 |
| |
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:19
|
|
U.S. Abandons War Crimes Tribunal Pact
Mon May 6, 5:38 PM ET
By HARRY DUNPHY, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - The United States said Monday it wants nothing to do with a treaty creating the first permanent international war crimes tribunal, a decision immediately criticized by human rights groups and some lawmakers. Others welcomed the move.
"We believe that states, not international institutions, are primarily responsible for ensuring justice in the international system," Marc Grossman, the undersecretary of state for political affairs, said in announcing the Bush administration decision.
As constituted today, Grossman said, the international criminal court "claims the authority to detain and try American citizens, even though our democratically elected representatives have not agreed to be bound by the treaty."
That threatens U.S. sovereignty, he said.
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said the tribunal's planned July 1 start-up "means that our men and women in uniform _as well as current and former U.S. officials_ could be at risk of prosecution.
Particularly in the midst of the war against terrorism, Rumsfeld said, the flaws in the treaty are "particularly troubling."
Although nations have the authority to try non-citizens who commit crimes against their citizens or on their territory, "the United States has never recognized the right of an international organization to do so" without its consent or without a U.N. Security Council mandate, Grossman said.
The International Criminal Court gained the necessary international backing to come into being last month when 10 nations joined 56 others in ratifying the treaty, negotiated in Rome in 1998.
President Clinton (news - web sites) signed the treaty, but never submitted it to the Senate for ratification. The Bush administration has made its opposition clear.
Pierre-Richard Prosper, the U.S. ambassador for war crimes issues, said the United States has no intention of ratifying the treaty and now considers itself "no longer bound in any way to its purpose and objective." The declaration was contained in a letter to U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan (news - web sites) delivered to U.N. headquarters in New York.
Grossman, in a speech Monday in Washington, said President Bush (news - web sites) wanted to formally renounce the treaty to avoid creating expectations of U.S. involvement in the future.
Instead, the United States favors working with nongovernment organizations, private industry and universities and law schools to help individual countries set up tribunals when needed, officials said.
But Sen. Russ Feingold (news, bio, voting record), D-Wis., a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said he was dismayed by the decision.
"Beyond the extremely problematic matter of casting doubt on the U.S. commitment to international justice and accountability," Feingold said, "these steps actually call into question our country's credibility in all multilateral endeavors."
House Majority Whip Tom DeLay, R-Texas, said Bush "sent a clear message we do not support this rogue court ... an institution of unchecked power that poses a real threat to our men and women fighting the war against terror.
Rep. Henry Hyde (news, bio, voting record), R-Ill., chairman of the House International Relations Committee, said, "We simply cannot accept an international institution that claims jurisdiction over American citizens."
But Human Rights Watch, an advocacy group, described the decision as an empty gesture that will further estrange Washington from its allies.
The Washington Working Group on the ICC, a coalition of organizations that support the tribunal, said the decision "signals to the world that America is turning its back on decades of U.S. leadership in prosecuting war criminals since the Nuremberg trials."
The coalition includes human rights organizations such as Amnesty International-USA and Physicians for Social Responsibility.
The court, to be formed this summer, will fill a gap in the international justice system first recognized by the U.N. General Assembly in 1948 after the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials for World War II's German and Japanese war criminals.
Tribunals have been created for special situations — like the 1994 Rwanda genocide — but no mechanism existed to hold individuals criminally responsible for serious crimes such as genocide.
***********************
Although a bit hypocritical, considering the travesty at Nuremburg. Oh well, still good that we're out of this ****.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:19
|
|
Maybe, but I'm strongly against international tribunals trying Americans, ever.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Guynemer
|
|
Can't say that I'm surprised... doesn't really piss me off any less, though.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:19
|
|
quote:
Yes, but the way we've made them re-write the original treaty means that no Americans will probably ever be tried. 99.9% chance that Americans will never face the ICC, unless as witnesses against someone else. |
Frankly, I oppose a citizen of any nation having to face an international court. This applies to Nazis, Slobo, Saddam - anyone.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:19
|
|
quote:
We aren't embroiled in foreign wars now? |
The War on Terror, which is slowly being taken too far, of course - but heavy involvement with international organizations will soon embroil us in countless "peacekeeping ops" and "police actions", and American lives will be lost.
quote:
What about cases of international crimes? |
What, like crimes against humanity? I don't believe there is any such thing. Either it is against your nation's laws or it isn't, and if not you shouldn't be punished for it.
quote:
Why should anyone be subjected to a federal court against their will? After all the Supreme Court does take state cases. |
Sure, SCOTUS takes state court cases if there is a valid Constitutional issue. And US citizens may be subjected to federal courts because there are Constitutionally allowed federal crimes and a method for establishing federal courts. The Constitution says nothing about international courts, although George Washington warned specifically against internationalism.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Guynemer
|
|
Yes, Floyd. Hitler and his henchmen shouldn't have been punished. What they did wasn't illegal. They should have been released and we all would have lived happily ever after. Tra la la la la.
You are, quite simply, unbelievable.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Imran Siddiqui
|
 |
The Potterverse
Jan 1970
time: 00:19
|
|
quote:
The War on Terror, which is slowly being taken too far, of course - but heavy involvement with international organizations will soon embroil us in countless "peacekeeping ops" and "police actions", and American lives will be lost. |
Countless peacekeeping and police actions? You mean like Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Iraq, etc?
quote:
What, like crimes against humanity? I don't believe there is any such thing. Either it is against your nation's laws or it isn't, and if not you shouldn't be punished for it. |
What you believe doesn't matter. The US has established that there is crimes against humanity in Nuremburg. Let's not be hypocrites.
quote:
Sure, SCOTUS takes state court cases if there is a valid Constitutional issue. And US citizens may be subjected to federal courts because there are Constitutionally allowed federal crimes and a method for establishing federal courts. The Constitution says nothing about international courts, although George Washington warned specifically against internationalism. |
The Constitution says treaties are on the same level as it, so there is room for it in that document.
We should make every effort to be integrated politically. We are economically, so we need to protect our 'interests' by having some control of some of the political apparatuses overhead.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:19
|
|
quote:
Yes, Floyd. Hitler and his henchmen shouldn't have been punished. What they did wasn't illegal. They should have been released and we all would have lived happily ever after. Tra la la la la. |
*shrug* They committed no legal crimes and were following orders. Who the hell are you to make moral judgments, saying someone should refuse an order and risk prison or worse? What gives you that right? That puts people in a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation.
And if that's not enough, punishment after the fact is basically enforcing an ex post facto law, which you would probably never support in the US, and is hypocritical to do to someone else given our own Constitution.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:19
|
|
quote:
Countless peacekeeping and police actions? You mean like Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Iraq, etc? |
Don't forget the two world wars, Bosnia, Kosovo, etc.
quote:
What you believe doesn't matter. The US has established that there is crimes against humanity in Nuremburg. Let's not be hypocrites. |
Nuremburg was simply a case of "might makes right", something the US has been consistently guilty of.
quote:
The Constitution says treaties are on the same level as it, so there is room for it in that document. |
Very true. So what?
quote:
We should make every effort to be integrated politically. We are economically, so we need to protect our 'interests' by having some control of some of the political apparatuses overhead. |
Economic and political interests and power are different animals. Free trade is certainly a good thing, but supporting international prosecution of a citizen of Azjaktistan (or whatever) is both wrong and unrelated.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:19
|
|
quote:
And which citizen? They won't prosecute soliders, but rather people that ordered massacres. What is wrong with that? |
They have no moral authority to impose their laws or morals on a citizen of a sovereign state. Let the courts of each nation deal with criminals and prosecute violations of the law. But I cannot support having an international body do it. In any case, the ICC is not limited to heads of state.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:19
|
|
quote:
Who are you to say someone in this position can't be blamed for making choice A? |
Sorry, it doesn't work that way. They can't be blamed for taking the easy way out of adverse, even deadly consequences. But to turn around and imprison them or execute them for what they did is bullshit, because it effectively says "You're ****ed no matter what you do". How is that OK?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
Its hardly surprising the Bush would not want to go with a World Court. The US has a history of distrust of internationalism and the Right is particularly distrusting.
In the long run the world and the US needs some sort of internation legal system. George Washington lived in world where crossing the Atlantic took many weeks not hours or even minutes.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:19
|
|
quote:
If they approve the ICC, then they DO HAVE AUTHORITY! Jeez, can't you get this through your thick skull?! |
They would have the legal authority, which is different from moral authority. Just because the government says it's ok doesn't make it so. However, my problem is also the ICC being imposed on people like Saddam Hussein, who will surely not ratify it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:19
|
|
quote:
The ICC cannot be imposed on those that have not ratified it. Your uninformed remarks of the issue shows how little you know. |
You mean it shouldn't be. Milosevic, I'm sure, never consented to his trial, but there you go. Same for the Nazis and Japanese after WW2.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:19.
Apolyton Time is 00:19. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
07-05-2002 06:03
. much more than any of the rest of us 
.
|