babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » canadian politics   » International Criminal Court

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: International Criminal Court
meades
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 625

posted 27 June 2001 08:15 PM      Profile for meades     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The CBC presented a documentary recently about the efforts to create an international criminal court. Turns out, the yanks are opposed ( ). Are the Americans just trying to hang on with their fingernails to the concept that they are the sole world authority, and that all Americans are immune to justice other than American? Do they think that they are more important than the rest of the world? Or is there actually some sort of "anti-american conspiracy"? Or is there an anti-american conspiracy, with good reason for existing ?

Are the American just affraid "national heroes" such as Henry Kissenger will be prosecuted? Are they just worried about their egotistical bubble? About the maintenance of (the clear misconcepted) idea and belief in American "moral authority"? Or is their actually something wrong with the International Criminal Court?

personally, I doubt it.


From: Sault Ste. Marie | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 27 June 2001 08:24 PM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Now no one get shocked, but I understand the US's position.

The U.S. is asked to intervene in other countries affairs more than anybody. They make up the majority of the forces going into Iraq, Kosovo, and other countries.

And yes, even though you'll find it hard to believe. Some of those missions are peacekeeping. Might not be many but at least its some.

If their was an international court then any president, (democrats too) and generals could be charged with war crimes.

If this was the case, the Americans would never risk intervention for benevolent means.

Clinton said in the future he would have tried to prevent another Rwanda. Forget even the possibility of that if he could be charged for the improper targeting of a bomb or something.

A good saying goes:
You can either ask someone to do something
Or you can dictate how you want it done. You can't do both

[ June 27, 2001: Message edited by: Markbo ]


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 27 June 2001 08:42 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
If their was an international court then any president, (democrats too) and generals could be charged with war crimes.

If this was the case, the Americans would never risk intervention for benevolent means.


Good. Maybe it'll stop the Americans from butting their noses in where they're not wanted.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
meades
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 625

posted 27 June 2001 08:46 PM      Profile for meades     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think that we have to keep in mind that these are prominant, credible judges that will be on the court panel, not some radical group of anti-interventionists. If the US breaks the law, (I mean their citizens) even they should be brought to justice. They seem to have forgotten about the idea of equality, or maybe they even wilingly abandoned it, who's to say.
From: Sault Ste. Marie | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
verbatim
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 569

posted 27 June 2001 11:52 PM      Profile for verbatim   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The US (as does every country) has to make a choice at this point: do we believe strongly enough in universal rights to sacrifice some of our sovereignty for the common good? Leviathan anyone? Beuller? Beuller?

If the US goes in and rounds up people from an ethnic minority and herds them into a stadium and executes them -- then they should expect to be called before an ICC. The reason the US is objecting is because they want control of any ICC that is created -- where the US gets to decide who is charged and who isn't. That doesn't just protect them -- it turns them into the Godfathers of the planet. It's not just that they can protect Henry Kissinger, but that they also get to decide if Pol Pot, Noriega, or Augusto Pinochet get called as well. Nice power if you can get it.

However, this isn't 1945, and they're going to have a much harder time getting another veto power. Everyone else is already regretting the veto they have on the Security Council.

[ June 27, 2001: Message edited by: VerbaTim ]


From: The People's Republic of Cook Street | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
meades
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 625

posted 28 June 2001 12:59 AM      Profile for meades     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think VerbaTim just hit the nail on the head. I'd sooner gouge out my eyes with rusty spoons than live in a world where the US has a veto at an international criminal court!
From: Sault Ste. Marie | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 28 June 2001 01:57 AM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
*grabs for the catnip dangled by VerbaTim, and swishes tail. *

Ok, in all seriousness, I'm taking the bait and running with it, so here we go.

The surrender of sovereingty at the national level must be equal in terms of what rights are given up, as I see it. The USA can't choose to give up less of its rights than, say, Canada or France. That would be like one person saying "I reserve the right to kill any of you with impunity", even as he/she wants to benefit from the social contract (which says you give up your right to commit harm without repercussion).

When people try to do this on the individual level, we call it taking advantage of the system and a criminal act.

The USA isn't saying "We won't participate at *all*", which would at least be a fair and reasonable way of indicating lack of interest in the supranational social contract. The US is saying "We want in, but we don't want to have to be held accountable, or be subject to the same obligations that everyone else is."


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jared
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 803

posted 28 June 2001 01:58 AM      Profile for Jared     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Of course the US is going to do their best to keep this from going through. Fuck Kissinger. The most reprehensible war criminal of them all has the initials R.R. Four words: Grenada, Nicaragua, Iran-Contra.

[ June 28, 2001: Message edited by: Jared ]


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
meades
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 625

posted 28 June 2001 05:15 AM      Profile for meades     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
How about Harry Truman?

And in response to DrC, maybe I'm just an idiot, but are you supporting the American stance, or opposing it? or opposing it, while understanding where they're coming from?


From: Sault Ste. Marie | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 28 June 2001 05:27 AM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Opposing it, of course.

Still, you can see how they'd be reluctant to lose their hegemony over the rest of the world - even if events are moving in such a way that it is eroding at a slightly faster rate than before.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 28 June 2001 10:24 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
One small, complicating factor about the court itself:

The cases that are easiest to bring forward are and will be (?) cases that arise in the disrupted or developing countries. The morality of our sitting in judgement of people whose communities have long been in turmoil, often as a result of messy colonial disengagement, seems complicated to me. I wonder about the ease with which this is proceeding.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
meades
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 625

posted 01 July 2001 03:06 PM      Profile for meades     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Click here to be linked to a web page concerning the international criminal court. It also contains a list and maps of nations that have already ratified the Rome Statute, Canada being one of them. Did I not notice this, or did the media just completely ignore it?
From: Sault Ste. Marie | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
LEX
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 61

posted 01 July 2001 03:23 PM      Profile for LEX     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I agree with skdadl. International Law tends to rely on "morality" as justification for process, but the issue immediately arises "whose morality?"

With specific reference to Yugoslavia and alleged atrocities, a sticky point of international law arises when one considers the actions of NATO --- in total contravention of the U.N. and "established norms" of international law.

While not a "moral relativist" it seems to me we must confront the problem of "international law" versus "national sovereignty."

Lacking expertise in such matters, I'm curious how this contradiction can be addressed --- credibly.


From: Toronto On | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
jabber
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 144

posted 02 July 2001 01:28 AM      Profile for jabber     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It is indeed disturbing that the USA has failed in its responsibility to offer real leadership both morally and politically on the ICC.

Although Congress may be attempting to prevent Americans from ever being prosecuted there are voices in America reminding them of those deeds for which they may be held accountable.

For such an editorial and a list of reasons for which some Americans may have good reason to fear an ICC see http://www.natcath.com/NCR_Online/archives/061501/061501r.htm

Jabber


From: Dryden | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Pimji
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 228

posted 02 July 2001 02:24 PM      Profile for Pimji   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I am in favour of the ICC in its long uphill battle. This organization must adhere to truth and reconciliation for words such as "justice" and "democracy" has great potential to be very hollow when it comes to international politics. The cost of saving face is very high to the people on the ground.

quote:
CAMBODIA: DEFIANCE ON KHMER ROUGE TRIALS
The government could proceed with a trial of former leaders of the Khmer Rouge without the United Nations, Prime Minister Hun Sen said. In a pugnacious statement, he brushed aside a reminder by the United Nations that it must still examine and agree to a formula for a tribunal that has been approved by the government.
Seth Mydans (June 30, 2001 New York Times
World Briefing)

At first glance the KR trial would seem rather simple (in Cambodia nothing is simple)however when one looks into the international players it soon becomes obvious there are few parties who have clean hands. The Chinese and the US both have intrests in maintaining a political foothold in the heart of SE Asia. An international trial has the potential to serve as a theatre to implicate one side or the other. Both the US, Chinese and France (the effects colonization is to easily swept under the carpet) would have to approach the KR trial with humility and not as a clearinghouse for past injustice and absolution. Cambodia serves as a bloody playground for cold war battles. To this day all actors have no interest in opening the closet for fear of exposing not just a skeleton but the entire cemetery.
China refuses to apologize for KR support, made clear again during Jiang Zemin's recent visit to Cambodia.
The Americans, who on one hand refuse to have an international court judge their own soldiers but on the other hand are pushing for a Khmer Rouge trial, push the picture of double standards further. United States Congressman Dick Gephardt expressed satisfaction with the Cambodian government's moves to form a Khmer Rouge tribunal and offered the possibility of increased United States assistance to Cambodia. The foreign aid lever. A representative of the United States Government, a government that killed hundreds of thousands of civilians in South-east Asia. Men, women, and children working in their fields, celebrating in wedding parties, sleeping in their beds; a government that would never dream of permitting one of its own aging political or military leaders to be tried for those crimes or the crime of having wasted thousands of their countrymen's lives through deceit and political cowardice.
A KR trial under these conditions is not about justice and will not serve the Cambodian people. The country is already suffering under crushing poverty, child prostitution (BTW the Japanese embassy just recently used it's foreign aid lever to get a convicted child rapist out of a Cambodian jail) AIDS. Cambodia is just starting to crawl out of the hole dug so deep by foreign intruders that planted the seeds for the KR.
Truth and reconciliation would do more for the Khmer people than another replay of foreign politics at the expense of one of the poorest countries on the planet.

From: South of Ottawa | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 08 December 2001 07:03 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
A while back, we had a thread on Henry Kissinger. (I can't find it now though).
Some people, for example, Pimji, Rasmus Raven and I think Skdadl, thought he was a big fat liar and a war criminal.

Now recently declassified documents add weight to their opinions:
http://slate.msn.com/?id=2059564

Basically, the US approved the invasion of Timor in 1975, a fact Kissinger always denied.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 08 December 2001 07:05 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
A while back, we had a thread on Henry Kissinger. (I can't find it now though).
Some people, for example, Pimji, Rasmus Raven and I think Skdadl, thought he was a big fat liar and a war criminal.

Now recently declassified documents add weight to their opinions:
http://slate.msn.com/?id=2059564

Basically, the US approved the invasion of Timor in 1975, a fact Kissinger always denied.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Apemantus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1845

posted 08 December 2001 08:35 PM      Profile for Apemantus        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Forget even the possibility of that if he could be charged for the improper targeting of a bomb or something.


Incompetence is not a war crime. We all know that the military can make mistakes, and they are allowed under international law. War crimes are a different kettle of fish. You seem to make the assumption that ONLY the US intervenes for humanitarian reasons - there are other countries and they have all signed up. Secondly, you seem to imply that for the good stuff the US does, it should be allowed to commit war crimes. The whole point with war crimes is there is behaviour that is unacceptable EVEN in a time of war. That the US fails to understand this is perhaps why it would be first up in the dock!


From: Brighton, UK | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 09 December 2001 08:16 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
You appreciate that the use of U.S.-made arms could create problems. ... It is important that whatever you do succeeds quickly. We would be able to influence the reaction in America if whatever happens happens after we return. ... The president will be back on Monday at 2:00 p.m. Jakarta time. We understand your problem and the need to move quickly but I am only saying that it would be better if it were done after we returned."

-- Newly declassified State Department transcript of a meeting among President Ford, Henry Kissinger, and President Suharto in Jakarta on Dec. 6, 1975, the day before Indonesia invaded East Timor.
Suharto was deposed in 1998. A year later, East Timor passed a referendum declaring independence. The United Nations is currently overseeing East Timor's transition to independence. Posted on the National Security Archive's Web site.


The speaker is the modern master of realpolitik, Henry Kissinger, author also of the timeless aphorism "Power is an aphrodisiac," a conceit that has done a lot for the egos of ugly men.

Isn't this thread a wonderful reminder of a world of sweet reason? I was about to welcome VerbaTim back -- until I looked at the date.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 09 December 2001 04:01 PM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Power is an aphrodisiac," a conceit that has done a lot for the egos of ugly men.

Yeah but it did great for the sex lives of Liberal Democrats like Condit and Clinton.

It always makes me laugh when Kissinger is critisized for that quote, as if the aphorism became true because he said it. How ridiculous!
How can you condemn someone for stating fact. Sorry you don't actually like to have truth thrown at you like that.

The ICC still hasn't dealt with the potential for prosecutorial misconduct. Once an investigation is started it would take all 5 security council members to stop it. An unlikely event as the probability is that at least one will have something to gain by allowing the investigation to continue.

All those in favor of the ICC should also be fans of Kenneth Star.

[ December 09, 2001: Message edited by: Markbo ]


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Apemantus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1845

posted 09 December 2001 05:08 PM      Profile for Apemantus        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
prosecutorial misconduct

Markbo, you keep using this phrase, can you explain what you mean by it, please?


From: Brighton, UK | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 09 December 2001 07:18 PM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Put it this way Appementus. How did you feel about the never ending prosecution of Bill Clinton? Did you find that the scope of Kenneth Star's investigation was limitless?

I did. I'm no Clinton supporter or anything but I feel that he got a raw deal over the Monica Lewinsky deal. If there were limits on the investigation when dealing with sex scandals. Bill Clinton would have never been put in a situation where he would have perjured himself.

Once an investigation or prosecution is launched in an ICC. The only way it can be called off is if all 5 security council members agree. If say, George Bush or Henry Kissinger are investigated, the prosecutor may abuse his powers and a country like China may enjoy watching it and not call off any abuse of power.

Just like Arab countries hijacked the U.N. conference on race relations to use as a political weapon against israel, so may they use this criminal court as a weapon against their enemies.

I am not against the ICC, I just think that these are real concerns that need to be addressed.

Besides, all the rabblers on this forum would probably like to see G.W. Bush prosecuted. Thats prosecutorieal misconduct.

Another concern is that the U.S. is barely willing now to try to help out countries when its interests are not involved. In cases like Somalia. Would they still be willing to increase that aid if they could be prosecuted for it???


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Apemantus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1845

posted 10 December 2001 04:55 AM      Profile for Apemantus        Edit/Delete Post
Well, firstly there are those of us who think less American interference would be a good thing. I know you consider them always good, but some of us disagree, so that basic point I would say is a benefit.

And as for the Starr thing. I disagree. I think politicians are still not investigated nearly enough. The Parlimentary Comissioner for standards here has just resigned in protest at the massive interference she got when doing her job of trying to maintain trust in politicians. I know people say they have a difficult job, and that may well be true, but they have huge responsibilities for us and the world we live in and frankly if they can't put up with a bit of prying into their lives, they shouldn't be doing the job.

So, no, prosecutorial misconduct doesn't worry me at all.

Again, this seems another way of America both deflecting criticism and wanting special treatment.


From: Brighton, UK | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 11 December 2001 12:11 AM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Apemantus, I beg to differ.

Ken Starr was on a fishing expedition, funded by Republicans who hated Bill Clinton's guts because he was a popular president. The Repubs never forgave Bill for snatching victory from Daddy Bush, you know.

They hated Bill because when Newt Gringrich tried to blame him for shutting down government over a budget debate, the public knew who was really to blame and kept saying Clinton was right for not caving in to the Repubs.

They hated Bill because he was honest enough to admit to drug use, as well as past marital infidelities.

Ken Starr was on a $40 million (US) fishing expedition that ended up being about sex, his statements to the contrary.

The Starr Report reads like a government-issue pornographic novel, complete with the standard bureaucratese sprinkled with lurid details about intimate sex acts.

As a fellow I know said, "If Gore had won the election, the Repubs would be hollaring to impeach him by now."


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 11 December 2001 10:21 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yeah, I never did figure out why consensual sex between Clinton and Lewinsky was considered important evidence for a sexual harrassment trial anyhow. I never quite got where that justification came in.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 11 December 2001 10:45 AM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I want to gently chastise Apemantus for his comment that "prosecutorial misconduct doesn't worry me at all."

The Clinton scandal is a good example. Here we had a person directly elected to the Presidency by the people of the United States. Under what circumstances should his election be relegated to the garbage can?

Kenneth Starr thought consensual sex with an intern and lying about it under oath was enough. So even though his original jurisdiction was the "Whitewater scandal"
(for which he never developed any serious evidence against Clinton), he jumped into the sexual aspect of Clinton's presidency and leaked details as part of a press campaign to force a resignation. He narrowly failed.

There is no reason to exempt prosecutors from the kind of skepticism normally required for any political actor. Especially when they investigate politicians who were elected by large groups of people, they may in fact exercise highly anti-democratic powers.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 11 December 2001 10:56 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
To be fair, though (this isn't my position, and it doesn't exonerate Starr, but I see why it bothers Markbo):

There certainly have been many feminists who have argued over the last generation that there cannot be consensual sex between someone in a position of authority and someone dependent on that authority (an employee, a student). Laws and codes of conduct have been written; people have been disciplined; jobs have been lost ... Lewinsky wasn't a minor, no; but particularly on university campuses, professors have been disciplined in similar circumstances.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Pankaj
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1040

posted 11 December 2001 11:11 AM      Profile for Pankaj   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Prosecutorial misconduct is a valid issue, as is protectionism. A related example: The U.S. refuses to extradite the CEO? of Union Carbide to India to stand trial for that horrible event. Who's right in this? Its good to ponder just what is the right framework to balance both of these extremes, before we institute something. I don't know how to approach this from the legal perspective. I suspect that this would keep a team of lawyers busy for eons.
From: London, ON | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Apemantus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1845

posted 11 December 2001 11:48 AM      Profile for Apemantus        Edit/Delete Post
To clarify: When I said I wasn't worried about prosecutorial misconduct, I mean that is not enough of a reason not to have the ICC. Its a case of weighing up the pros and cons and I just see too many advantages to having one. The worry I DO have is that unless everything is structured the way America wants it, they never sign up to anything. Every other country is expected by them to make a sacrifice - other countries are happy to run the chance of American vindictiveness (not that they ever are, that only ever happens TO them, oh yes), but America is paranoid that its efforts to spread good around the world will be ruined by it being permanently in the dock or something.

Sorry, but it doesn't wash with me. And I would lay odds that the vast majority of trials would (rightly) not be with America as the accused. But to preserve their saintly white image rather than run the risk of the odd proven stain, they seem to block it.

So yes, prosecutorial misconduct does worry me, but not enough for me to want the court not set up.

And all Kenneth Starr did is show that Bill Clinton was not the saint he seemed to be. I know that Presidents do seem to be constantly investigated etc., but maybe if they didn't have to be so rich and powerful to get there, and have the backroom deals they often have done, or the disregard for their wife that he had, then we wouldn't need to prosecute and investigate them. Its a rather apt analogy for America perhaps - maybe if it was genuinely innocent, it wouldn't need to worry...


From: Brighton, UK | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 11 December 2001 03:18 PM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Again let me state I am not opposed to an ICC, I just think that issue should be addressed so that the ICC is not used as a political weapon.

Apamentus, I'm suprised that you don't have a problem with Kenneth Starr's actions. I think it completely exceeded what should have been the scope of his investigations. Whether Clinton was right or wrong, his sex life shouldn't have been investigated. Imagine if they investigated Kennedy. One of the U.S. biggest hero's would have ended up in shame.

However, the problem popps up again, you simply dismiss my arguments without addressing the real concerns. How do you ever expect left and right to find common ground and to widen support on issues if that is your stance.

In this case American interference that would be prevented would be the kind that most rabblers have said they'd support, The kind where they have no self interest involved. Its find to critisize the U.S. but don't dismiss the good work they do. Thats what you just have done. You dismiss the good intentions of the operations in Somalia.

Why would the U.S. even help lead U.N. missions with an attitude like yours? Actually after somalia its the Canadians who would probably back out.

I appreciate DrC and Skdadle for being open and honest about the point I raised. I believe the ICC could succeed if these problems were worked out.


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Apemantus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1845

posted 11 December 2001 05:05 PM      Profile for Apemantus        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
You dismiss the good intentions of the operations in Somalia.

No I didn't. If I dismissed any of that it would be the means, which is exactly what I criticise in Afghanistan. You seem to be of the opinion that the ends justify the means. The whole point, as I keep saying but you seem not to hear, is that war crimes are means that are NEVER justified. You may think differently, but I certainly wouldn't want to take a different stance in the hope of compromise on that issue. If that means less help from the US, tough, I can live with it (or live without it, rather!)

quote:
Why would the U.S. even help lead U.N. missions with an attitude like yours?

Why don't they do what the rest of us do - let someone else lead them down the garden path and then watch as that leader gets all the flak. I am happy to see other countries lead, very much so. Might have less indiscriminate bombing etc.


If the US was working as part of a UN force then it would be the UN and/or all members of that force that would be culpable for any war crimes committed. The impression you are giving Markbo is that the US is committing war crimes in the name of peace all over the shop. If that is not the case, in for example, Somalia, then there is not a problem. The British look likely to lead the force in Afghanistan soon, which is heartening, and I don't see us having any worries about war crimes. During the war itself, our special forces were working alongside the Americans during the Mazar-el-Sharif school incident and then the fortress prison debacle. There have been calls for an enquiry into the conduct of that incident here and across the world which seem to be going unheeded, a shame I think.

Have you a suggestion for getting round the misconduct that does not give America special powers of veto?

quote:
Imagine if they investigated Kennedy. One of the U.S. biggest hero's would have ended up in shame.

Yes, quite. A shame he wasn't investigated.

quote:
Besides, all the rabblers on this forum would probably like to see G.W. Bush prosecuted. Thats prosecutorieal misconduct.

No, its not. The man deserves to be prosecuted. He is a disgrace, his election was a disgrace and his conduct since has not made him any less of a disgrace, and he is not doing America's image any favours abroad!


From: Brighton, UK | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 11 December 2001 10:08 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Thank you for the clarification, Apemantus. And you are right, of course. Prosecutors in Canada have vast discretion, and it is sometimes abused. But mostly, it isn't. The system of appeals and administrative oversight can be used to minimize the worst cases, and a modern court and legal system helps, too.

But few people think that the mere possibility of abuse of prosecutorial discretion thereby discredits the entire criminal court system.

Similarly, an international prosecutor can be controlled to a very substantial extent. It seems, though, that the US objection is simply that someone might stand in judgment of their acts.

Judgment is not a one-way street. American courts, and American presidents, assert jurisdiction, either judicial or otherwise, over much activity in the world. It works the other way, too.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Pimji
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 228

posted 11 December 2001 10:40 PM      Profile for Pimji   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
U.S.: Waiver Needed for War Crimes Court

quote:
(New York, December 10, 2001) - European Union governments should quickly express their opposition to the new American Servicemembers Protection Act (ASPA), passed by the U.S. Senate on December 7, Human Rights Watch urged in a letter to E.U. foreign ministers today.

The article on the Human Rights Watch website continues on in greater detail. The web site also contains other links to the on going negotiations regarding US involvment and opposition to its participation in the ICC.


From: South of Ottawa | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 12 December 2001 11:40 AM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
If that means less help from the US, tough, I can live with it (or live without it, rather!)

Yeah thats great you can live without it but there are thousands of Kosovar ALbanians, Somalians etc.... who would be dead without U.S. aid. Thank god they don't have to rely on your glib attitude for their lives.

quote:

I am happy to see other countries lead, very much so. Might have less indiscriminate bombing etc.

Which other country would you trust leading one of these missions????

quote:
The impression you are giving Markbo is that the US is committing war crimes in the name of peace all over the shop. If that is not the case, in for example, Somalia, then there is not a problem.

Thats not what my concern is at all. Just as Canadian soldiers disgraced us in Somalia. I wouldn't want Chretien to be held responsible for ordering them in.

quote:

The British look likely to lead the force in Afghanistan soon, which is heartening, and I don't see us having any worries about war crimes.

You think we're any safer with a country that has the history that Britain does. Technically they're responsible for many of the global problems we face now. Maybe they'll resolve it like they resolved Kashmir.

quote:

Have you a suggestion for getting round the misconduct that does not give America special powers of veto?

There are many suggestions, but I do not hold my self out to be an expert. My suggestions are worthless if no one acknowledges the problem.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Besides, all the rabblers on this forum would probably like to see G.W. Bush prosecuted. Thats prosecutorieal misconduct.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No, its not. The man deserves to be prosecuted. He is a disgrace, his election was a disgrace and his conduct since has not made him any less of a disgrace, and he is not doing America's image any favours abroad!

What the hell are you talking about? Bush's election was upheld by the supreme court, any criticisms should be leveled at the courts, they decided it. His conduct gives him an incredibly high approval rate. The fact that you think he's a disgrace is actually meaningless as the vast majority of the population approves his actions.


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Apemantus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1845

posted 12 December 2001 03:24 PM      Profile for Apemantus        Edit/Delete Post
What is heartening about the British leading the force in Afghanistan is not because they are, though they are good at it, having had some experience, but the fact that they have offered to. They want to help with the humanitarian effort whilst the supposedly lovely America has bombed the country and are then running off elsewhere - no thanks for that.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4318071,00.html

quote:
Which other country would you trust leading one of these missions????

Quite a few - do you really think America is the only one capable of it? How insular of you.


From: Brighton, UK | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca