U.S. will withdraw from U.N. peacekeeping unless troops are exempted from world court

[Imran Siddiqui]

In other words, do y'all think your **** don't stink?

For most American administrations, unfortunetly, yes.

You are more trusting than I am then.

I tend to trust people .

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Guynemer
"I AM ABOVE THE LAW!"

We aren't above the law. WE ARE THE LAW!

[Sprayber]

Isn't this a little vague to be considered a War Crime? I would be interested who decides what is humiliating and degrading and if it is bad enough to put someone on trial. In other others words, Generally Recognized by whom?

Article 8 (2) (b) (xxi)
War crime of outrages upon personal dignity


Elements

1. The perpetrator humiliated, degraded or otherwise violated the dignity of one or more persons.
2. The severity of the humiliation, degradation or other violation was of such degree as to be generally recognized as an outrage upon personal dignity.
3. The conduct took place in the context of and was associated with an international armed conflict.
4. The perpetrator was aware of factual circumstances that established the existence of an armed conflict.

[David Floyd]

Note that I am in favor of this more because we'll hopefully get out of peacekeeping, not so much that I want special rules for American soldiers, although I do believe "following orders" is a very valid defense (in cases where there is no actual sworn duty to refuse illegal orders and the soldier is aware the order is illegal, and there is no threat of serious reprisals including imprisonment or death for refusing said orders).

I'll just be happy to see US soldiers out of foreign brush fires and tribal **** measuring contests.

[DaShi]

Bush, you better have a damn good reason for doing this.

[Dr Strangelove]

The problem is that the US possesses the only military force that is both large and highly mobile. Russia and China have large military foces, but they can't move theirs across the globe in a timely manner. Some of our NATO allies have mobile forces but they're not large. Two of the world's developed nations have forces that constitutionally can not be deployed outside their borders. It stands to reason then that the UN will look to the US to carry out missions that require large scale military interventions, yet it may be precisely that type of mission which would entail the greatest risk of producing an incident that would attract the world court's attention. Some politicians feel then that the US is being put into a position of special jeopardy, because American forces will be called upon to do the type of job most likely to incur a penalty.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Isn't this a little vague to be considered a War Crime? I would be interested who decides what is humiliating and degrading and if it is bad enough to put someone on trial. In other others words, Generally Recognized by whom?

Such as making POW's drink urine, etc. You are just so paranoid that you think they are out to get you. US law is vague too you know. People decide what the law means, but usually they don't change it simply to get at someone. I just think you are waaay too paranoid to be anywhere near the State Department (you'll think they are a tool for the UN ).

[Sprayber]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Isn't this a little vague to be considered a War Crime? I would be interested who decides what is humiliating and degrading and if it is bad enough to put someone on trial. In other others words, Generally Recognized by whom?

Such as making POW's drink urine, etc. You are just so paranoid that you think they are out to get you. US law is vague too you know. People decide what the law means, but usually they don't change it simply to get at someone. I just think you are waaay too paranoid to be anywhere near the State Department (you'll think they are a tool for the UN ).

So you like vauge laws? Aren't the cases of Muslims being "rounded" up in the US based on "vauge" laws and concerns? How do you like those? But you say that is different maybe. Well think about how all those people probably feel when someone in Washington says it's for the greater good and you are just being paranoid. We aren't out to get you.

Tell me Imran what exactly are the benifits to us in this?

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Well we were systematicaly spying for several years.

When is spying a war crime? Again, not understand anything.

When you ram your flying pig into a Chinese fighter?

[Jack the Bodiless]

Well, the Rome Statute signatory nations could retaliate by ceasing to cooperate in the "War on Terror". I foresee a situation in which the ICC nations share info among themselves on terrorist threats to fellow ICC nations, but cut the US out of the loop.

There is profound hypocrisy here. How can the US complain about "everyone expecting the US to be the world's policeman", then resent any attempt by the rest of the world to establish truly international laws and institutions? It's somewhat similar to the bizarre US military's resentment of the EU's "rapid reaction force": the EU doesn't want to hide forever behind Uncle Sam, why is this surprising or undesirable?

[Roland]

GP:

"The Euros all have the "little brother complex"."

Seems more like some Yanks have a severe younger brother complex. Why this need for permament self-aggrandization ?

"(like a teenager questioning a parent.)"

No, like a divorce in the making.

"I just tak em at that and ditcht the childish attitude of looking for perfection..."

If you hadn't an entire industry busy telling yourself and us foreigners how great you are, we'd care a lot less.

[TheBirdMan]

We often hear our "beloved" governments tells us, when they make new acts "to protect law and order":

If you do not do anything wrong, then you have nothing to fear! What's your problem.

Now it seems like the time has come, where at least one government (the US) faces this same question.

[Lincoln]

The fear that many Americans have I think is in losing the right to trial by a jury of their peers. The problem with the ICC is that its jurisdiction is too broad. I think that the Neurenberg trials were just because of the obvious horror that spread to many nations.

The ICC however is abhorent to many Americans because they are supposedly fighting to maintain their freedoms as guaranteed under the constitution (speedy trial, jury, etc.) and in the process of defending those rights and liberties they themselves may be dragged before a world court which denies them those rights. Different cultures have different standards of justice.

The idea of being judged by a jury of your peers means that the people who are judging you understand you and can relate to your struggle, justifications and sense of justice based upon the shared culture, and in wartime, the shared struggle. If Europe was fighting along with America (except on a token level) in these world conflicts like we were in WW2 then the idea would be more palatable.

[Jack the Bodiless]

However, they would not be losing the right not to be tried by "weird foreigners". They never had it in the first place!

For instance, Yemen is an ICC member. If an American perpetrated an alleged war crime in Yemen, would he rather be tried by the ICC using internationally-recognised legal standards, or by a purely Yemeni court? I don't know what Yemeni law is like: do you?

[Lincoln]

We are talking about two different things. Anyone is subject to the laws of a foreign nation he is visiting and I think most people understand that. When we toured the west Pacific for example during the Vietnam War we fully understood that if we offended the local people by breaking their laws that we had to answer to their courts. The problem is an American citizen coming home after the war and being denied his rights by being forced before the ICC. This can happen years later.