does not satisfactorily answer, due process concerns. These include issues of multiple jeopardy, definitions of crimes, and problems of evidence and testimony when the Court has to harmonize various legal systems and languages.

Finally, the ICC is not part of the UN Charter system. The Rome Statute provides insufficient opportunity for Security Council oversight. And, the Assembly of States Parties is wrestling with the definition of aggression, a matter left to the Security Council by the UN Charter."

Everyone loves to bitch about the USA until something hard needs to be done.
The problem is that the US annoys people doing completely unnecessary things (like Iraq) and rarely does anything helpful (like Rwanda). Actually I would level the same accusation at my own country the UK, and all the spineless little tag-alongs that sell their votes for a bit of aid.

As I see it, the US can hardly complain about the rest of the world failing to pull its weight in international conflicts, when the US systematically stifles any innovation in this direction on other people's part.

The problem is that the US annoys people doing completely unnecessary things (like Iraq) and rarely does anything helpful (like Rwanda). Actually I would level the same accusation at my own country the UK, and all the spineless little tag-alongs that sell their votes for a bit of aid.

As I see it, the US can hardly complain about the rest of the world failing to pull its weight in international conflicts, when the US systematically stifles any innovation in this direction on other people's part.


Hmm. Does the US really stifle Europe's desire to build a huge, effective, worldwide technologically advanced military force that cannot be defended against?

Or would that be the peace demonstrators I always see in every European country, including the ones who were paid 40 marks a day (in the 1980s) to protest outside of our base? Paychecks for protesters courtesy of the Soviet Union.

So that would be the US preventing Europe from working on a desire to be able to project power worldwide?

Come again?

Hmm. Does the US really stifle Europe's desire to build a huge, effective, worldwide technologically advanced military force that cannot be defended against?
Americans are so one-dimensional in believing that international affairs are a job for the military. :rolleyes:

Europe prefers to get things done through economic and diplomatic means, but the US keeps opposing those. Obviously it feels threatened because it has less credibility in those areas. The world trusts it less, that's why it has to resort to violence. That is a failing, not a strength.

There is a good arguement that the US can never submit to the Jurisdiction of the ICC in any case as our Constitution has already reserved the top spot for the Supreme Court, and I don't see an amendment being passed to change that.