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

[Roland]

It is a wierd thing, I admit. But this "best in the world" mantra is slowly going to my nerves. I should just laugh about it. Guess what really annoys me are the braindead suckers who repeat the crap on this side of the pond.

What has professional got to do with it ?

[David Floyd]

So what if the actual treaty didn't set it up! The US Constitution never set up judicial review!

Of course, but the vital difference there is the Constitution set up a judicial body to interpret the Constitution.
You also have to look at the intent, and there's absolutely no reason to think the treaty was meant to set up a judicial body, world court, or police enforcement, because if it had the nations who signed it probably wouldn't have.

The fairness of the application of international laws is the same as the fairness of application of domestic laws. The reason American weren't tried is because they set up that court. Would you rather have that? Ad hoc courts set up by members that won't be tried? Or would you rather have a permanent court that can try whoever does commit the war crimes (whatever side they are on).

And I'm telling you that a permanent world court will be no more fair and consistent than Nuremburg or the post-WW2 Japanese trials were. Why? Obviously because the most powerful world nations will gladly try the Milosevic's of the world, but will not try their own murderers. Could you imagine China, for example, allowing Mao Tse-Tung to be tried(if this was 30 years ago), or the US allowing Truman or LeMay or Spaatz to be tried? Of course not! Will Israel let Sharon be tried? Of course not! But would Israel allow Arafat to be tried? Certainly they would.

What will happen is that the strong nations will say, "You can't try our people and you can't force us to give them up - but we can force you to give up whomever we want to try."

[Ned]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Of course, but the vital difference there is the Constitution set up a judicial body to interpret the Constitution.
You also have to look at the intent, and there's absolutely no reason to think the treaty was meant to set up a judicial body, world court, or police enforcement, because if it had the nations who signed it probably wouldn't have.



And I'm telling you that a permanent world court will be no more fair and consistent than Nuremburg or the post-WW2 Japanese trials were. Why? Obviously because the most powerful world nations will gladly try the Milosevic's of the world, but will not try their own murderers. Could you imagine China, for example, allowing Mao Tse-Tung to be tried(if this was 30 years ago), or the US allowing Truman or LeMay or Spaatz to be tried? Of course not! Will Israel let Sharon be tried? Of course not! But would Israel allow Arafat to be tried? Certainly they would.

What will happen is that the strong nations will say, "You can't try our people and you can't force us to give them up - but we can force you to give up whomever we want to try."

Ah, but David, there's the rub. There is nothig at all in the statute that gives Americans immunity from prosecution regardless of our consent. Unless we go back into our isolationistic shell, I suspect that we will constantly be harrassed by politically motivated complaints. The current attempt to arrest Kissinger by the Chileans illustrates that our leaders can be harrassed even if they only support a coup that ends up badly.

We have seen a great deal of discussion here about the US (and the UK) targeting German and Japanese cities in WWII. These acts seem to be unambiguously outlawed by the ICC. However, at the time, our administrations believed they were justified to shorten the war and save lives. At least with Japan, the bombing was clearly effective.

But the ICC does not permit, as far as I know, a justification defense. In other words, a US president in the future may be hamstrung by the ICC in prosecuting a war effectively - or for even conducting foreigh policy at all (Kissinger)!

There is little wonder why the United States is opposed to the ICC.

[Imran Siddiqui]

the rome statute has overarching language such as crimes against humanity. It can try people for other than codified offenses. This means there is a buttload of wiggle room.

Cite? Crimes against Humanity are defined. Can you please read the Rome Statute?

there's absolutely no reason to think the treaty was meant to set up a judicial body, world court, or police enforcement, because if it had the nations who signed it probably wouldn't have.

And there is no reason to think the Constitution would have set up a judicial body that could strike down state laws. If it had, the states wouldn't have signed it .

And the Geneva Convention has an implied court. After all who would set up to judge who was in violation of it? Surely they learned from the Kellogg-Briand Pact

Check.

The current attempt to arrest Kissinger by the Chileans illustrates that our leaders can be harrassed even if they only support a coup that ends up badly.

How is getting to testify against Pinochet like arresting him? Do you live in some bizarro world? And 'support a coup', HA! How about planning and funding a coup? Kissinger can't be tried anyway for that. His crimes in Chile don't fall under the ICC's specific definitions.

There is little wonder why the United States is opposed to the ICC.

Because we are arrogant ***** that want the rest of the world to follow our rules but not follow them ourselves?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Because we are arrogant ***** that want the rest of the world to follow our rules but not follow them ourselves?

Why are we arrogant? The US's stance has already been justified by the actions of European governments.

[Imran Siddiqui]

But Europe doesn't force countries to adopt their norms... well not since colonialism ended, anyway .

[David Floyd]

Ned,

Ah, but David, there's the rub. There is nothig at all in the statute that gives Americans immunity from prosecution regardless of our consent. Unless we go back into our isolationistic shell, I suspect that we will constantly be harrassed by politically motivated complaints. The current attempt to arrest Kissinger by the Chileans illustrates that our leaders can be harrassed even if they only support a coup that ends up badly.

Ah, but I support this ultimatum not because I think Americans should get special priviliges, but because I think we should withdraw from UN Peacekeeping.

We have seen a great deal of discussion here about the US (and the UK) targeting German and Japanese cities in WWII. These acts seem to be unambiguously outlawed by the ICC. However, at the time, our administrations believed they were justified to shorten the war and save lives. At least with Japan, the bombing was clearly effective.

Very true. And the Germans felt justified in killing Soviet civilians, Jews, gypsies, etc., and the Japanese felt justified during the Rape of Nanking and the Death March. What you're really saying, it seems, is that the firebombing and atomic bombing of Japanese cities, and the murder (not killing, murder) of hundreds of thousands of civilians was OK because it shortened the war and saved American lives.

Well, fine. By that same argument any war crime, or whatever term you use, is justified because those who commit it feel justified - better enemy civilians die than their soldiers, or whatnot. Or how about this? The Holocaust was justified because the Germans felt Jews were inferior, and were holding them back, and it was vital to the survival of Germany as a superpower to eliminate them.

Imran,

And there is no reason to think the Constitution would have set up a judicial body that could strike down state laws. If it had, the states wouldn't have signed it .

Again, the vital difference there is that the Constitution actually sets up a Supreme Court, while the Geneva Convention sets up no such court.
Further, your argument that the states wouldn't have signed it if there was a court that could overturn their laws ignores one basic fact - most states felt that they had the right to secede, a right implied in the Constitution. Witness, for example, New England's threats to secede during the War of 1812, the Nullification Crisis, and the Civil War. States thought, at the time of signing, they had a way out.

Now, admittedly, there is a way out of the Geneva Convention. But to apply the same argument I used to the signers of the GC ignores the fact that the GC was meant only as an international agreement, with no enforcement powers against sovereign states, or any sort of police force or standing army. This is quite different from the US Constitution, which was a union of sovereign, independent states. Apples and oranges.

And the Geneva Convention has an implied court. After all who would set up to judge who was in violation of it? Surely they learned from the Kellogg-Briand Pact

You're saying there is an implied court there because the writers should have learned from history?
What makes you think politicians learn from history? Politicians do as they see fit, and any historical lessons take secondary importance.

[David Floyd]

But Europe doesn't force countries to adopt their norms...

Then why is Milosevic on trial in the Hague?

[JohnIII]

Because he is European?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Further, your argument that the states wouldn't have signed it if there was a court that could overturn their laws ignores one basic fact - most states felt that they had the right to secede, a right implied in the Constitution. Witness, for example, New England's threats to secede during the War of 1812, the Nullification Crisis, and the Civil War. States thought, at the time of signing, they had a way out.

Yeah, but they don't. States signed with the original intention that they could leave if they wanted to. Therefore the US is every bit as bad as the UN is.

the GC was meant only as an international agreement, with no enforcement powers against sovereign states, or any sort of police force or standing army.

Enforcement powers are implied. After all the treaty is meaningless without them. People have been tried for violation of the GC, in tribunals through the UN. This is a more permanent one.

You're saying there is an implied court there because the writers should have learned from history?

Um... because they did imply a court? And they did learn from history. I'm sorry, but I don't remember a 'Treaty of Versaille' type peace after WW2... that is learning from history.

Then why is Milosevic on trial in the Hague?

Because the UN decided to enforce the Geneva Convention, as the Convention does imply.

I'm sorry since when did the UN = Europe.. .

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Then why is Milosevic on trial in the Hague?

Sorry, that was a shameful US opperation. Europe was too much of a chicken to take care of it themselves.

[Lemmy]

Europe was too much of a chicken to take care of it themselves.

[TCO]

enforcement powers are implied...WTF. You consider that an answer to the question about enforcement? What a sophist.

Imran, I will check out the "crimes against humanity definition". but I'll bet you 10 to 1 that the "statutes" are broad, not specific.

[Imran Siddiqui]

And I bet you 10 to 1 you'll call it broad, even if they seem specific to you. They are defined as stated in the Geneva Conventions.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Oh, and btw, to allay fears of 'broadness'

Article 22, Section 2:

The definition of a crime shall be strictly construed and shall not be extended by analogy. In case of ambiguity, the definition shall be interpreted in favour of the person being investigated, prosecuted or convicted.