European Hypocracy

[markusf]

I see no Hypocracy i just see a bunch of people that can't read & propaganda

The article its self is misleading, the first sentance says it no one can be handed over to the ICC. The next sentance says that no one can be handed over the the ICC without written consent from the country to which the person belongs to.

Then latter it says France and Britain have urged the United States to invoke a provision from the ICC treaty that allows the United States to secure immunity for its troops through bilateral agreements with countries that host U.S. forces.

So according to Chris the EU is Hypocratic because its excerising a provision of the ICC treaty?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by markusf
So according to Chris the EU is Hypocratic because its excerising a provision of the ICC treaty?

The EU is hypocritical becuase it is critical of the US for seeking an immunity for its forces at the sametime it was doing the same thing.

[KrazyHorse]

The US was seeking immunity across the board, for all peacekeeping missions. The EU used a provision of the ICC to ask for an exemption on a specific mission.

Those two positions are not incompatible. However, if some of the posters here support their governments' actions in this matter while at the same time maintaining their arguments for US ratification then they would be acting inconsistently.

[markusf]

Originally posted by DinoDoc


The EU is hypocritical becuase it is critical of the US for seeking an immunity for its forces at the sametime it was doing the same thing.

uhm blanket immunity is not the same as negociated immunity for one instance.

This is nothing more then a power struggle, the US doesn't want its dirty laundry aired in public, and it wants control of the testimony etc etc etc. Which it could achieve in a CLOSED court martial in the US.

[markusf]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
The US was seeking immunity across the board, for all peacekeeping missions. The EU used a provision of the ICC to ask for an exemption on a specific mission.

Those two positions are not incompatible. However, if some of the posters here support their governments' actions in this matter while at the same time maintaining their arguments for US ratification then they would be acting inconsistently.

Uhm so you really think if the US and EU invaded iraq that iraq would sign a treaty saying no we don't have any right to bring charges against troops who commit war crimes. The whole purpose of the court is for war crimes etc not peace keeping mission screw ups.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
The EU used a provision of the ICC to ask for an exemption on a specific mission.

I'd still like to know which provision of the Rome Statute allows for this. I missed it in my first skimming of the treaty.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by markusf
uhm blanket immunity is not the same as negociated immunity for one instance.

The desire to aquire immunity from ICC prosecution on the part of the EU justifies the US stance, markusf.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by DinoDoc


I'd still like to know which provision of the Rome Statute allows for this. I missed it in my first skimming of the treaty.

Apparently the one that the article refers to when it says:

France and Britain have urged the United States to invoke a provision from the ICC treaty that allows the United States to secure immunity for its troops through bilateral agreements with countries that host U.S. forces

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Apparently the one that the article refers to when it says:

I have a copy of the Rome Statute sitting on my comp. Could you be a little more specific than the article?

[KrazyHorse]

No, because I've never read the Rome Statute. I'm assuming that the reporter has actually done his job well enough to not get such a basic fact wrong...

[KrazyHorse]

And why have you followed AH's tradition of using the shades smilie above each and every one of your posts?

[Imran Siddiqui]

What really bothers me, Imran, is guys like Carter going to Cuba and apologizing for the US not having an universal public health care system as does Cuba. Universal health care is not a core American value.

Um... what does it matter if or not universal health care is a core American value or not? Carter apologized for us nothing having universal public health care, because he believes it is a basic human right. No one cares if it is a core American value.

We "share" a lot of values, such as the right of free speech, with others in the world, particularly with the Europeans. If what Imran means by advocating American values reduces only to advocating values broadly shared by others, then why should we bother? Since the Europeans broadly share these values, let them take the lead in spreading these values to places in the world that do not have them today.

Why should we bother?!! Are you serious? By making countries more like the US in terms of democratic governance, free markets, free speech, etc, we make them more able to purchase things from American companies. They share our likes and dislikes and this helps America when things like the War on Terror happens, because those countries that share our values will not harbor terrorists. The countries that share our values will also do a lot of trade with us and WANT McDonald's and Walmart to come in.

It helps us immensely, and we've been doing it since WW2 with SUPER success.

[TCO]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
And why have you followed AH's tradition of using the shades smilie above each and every one of your posts?

Good redirect, son. Now, we just need to lure you into materials research...

[Panag]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
The US was seeking immunity across the board, for all peacekeeping missions. The EU used a provision of the ICC to ask for an exemption on a specific mission.

Those two positions are not incompatible. However, if some of the posters here support their governments' actions in this matter while at the same time maintaining their arguments for US ratification then they would be acting inconsistently.

hi ,

, what about a mission where "denialabilty" is a big issue , ....

what if the US goes lets say after sadam , and in the process kill the person who was in his bed at the same time , should the people who have killed sadam , then be brought to the ICC , .....

or what if a submarine officer fires a cruise missile , and the missile hits a WMD plant , but in the process a civilian guard , (who knows nothing of the WMD plant) gets the farm , .....

how far do you go with supporting your government , ....

in europe the nations are hypocritcal , but what about the rest of the world , ...

shall we go , as people , go after the submarine officer from an other nation , .....

or shall we do it as long as he or she is not from the US , ....

have a nice day

[Ned]

Panag, You post illustrates why so many ratifiers are making it clear that if the target was a legitimate military target, any amout of "collateral damage" is acceptable. This kind of exception would seem to permit the targeting of Dresden. (One of the earlier posters had pointed out that the Germans had moved a lot of war industry into Dresden to "protect" it against bombing because, they thought incorrectly, the Allies would never bomb Dresden.)