-
If you read the bill, which is in surprisingly clear english for something from congress, it states why and what are it's extents.
The ICC is based upon the Rome charter. America (President Clinton) signed the Rome charter with stipulations that it not be ratified until changes were made. The House and Senate have never ratified the charter therefore America has not agreed to this treaty. However, the Rome charter states that it can enforce the will of the charter, primarily the ICC, on a country even if they have not agreed to the treaty. This violates and country's sovereign rights who is not a signatory of the charter. Secondarily the charter says that the ICC can determine who in a multinational force is subject to an international trial. This violates the UN charter which states that their judicial committee has sole responsibility for determining who has committed international crimes and has the sole right for form international courts and tribunals. The Rome charter also denies some of the basic rights guaranteed to Americans by the Bill of Rights which violates our constitutionally protected rights. The final objection is that the ICC could decide to prosecute those in charge rather than, or as well as, those involved. Therefore it is very feasible that the rulers of a nation could be held responsible for the actions of their soldiers in the field when serving in a multi-national force.
By common agreement treaties cannot affect nations that do not agree to them. Wars have been fought over this in the past. The Netherlands fought England because Britain impressed their sailors and stole their ships under the rights granted to them by a treaty with France and Spain. America fought a war with England because of (or at least used as an excuse) the same practice of impressment. America rightfully has not signed this treaty that would violate our own constitution. The bill makes clear that enforcement of this treaty on the sovereignty of America will not be allowed and could cause America to withdraw forces from any UN or Multi-national conflict where the Rome charter is not waived.
It also makes provisions for Americans held and tried by the charter which include funding, legal aid, provision of defense attorneys, political pressure, and sanctions against countries supporting the violation of American sovereignty. It does not include provision for military force, bribes, or the use of illegal activities. Then it further weakens even the threat of sanctions by listing all closely allied countries as exempt (including NATO which includes the Netherlands).
Therefore America, IMO, has done everything to protect allies and alliances while trying to protect the rights of her citizens.
In many ways I agree with 4MH that America seems to be the most hated country in the world. We have a love hate relationship with many nations. I would ask people to look at the ramifications of continuing to push America towards isolationism. How long will the UN survive if America withdraws all funding and support? How much aid does America give to all nations. Many do not rely on it like some of the 2nd and 3rd world nations do but almost every nation in the world gets some money from us. I believe it would be devastating if a rise in isolationism grew too much in America. Not just to the world but to us as well. I can understand how many things America does could be seen as arrogant and bullying by other countries. I also understand that every nation that has acheived "superpower" status has been blamed and criticized for the same attitude (17th and 18th Century Britain, 18th Century France, 16th Century Sweden, all the way back to the Sumerians). When you feel like you are in a damned if you do, damned if you don't position your tendency is to withdraw and feel resentful. I would hate for America to withdraw but I can see the movement rising here. Even I get sick of feeling like my country, which I love just as much as you all love your countries, seemingly being blamed for everything.
So if these guys want to patrol the beach, fine let them, we have more than our fair share of nuts and reactionaries in America to have any right to be upset about them in other countries. However, if you expect us to let the other nations of the world pre-empt the very principals that this nation was founded on then I certainly hope you understand that if we attack you we won't be attacking allies. Fortunately I believe the situation would have to deteriorate far more than we are even close to for this to become a remote possibility. My preference would be for the Rome charter to be fixed so America could be in agreement with the other signatories.
Neel, about fortifications on the dutch beach. Why? Who would you be protected from? Singapore had the best fortifications in the world and Japan bypassed them by coming down the peninsula. The Maginot line, the Hindenburgh line, Corregidor, Iraq's line in the sand, if history tells us one thing about modern warfare it is that it is better to have defenses that are dynamic rather than static. However if you want your government to spend a lot of money for nothing at least encourage them to make the forts impressive so they look good in pictures. I love impressive looking forts :)
-
So the U.S invades the neatherlands to rescue and American who has commited genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity-including widespread murder of civilians, torture and mass rape. Under NATO when any NATO member is attacked all member countries automaticlly decalre war on the attacker and deffend the attacked to their fullest abilites. So the U.S declares war on its self along with Britain, Canada France, Russia (not sure if they joined yet), and any other members.
-
There is a real issue here beneath the humor.
Some in the US gov't were advocating the removal
of US peace keeping troops from Kosovo, for fear of politically
motivated prosecutions of our personnel.
If Germany and France, and yes, Belgium and Holland
had dealt with the Kosovo genocide earlier, instead
of waiting for the USA to act, there wouldn't be all
those US soldiers on European soil to commit any
war crimes, or to be falsely accused of commiting them.
It's time to bring our boys home from World War Two
and let Europe police itself.
:cool:
-
I remember when Slick Willie commited our troops to the region some 12 years ago or so... It sure has been one hell of a long year... That was supposed to be the duration of the mission... One year... I agree with you RC it is time that the US pull the troops we have on "peace keeping" missions around the world and bring them home... We can re-commit troops to the area if it is needed but the rest of Eurpoe needs to take care of the region... Just my $.02 worth
-
I personnaly don't think the US would allow any of their troops to commit a genocide so the whole thing is not an issue. That tribunal is judging people like Slobodan Milosevich and his generals that ordered thousands of innocent civilians to be butchered!
The last genocide the US took part in was of the native americans hundreds of years ago and the people responsible for that are long dead so the whole debate makes no sense to me.
I think that law was passed in case some of their troops get arrested in a country like Irak and get judged and sentenced for war crimes when they were ordered to do what they did. I don't think they would try to rescue some nut that decided to kill civilians on his own in the name of U.S.A.
-
Quote:
Originally posted here by Scorp666
I think that law was passed in case some of their troops get arrested in a country like Irak and get judged and sentenced for war crimes when they were ordered to do what they did.
Perhaps like Al Queda members being held at Camp X-Ray without any trial and in violation of several International Laws? Just a thought.....
On a side note....why am I seeing my "redHat" signature showing up on other people posts? They say that "Imitation is the greatest form of flattery" but I think it just shows a lack of imagination....You know who you are! :mad:
-
The Al Queda members being held at Camp X-Ray are being held as POW's... There is a differance... They are being treated in accordance with the Geneva Conventions... as POW's they can be held without trial... As a matter of fact it against the Geneva Conventions to try POW's unless they commit crimes while in custody at the POW camp...
-
Two things.
First to the person who negged me for not posting the source of my writing in the first half of my previous post. I didn't post a source because that was not a cut and paste. I guess I should be flattered that you consider my writing at the level of journalism. However I did use the website that started this, then the congressional document of the bill as the basis for the statements I made, I thought I had made that clear in the text.
Second, the statement (by a Canadian) Scorp666 made is not entirely accurate. Based upon the charter the Massacre at Mai Lai would be sufficient for bringing the officer before the world court rather than the US military court. Our treatment of the Moro's during the Phillipine Insurrection (War of Phillipine Independence if you are from there) would certainly rate, as would their treatment of captured prisoners. I do not believe there is a nation that is above abusive treatment especially when they are in a war or battle with another. If there was one it certainly is not America (maybe Canada :) ).
In most cases I do feel that military justice does tend to address these situations and civil justice takes over where military justice does not. Sometimes this requires international pressure however the ICC would only be responding after international pressure was brought to bear as would the UN as has, historically, the US. So I still do not see the need for a permanent court over temporary UN courts and tribunals. So I do think that we must be alert for these abuses that cross the line but must also be careful not to become what we are trying to be alert to.
/source "me :eek: "
-
My only big real clear opinion on everything that has to do with the united nations, is that if people start something like that to protect world peace, humanity, nature and whatever more on a global scale you can't just say, whatever the reason is, you quit for a moment or don't do what you agreed. Then the whole idea failed to ever create a UN...
That wasn't only about the netherlands or the "bill", but just any agreement in general espacially on a worldwide scale.
