 |
|
HershOstropoler
|
|
Ah, Monsieur Ruuumsfeeld. Now it all makes sense.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
SpencerH
|
 |
Co-Ruler of my patch of land south of Birmingham Alabama
Feb 2002
time: 23:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
So we act on this by cutting military aid to future members of NATO and the main battleground for the "war on drugs"?
Oh, how very intelligent..get a reality check. |
here's some reality for you its a grand total of $48M spread across these countries
'In addition to Colombia, the following countries were declared ineligible to receive U.S. military assistance, according to a State Department announcement Tuesday night:
Africa: Benin, Central African Republic, Lesotho, Malawi, Mali, Namibia, Niger, South Africa, Tanzania, Zambia.
Europe: Bulgaria, Croatia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovakia, Slovenia.
Western Hemisphere: Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Belize, Brazil, Costa Rica, Dominica, Ecuador, Paraguay, Peru, St. Vincent and Grenadines, Trinidad and Tobago, Uruguay, Venezuela
Asia: Fiji, Samoa'
'Only about $5-million of the $600-million in this year's Colombian aid is at risk. Most of the remaining money has been already spent or was part of an anti-drug fund that is not considered military aid, even though some of the money goes to Colombian armed forces.'
http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet.../International/
Another liberal tempest in a teapot
|
|
| |
|
|
|
SpencerH
|
|
Co-Ruler of my patch of land south of Birmingham Alabama
Feb 2002
time: 23:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
And what about Colombia's aid NEXT year, since even the article posted makes it clear that most of Colombia's money was spent as it was for this year? That is when Washignton will have to put up or shut up, if these states have refused it.
Oh, and I am glad it is a small amount of money: this way the admin. is likely to fail in its attempts to undermine the ICJ this way. |
No thats not what that article said. Of the $600M we will give to the Columbians in 2003, $130M is 'Military aid' that would be cut. Of that only $5M hasnt been spent. Next year the military (not anti-drug) aid is budgeted for $110M in a total budget of $530M.
As for undermining the ICC, I'm for anything we can do to block it. If I wanted to live under european laws I'd live there (again).
quote:
Although the ICC will try cases against individuals, not states, Mr Bush and many American congressmen fear that it will be used to bring trumped-up, politically motivated cases against American troops and even senior government officials. They say it will produce a similar but far worse situation to that produced by the law on genocide and crimes against humanity that Belgium passed ten years ago. This allows non-Belgians to bring cases against other non-Belgians for crimes allegedly committed anywhere.
Earlier this year, some Iraqis brought cases in Belgium against ex-president George Bush (the current president’s father) and two of his top officials, Colin Powell (now America’s secretary of state) and General Norman Schwarzkopf, accusing them of responsibility for the deaths of some Baghdad children during the first Gulf war in 1991. America says that as a result of such cases, its officials may stop attending meetings of NATO, which is based in Brussels, or it may even insist on moving NATO elsewhere. The Belgian government has realised that the law goes too far, and it is now being changed: plaintiffs will have to show they were directly affected by the alleged crimes; and the Belgian government will gain the power to send non-Belgian cases either to the ICC or, in America’s case as a non-member, to the American courts.
Those that support the ICC insist that there are enough checks and balances in its founding treaty to ensure that it operates responsibly. The officials preparing the ICC to take its first cases say they will apply the lessons learned from the Yugoslav and Rwandan war-crimes tribunals, which America and others have criticised for staging long, expensive trials and spending too much time chasing the small fry.
So far, Mr Bush refuses to be reassured by such arguments. Fearful that America’s troops and officials risk being arrested and handed over to the ICC whenever they step outside their homeland, his administration has been applying severe pressure on many countries to sign agreements granting immunity to American citizens. The European Union tried to stop America pressuring its current and prospective members to sign, but some, such as Britain, insisted on letting countries do so if they wished.
The Bush administration says more than 50 countries have given in to its pressure and signed immunity agreements, though it has not named all of them because some have asked for the agreements to be kept secret. The measure to stop military aid to those that do not co-operate was inserted into an anti-terrorism bill that Congress passed last year. Mr Bush’s officials say around $48m in aid will not now be paid this year to the 35 countries affected. Colombia has already received and spent most of the $100m in aid it was due to receive this year. However, unless America can be persuaded to change its mind, the Colombians will receive no aid in future years—and America will have undermined one of its own key policies to curb drugs-trafficking and stabilise Latin America.
America’s withdrawal of military aid is also unlikely to help its current efforts to persuade more countries to help share the burdens of policing post-war Iraq. Its hard line on several prospective EU and NATO members may also boost the French-led campaign to develop a new European defence front as a “counterweight” to American hegemony.
In all, it might have been better if Mr Bush had stuck to his predecessor’s line of positive engagement with the process of creating the ICC, and pressured the court’s other member countries from within, to strengthen the checks and balances against politically motivated cases. Given Mr Bush’s steadfast refusal to consider this, perhaps the best that can be hoped is that, after a few years, the ICC proves its worth in bringing genuine war criminals to justice, avoids hearing unfounded accusations against democratic leaders and their law-abiding officials, and thereby encourages America eventually to sign up. |
from the economist
|
|
| |
|
|
|
HershOstropoler
|
|
Well, Mr knowledge, tell me what extraterritorial effect the ICC has on the US.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
HershOstropoler
|
|
Well smartypants, I've read the Rome statute. I don't see an extraterritorial effect. Care to point it out to me? You know, I'm just teaching law so I might not get it...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
HershOstropoler
|
|
"Its a pity I cant have you here in front of me."
That's so rugged.
"The ICC is an international org. It has no territory. Therefore, 'extraterritorial' is a meaningless term."
Not at all, as the powers of the ICC are delegated by the ratifying states. Read a little on international organisations.
"We have declared our signing of the Statute of Rome nullified. I cant speak for the US government, but I think it's likely that they wont accept prosecution of American citizens by the court."
If an American citizens murders someone in Vienna, you won't accept austrian jurisdiction either? Interesting.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
yavoon
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Q Cubed
quote:
but we need to act asin our interests. |
asin? what do arcsines have to do with anything?
quote:
we'd like to bring ppl along cuz I personally feel that our interests are shared with lotsa other ppl. |
while that may be the case, you don't generally bring other people along by tactlessly telling them they're wrong, ignoring any warnings they may have, treating them like stupid little children and acting like one ourselves. that dig about "old europe", while probably quite true, didn't need to be said.
it also helps when you at least act like you're following forms and norms that you helped set up, even if you blatantly disregard them privately, which is what we did before bush came along--and anti-americanism, while still around, was never as vitriolic. this current anti-americanism is less a function of latent anti-americanism, and more a function of anti-bushism.
when you get down to it, people like america, at least what they get out of it. they just don't like it being rammed down their throats with condescension.
quote:
but I dare say the more ppl u bring on and give ear to the slower everything goes. especially if france was in. I think it might be presumptiuous to assume someone of amazing tact or asskissing would have won over the UNSC. |
i didn't say we should have made them actually participate. political support is different from military assistance.
amazing tact probably would have won us over the un. france, germany, and russia all apparently didn't like iraq, and wanted it to disarm--they merely thought that giving iraq a little more time to come clean would help.
bush here didn't give a damn, since he wanted to go into iraq come hell or highwater, and was itching to go.
as for the asskissing bit... what do you think most of those "countries of the willing" were doing to the states? many of them were told to either support it or lose aid...
quote:
europe has been very apprehensive about doing things. its often the americans that go in unilaterally. |
an understandable consequence of having america pay for its defence for forty-five years. |
why do u write three paragraphs objecting to bush's tact. kinda had to made me read a lot of the same point=[. becomes inane.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
HershOstropoler
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by SpencerH
I would think as someone who teaches law you would understand the difference. We dont accept the juridiction of the ICC as it now stands.
As for it's having 'extraterritorial effect' (by which I assume you mean having an effect outside of the Rome statute signatories territory), its not hard to forsee bogus cases that will be brought against US officials. Since we have nullified our signature, any action taken against a US citizen would be 'extraterritorial'. |
Ad 1. Your acceptance is totally irrelevant for the jurisdiction of the Court, unless it would claim a jurisdiction that is not based on that of a signatory. There is no rule in international law that counry A has a veto on whether country B and C exercise sovereign powers through state authorities, or through international authorities they establish between them.
Ad 2. Cases can only be brought if the crime has been committed on the territory of a signatory (the two other options are no problem for the US). If say Georgia has ratified the ICC statute, and US troops commit a massacre in Georgia that falls under the crimes for which the ICC is competent, trying them is in no way extraterritorial - it is based on Georgian sovereign rights. Actually, the ICC jurisdiction does not even exhaust those aspects of universal jurisdiction that would be extraterritorial.
The whole Washington fuzz about this is not about facts or concerns, it's about idelogical hysteria. And your inept attempts to construe effects that aren't there doesn't change that.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
HershOstropoler
|
|
On the ICC, an interesting letter to the NY Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/03/opinion/L03COUR.html
quote:
Re "U.S. Suspends Aid to 35 Countries Over New International Court" (news article, July 2):
The administration has taken every conceivable step to undermine the International Criminal Court. Insisting upon immunity for all Americans repudiates the principle of equal respect for the rule of law that we espoused at Nuremberg.
The contention that "there could be politically motivated charges against American citizens" is specious. The tribunal would reject unfounded charges.
Every country has priority to try its own nationals.
Independent judges are supervised by 90 countries, including America's staunchest allies.
The court's jurisdiction is restricted to offenses of concern to the international community as a whole, like genocide and crimes against humanity. The rules guarantee fair trials.
No other country has expressed similar concerns. What is this administration afraid of?
BENJAMIN B. FERENCZ
New Rochelle, N.Y., July 2, 2003
The writer was a prosecutor at the Nuremberg war crimes trials.
|
That damn eurocom....
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:29.
Apolyton Time is 00:29. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
02-07-2003 19:47
|