Ironworks Gaming Forum - View Single Post - What if Omsa Bin Laden seeks political asylum in Europe?

Skunk · 11-21-2001, 05:36 PM

In the case of the US it would be politically disasterous to flout an international court. How on earth could the US claim to be the beacon of democracy and justice if it refused to send accused people to trial?

And the UN does have teeth to bite with. No, we don't have Saddam Hussein - but he and Iraq are literarlly paying the price with both international assets being seized and a commercial blockade in place.
Hell, he can't buy anything from anyone without the UN approving.

If the US or anyone else were to risk this, the cost would be equally enormous and the longterm damage (as companies lose out to their foreign rivals) would be equally unpleasant.

How bad would this be? Take for example the impact on trade with just the European Union. So far to date (within this financial year), the US has imported some $44 billion dollars worth of goods from the EU. But! it has exported $121 billion dollars worth of goods to the EU.
](source: US Census Bureau, Dept. of Commerce)

Clearly, the loser would be the US and if the delay was longterm (more than two weeks) there is a real risk that Asian companies would fill the gap... That is real biting power.

In the end however, cases like the example you cited are unlikely to occur. I can't see the US not handing over this fictional business man (unless it was to a corrupt regime). No, where the US might be less enthusiastic is probably in the realm of something to do with covert ops...

And I really think that the existence of this body would be good for the US. You see, when it comes to domestic civil rights the US, with a few exceptions, is really quite exemplary. But, on the foreign scene the US is not above being extremely underhand. And, contrary to popular US belief, it is not jealousy of 'fat rich America' that drives the hatred of the US - its these dual standards applied between US citizens and foreigners and the near constant covert interference within external sovereign states. The ICC would probably make those responsible think twice before 'dealing dirty'.

The creation of this military court for foreign terrorists is a good example of these dual standards. And the Bush administration has seemingly forgotten that is a signatory to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948). This military court clearly breaches the declaration:

quote:
Article 2.
"Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty."

Article 7.
"All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination."

Don't get me wrong. My last few posts may appear to be 'US Bashing'. That is NOT the intention - I still count the US as my natural ally. I just think that there is a gulf between what foreigners think about the US and why, and what US citizens themselves think the reasons for this 'anti-US' feeling is all about.

If it was all about 'rich and poor', why are all those fanatics not shouting "EU out!", "Kill the EU", "We hate the Swiss!", "French go home"...?

11-21-2001, 05:36 PM	#52
Skunk Banned User Join Date: September 3, 2001 Location: Amsterdam, The Netherlands Age: 63 Posts: 1,463	In the case of the US it would be politically disasterous to flout an international court. How on earth could the US claim to be the beacon of democracy and justice if it refused to send accused people to trial? And the UN does have teeth to bite with. No, we don't have Saddam Hussein - but he and Iraq are literarlly paying the price with both international assets being seized and a commercial blockade in place. Hell, he can't buy anything from anyone without the UN approving. If the US or anyone else were to risk this, the cost would be equally enormous and the longterm damage (as companies lose out to their foreign rivals) would be equally unpleasant. How bad would this be? Take for example the impact on trade with just the European Union. So far to date (within this financial year), the US has imported some $44 billion dollars worth of goods from the EU. But! it has exported $121 billion dollars worth of goods to the EU. ](source: US Census Bureau, Dept. of Commerce) Clearly, the loser would be the US and if the delay was longterm (more than two weeks) there is a real risk that Asian companies would fill the gap... That is real biting power. In the end however, cases like the example you cited are unlikely to occur. I can't see the US not handing over this fictional business man (unless it was to a corrupt regime). No, where the US might be less enthusiastic is probably in the realm of something to do with covert ops... And I really think that the existence of this body would be good for the US. You see, when it comes to domestic civil rights the US, with a few exceptions, is really quite exemplary. But, on the foreign scene the US is not above being extremely underhand. And, contrary to popular US belief, it is not jealousy of 'fat rich America' that drives the hatred of the US - its these dual standards applied between US citizens and foreigners and the near constant covert interference within external sovereign states. The ICC would probably make those responsible think twice before 'dealing dirty'. The creation of this military court for foreign terrorists is a good example of these dual standards. And the Bush administration has seemingly forgotten that is a signatory to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948). This military court clearly breaches the declaration: quote: Article 2. "Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty." Article 7. "All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination." Don't get me wrong. My last few posts may appear to be 'US Bashing'. That is NOT the intention - I still count the US as my natural ally. I just think that there is a gulf between what foreigners think about the US and why, and what US citizens themselves think the reasons for this 'anti-US' feeling is all about. If it was all about 'rich and poor', why are all those fanatics not shouting "EU out!", "Kill the EU", "We hate the Swiss!", "French go home"...?