UN calls on President Bush to end opposition to ICC

[Dreamer128]

The Secretary General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan has called on the United Sates to end its opposition to the International Criminal Court in The Hague. Mr Annan fears the unity of the UN Security Council could be shattered if the United States renews its opposition.

Last year, Washington insisted on drafting a resolution that exempted American soldiers on peacekeeping missions from international prosecution. The Bush administration is seeking support to renew the resolution after its expiry at the end of this month.

But recent revelations about the treatment of Iraqi prisoners by U.S. troops are largely responsible for opposition to the proposal. Many UN Security Council members no longer want to make exceptions for the US. The council will be voting on the resolution next week.

(rnw.nl)

Can't be done without trashing our constitution and the people at this time in history are not ready to do that....personally I hope they never are.


Edit: An after thoguht..if the group is so fragile to be shattered if the US doesn't go along...perhaps it isn't a very good idea after all.

[ 06-19-2004, 11:36 AM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

[Timber Loftis]

If the US signs on the ICC, everyone wanting to make a big hullabaloo about any US action will be filing claims against the US. While my profession could certainly use an additional 1000 or so job positions in the marketplace to handle specious claims, I certainly can't counsel such economic waste.

It would be a windfall for the legal profession and the continent of Europe would see a dramatic increase in their Law School enrollments.

[True_Moose]

Might it be possible, Timber, if the ICC were to adopt a policy more like the US and Canadian Supreme Court, wherein they select which cases to hear? Something like that would dramatically reduce the number of bogus cases. Of course, the US would have to have at least one member on the panel, but I don't think thats too unreasonable a sacrifice for the court to make. AFAIK, one can only be convicted at the ICC for giving an express, direct order. As such, I can't see any claims against the current Bush administration having any water. Am I correct in this?

Also, if the US were to start recognizing the ICC, I think it would be necessary to grandfather the changes, making the Iraq war and American involvement previous conflicts immune to prosecution. Because I think there would be certain historical revisionists with 20/20 hindsight there.

EDIT] And MagiK, which part of the constitution would it violate? A tenent against having Americans tried by foreigners for crimes physically commited on American soil? (Note my tone is not sarcastic, I really do not know much about the US constitution other than the big, controversial amendments (Freedom of Speech, Right to Bear Arms, etc.))

On that last point; theoretically, what if they are dual citizens?

[ 06-20-2004, 12:22 AM: Message edited by: True_Moose ]

[Kilor Gilowaar]

No. In fact, hell no!

Americans have a legal system, we use it far to often in my opinion, and we don't need to subject ourselves to both our own laws, and those of say... Belgium. Bowing before the ICC and, to the same extent, the UN, in my mind, is a slap in the face to the founding fathers of our nation.

Of course, nobody here really wants me to rant about the UN and the fact that it's a waste of time, money, and resources that could be better spent discovering a new toilet paper.

[promethius9594]

to start off with, bowing down to the ICC violates the belief we have in our morals. if we believe in a moral action as wrong, WE will punish it. if we don't believe that action was wrong, why should we allow one of our soldiers to be tried for it? that would be paramount to admitting that we thought that justification for the action was not there, it would be admitting that as a nation we were weak and shaky on our moral standing, because we couldnt even agree on the morality of an action ourselves.

which part of the constitution would it violate?

the part about american citizens having a fair, speedy trial by their peers (ie, ALL other american citizens)

[skywalker]

Originally posted by promethius9594: the part about american citizens having a fair, speedy trial by their peers (ie, ALL other american citizens)

Hmmm... Can you say Jose Padilla and Yaser Esam Hamdi? ..... I knew you could.


Mark

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by skywalker: quote: Originally posted by promethius9594: the part about american citizens having a fair, speedy trial by their peers (ie, ALL other american citizens)

Hmmm... Can you say Jose Padilla and Yaser Esam Hamdi? ..... I knew you could.


Mark [/QUOTE]What is speedy? We as citizens believe one thing the courts believe another, look at the K. Bryant case. the real trial hasn't started yet, they're still scrapping about prelim stuff. The courts will decide if the trials are speedy we may or may not agree with the courts, but the cours got the final say. At least until I become emperor

[promethius9594]

Can you say Jose Padilla and Yaser Esam Hamdi? ..... I knew you could.

um, im pretty sure i cant say that second guys name right, actually.

either way, not familiar with their cases, please refresh on details.

about the kobe bryant case, both sides are trying to delay the case at that point to try to push for settlement, it could have gone to trial already if not for Kobe or the prosecutors lawyers.