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

[Roland]

"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."

If the US conducts a fair trial on the charges, the ICC will play no role.

That there is no trial by jury is a weakness, although that would be quite difficult in an international court. As for fears about rights - it is way more likely you'll get screwed in some plea bargain than convicted by the ICC - at all, or wrongfully.

[Arrian]

Blah. Not a good move here by the Bushmeister. I understand concerns about the court being used to target Americans unfairly, but I think those concerns have been blown out of proportion. Besides, if political pressure really will have an effect on this court, then that means we can influence it too. Silly Bushman, he should know that we're pretty good at applying pressure.

Guy,

Great call on the South Park reference. It fits pretty well here. I have another one:

"Paranoia strikes deep. Into your life it will creep. It starts when you're always afraid. Step out of line, the men come and take you away."

-Arrian

[rah]

Originally posted by Arrian
Blah. Not a good move here by the Bushmeister. I understand concerns about the court being used to target Americans unfairly, but I think those concerns have been blown out of proportion. Besides, if political pressure really will have an effect on this court, then that means we can influence it too. Silly Bushman, he should know that we're pretty good at applying pressure.

While I agree with Arrian's post that Bush is making a mistake here, I can understand resistance, Even if it's based on ignorance. The top dog is always a little paranoid about all the little insignificant dogs scheming together to get an advantage over the top dog. Is it paranoia if everyone is actually out to get you? The prez is a little touchy these days.

RAH

[DanS]

This is fully within the United States rights and a good case can be made that it is warranted. It is entirely reasonable to suggest that if peacekeeping would put U.S. soldiers or policymakers in the "special jeopardy" referenced by Strangelove, then the government must do its best to shield its soldiers and policymakers.

Looked at this way, it is not sufficient to make the case that we will get more out of this court than the court will get out of us (I fully expect this to be the case--perhaps in spades).

[Jack the Bodiless]

Of course, there's no chance at all that the rest of the world will agree to the principle that "war criminals must be brought to justice unless they happen to be American". So the US will never obtain the blanket exemption that Bush is seeking.

Therefore "U.S. will withdraw from U.N. peacekeeping unless troops are exempted from world court" actually means "U.S. will withdraw from U.N. peacekeeping".

If he wants to withdraw from U.N. peacekeeping, then why not say so?

[DanS]

Diplomacy doesn't work by substitution, Jack. It is important to make known why you are doing what you are doing. Perhaps accommodations can be made in some instances.

[Roland]

Originally posted by rah
The top dog is always a little paranoid about all the little insignificant dogs scheming together to get an advantage over the top dog.
RAH

I'd say this top dog is a bit too busy sniffing his own arse.

[rah]

You'll get no arguement from me.
But when you're the top dog, you can, even if it's stupid.
I say enjoy it while you can. It's always subject to change.

[DinoDoc]

Dan: In some respects, you do have to admit that this is an odd decision for the Bush administration. It is tantamount to shouting before the world that war crimes are SOP for the US armed forces.

Of course there are instances, I can see where the ICC can become a bludgeon against the normal exercise of US policy but I don't think that Bush mentioned that before the UN.

[Imran Siddiqui]

So you like vauge laws?

Well seeing how much of the Constitution (especially the Bill of Rights) consists of vague laws, I'd have to say yes.

The benefits to us joining are to solidify the AMERICAN Norm, that War Crimes, Crimes Against Humanity, etc. are wrong. They are norms that have been by America and Europe for the last 50 years (at least). Arrian might remember the comment, I made. Where it is better to solidify our norms NOW, before we fall from power and then have no way to push our norms on the international stage.

And Dan, accomodations should not be made. A court cannot and should not, say that a certain group of people is exempted. That is ludicrious.

[Roland]

Originally posted by rah
But when you're the top dog, you can, even if it's stupid.

The whole thing was designed to fill a legal vacuum, for areas with non- or malfunctioning legal systems. It is of course possible that the ICC can disagree with US courts, but the ICC's main job will be areas like Congo.

[Chris 62]

Well, reading all of this, I would have to say it's time for the USA to end all it's outside involments that don't directly concern our interests.

NOWHERE in our Constitution does it say we have to help anybody but the USA, nor police anybody.
If people want to be charitable, it can be done through private organizations, but I don't care for it to be done by the US government.

I know this makes a lot of Europeans and many Americans mad to say that, but it's truth.
We have NO such obligation, we always did it because we felt it right and moralistic.

But it's clear Europe wants to have a number of pan-national organizations handle everything from trade to peacekeeping, so I say fine, let them.

For myself personally, I want none of that.
This is my personal opinion, it doesn't represent the USA government's.

Frankly, we don't have the right to tell other nations how to handle their affairs, nor should we ever.
By the same token, they have no right to tell the USA what to do either.

Some Euro said 'let them stew in their own juices" in this thread, I say fine.

You go your way, we will go ours, let's put an end to Nato, and move the UN to Europe, and the USA can go back to carring about the USA, and you people can handle the rest.
I think that's perfectly acceptable.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Chris, isolationism doesn't work. It hurts more than it helps. We don't exist in a void, and we aren't powerful enough to engage in autarky. We depend on other countries around the world, and should engage them. Isolationism is never the answer and furthermore is hurtful to our economic interests, which DOES impact domestically.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Roland
The whole thing was designed to fill a legal vacuum, for areas with non- or malfunctioning legal systems.

That's one of the problems I have with international tribunals: They give the international community a rationale for neglecting the development of native justice systems in countries subject to them. It smacks of a "White Man's Burden."

[Imran Siddiqui]

Even though some justices aren't white?

And if there is NO native justice system, then why should international criminals go free?