The International Criminal Court (ICC) promises to end the impunity long enjoyed by world leaders. The International tribunals already established by the UN have brought many war criminals to justice and prompted legal reforms in many nations, easing prosecution of domestic and foreign leaders. The ICC, established in July 2002, brings global criminal justice a step closer.
The US has been waging a campaign to sabotage the International Criminal Court, even vetoing continuing United Nations peace keeping actions in Bosnia in an effort to make the ICC weak and toothless. The United States refuses to accept the jurisdiction of the Court for its own citizens and has bullied other nations into bilateral deals exempting US citizens from prosecution.
Now the U.N. Security Council has approved a resolution to prosecute Sudanese war crimes suspects before the International Criminal Court. The resolution was nearly vetoed and the US finally abstained only after demanding Americans working in Sudan would not be handed over to either the ICC or any other nation's courts if they committed crimes in Sudan.
This is positive action by the UN to stop the bloodshed and allow the ICC to punish those responsible. The United Nations is acting to stop the atrocities in Darfur – why is the United States hindering these actions and protecting those guilty of what even Rice calls genocide?
Let us not forget that in Bush's constituents views, the US is as pure as driven snow. No US person can ever be guilty of war crimes.
But let's not simply attack US hypocrisy. May I note that Australia has withdrawn from the maritime boundry jurisdiction of the ICC as it (the followers of the John Howard) does not wish to be forced to provide East Timor with extra oil. So the US is not alone. It makes me want to emigrate to NZ.
Originally posted by steerpikeWhy sabotage a bunch of fools? Isn't it better to just pee on them? Like any real man does?
The International Criminal Court (ICC) promises to end the impunity long enjoyed by world leaders. The International tribunals already established by the UN have brought many war criminals to justice and prompted legal reforms in many nations, easing prosecution of domestic and foreign leaders. The ICC, established in July 2002, brings global criminal just ...[text shortened]... ted States hindering these actions and protecting those guilty of what even Rice calls genocide?
Originally posted by steerpikeIf you are really asking... which I doubt.
At least that bunch of fools is starting to deal to the Sudanese Government leaders. And what would you suggest we do to stop the killings?
Put US marines in place to enforce justice.
So what is justice?
The government "rightly" claims that the 'rebels" are killing loyalists and "ignoring" lawful govenment rule.
The Rebels "rightly" claims that the government is killing innocent civilians and is "ignoring" lawful govenment rule.
Is there a universal "truth"?
yes.
People are universally stupid. They ALL can believe in the UN and Father Chistmas at a go.
Originally posted by StarValleyWyBut you won't do it. Why? Because there is no end to it, both in time and scope. Liberia, the Congo, Uganda - where next?
If you are really asking... which I doubt.
Put US marines in place to enforce justice.
So what is justice?
The government "rightly" claims that the 'rebels" are killing loyalists and "ignoring" lawful govenment rule.
The Rebels "rightly" claims that the government is killing innocent civilians and is "ignoring" lawful govenment rule.
Is there a universal "truth"?
yes.
People are universally stupid.
So you sabotage the ICC, call them a bunch of fools, and do nothing. Looks to me like Pol Pot all over again
Originally posted by steerpikeSilly me. what is an "ICC"? <edit> sorry. I forgot. Humor. You really do "believe" in santa and an "international" court of commies?
But you won't do it. Why? Because there is no end to it, both in time and scope. Liberia, the Congo, Uganda - where next?
So you sabotage the ICC, call them a bunch of fools, and do nothing. Looks to me like Pol Pot all over again
Sorry. I haven't laughted that hard in a long time. Sorry. ahem. err...
Choose dude. You support them or us. Like Bush said. "You are for us or you are against us."
Ain't it amazing when you put it into the context of who people want to kill?
Originally posted by steerpikeYea. Like I said. Ain't it amazing when we actually have to choose sides as to who we want to kill.
International Criminal Court - the subject of the thread.
Your side loses. I hope. I can't stand cowards who kill "crowds" for no reason. But you are the man! Right?
Cheap shot against an unarmed foe.
"Who do you want to win? The killers who bomb Iraq today or the US?"
Who are you for? Like I don't dare guess. snark.
Originally posted by StarValleyWyWhich side has used the most bombs in Iraq?
Your side loses. I hope. I can't stand cowards who kill "crowds" for no reason. But you are the man! Right?
Cheap shot against an unarmed foe.
"Who do you want to win? The killers who bomb Iraq today or the US?"
Who are you for? Like I don't dare guess. snark.
Originally posted by steerpikeYou ducked the question. Why do you want the US to be defeated? If you please. Or simply deny that you want the US to be defeated. That is pretty up front?
Which side has used the most bombs in Iraq?
<edit> Do you know how painful it is to beat up on idiots? It is not something I take pride in doing. But... somebody has to do it.
Originally posted by steerpikeThe U.S. cogress, as well as the administration, has consistently referred to the situation in Darfur as 'genocide'. Consider this question: Why didn't the U.N. also call it genocide? The answer is that declaring the situation in Darfur genocide would have thereby required the UN to take action, which seems to be something they have a problem doing. In fact, it was the U.S. that circulated the February petition calling for the establishment of a UN mission in Sudan, which is currently underway. So, the question of Darfur and the ICC are a bit different. The U.S. has been instrumental in bringing about international intervention in Sudan, but, alas, they have also undermined the ICC at every turn, fearing the prosecution to U.S. soldiers and citizens in foreign courts. Bizarrely, the Rome Statute only mandates the ICC prosecution of accused war criminals in those cases where the accused's country of origin refuses to prosecute. So, the U.S. could very well ratify the Rome Statute and never have to face the prospect of a U.S. citizen being tried in a foreign court. The U.S. could very well have those accused be tried by military tribunals, thus allowing soldiers (who are really of primary concern here) to have trials out of public view in a congenial environment. Of course, this may not be a good thing, in those cases where U.S. soldiers actually commit war crimes, but it would certainly prevent the railroading of U.S. soldiers, with the added benefit of the U.S. regaining some respect in the international community, getting a vote on who gets elected to serve on the ICC judiciary, and strengthening the ICC itself (which is a very good thing for those who are opposed to war crimes).
The International Criminal Court (ICC) promises to end the impunity long enjoyed by world leaders. The International tribunals already established by the UN have brought many war criminals to justice and prompted legal reforms in many nations, easing prosecution of domestic and foreign leaders. The ICC, established in July 2002, brings global criminal just ...[text shortened]... ted States hindering these actions and protecting those guilty of what even Rice calls genocide?
Originally posted by bbarrI can only bow to you sir and say "well done".
The U.S. cogress, as well as the administration, has consistently referred to the situation in Darfur as 'genocide'. Consider this question: Why didn't the U.N. also call it genocide? The answer is that declaring the situation in Darfur ...[text shortened]... ich is a very good thing for those who are opposed to war crimes).
Why can you say ten times what I am trying to say?
Anyway. Well said. How are you? And in case you think ol' svw missed the subtlety... I did not.
We Liberals are quite willing to live by law and the rule of the elected.
Originally posted by StarValleyWyActually, I was talking about why the US government is trying to destroy the International Criminal Court and other institutions.
You ducked the question. Why do you want the US to be defeated? If you please.
Unilaterally imposing American solutions is the Bush doctrine. And I would like to see the public failure of that approach, and the United States again respecting international law.