not that anyone but me cares

[Lao Tzu]

But the ICC comes into effect on July 1st, 2002. Because of that there is a rush to ratify the Roman Statute. in the last week there have been 5 ratifications. We now stand at 74 ratifications

Namibia 25 June 2002
Bolivia 27 June 2002
Uruguay 28 June 2002
Gambia 28 June 2002
Latvia 28 June 2002


Go UN

 

[Lao Tzu]

reply you cocksuckers. The US is trying to undermine the integrity of the court. And our relationships with NATO, the UN and the EU are becoming more strained because of our conduct. The fabric of international law is being stressed by USA's attempts to create an 'everyone can be prosecuted but us' kangaroo court using strongarm tactics. It may end up being us vs most of the world on this issue (as if it isn't already).

 

[the nature boy]

Namibia 25 June 2002
Bolivia 27 June 2002
Uruguay 28 June 2002
Gambia 28 June 2002
Latvia 28 June 2002


Go UN

what took those fuckers so long, my friend in Latvia promised me they would have signed up a month ago. Slackers.

 

[Lao Tzu]

Is she a fat woman? i know a fat woman in Latvia.

 

[big4life]

What do you mean "not that anyone cares?"

My friends were telling me the other day about all the sleepless nights they have had due to this. I'm not going to kid you, I have lost plenty of sleep over this very issue.

 

[Lao Tzu]

Its a running joke. Everytime a country ratifies the Roman Statute i make a post titled 'not that anyone but me cares'. This is like my 5th post. When the 75th ratification occurs i will make another 'not that anyone but me cares' post.

You've lost sleep over the ICC? why.

 

[big4life]

It was a joke man, you seem to post on it all the time.

 

[p0ink]

thank god bush never ratifified this, because his signature on this would effectively eliminate our constitutional rights and our sovergnity, and eventually open the door for foreigners to challenge each and every US law so they can tailor the laws to fit the european versions. the same same kind of laws we got away from 225 years ago.. the united states has its own laws here, and the ability to enforce them if they see fit. cultural differences in the world cannot and should not influence what laws we enforce and how we carry out the sentence. nor should any third world world country be allowed to tell me and others what rights we have and those we dont. the icc would simply open the flood gates to lawsuits against american interests, environmental accomodations, and our right to exist. you think our court system has flaws now, just think what it would be like if we were in the ICC. the current criminal charges brought against ariel sharon in belgium is just an example of what we would have in store if we actually joined this ridiculous, destructful thing. the next step bush should take is to place automatic sanctions agains the UN and any member organization that attempts to bring an american trial. the fucking UN is a joke because it gives insignificant, unachieving, misfit little countries the excuse to imagine they actually have some relevance in the world.

 

[p0ink]

up

 

[the nature boy]

true, and we wouldn't want to get in trouble for putting into power murdering criminals either. it's a good thing we didn't sign it.

 

[danielson]

i wonder if henry kissinger is happy just as long as he doesnt emmigrate he;s sorted

 

[Lao Tzu]

want me to reply to your statement?



1. thank god bush never ratifified this, because his signature on this would effectively eliminate our constitutional rights and our sovergnity, and eventually open the door for foreigners to challenge each and every US law so they can tailor the laws to fit the european versions.

2. the same same kind of laws we got away from 225 years ago.. the united states has its own laws here, and the ability to enforce them if they see fit. cultural differences in the world cannot and should not influence what laws we enforce and how we carry out the sentence. nor should any third world world country be allowed to tell me and others what rights we have and those we dont.

3. the icc would simply open the flood gates to lawsuits against american interests, environmental accomodations, and our right to exist. you think our court system has flaws now, just think what it would be like if we were in the ICC. the current criminal charges brought against ariel sharon in belgium is just an example of what we would have in store if we actually joined this ridiculous, destructful thing. the next step bush should take is to place automatic sanctions agains the UN and any member organization that attempts to bring an american trial. the fucking UN is a joke because it gives insignificant, unachieving, misfit little countries the excuse to imagine they actually have some relevance in the world.

1. The icc violates no constitutional rights. The American Bar Association, when they went to the 106th congress in july of 2000 showed the congress how the ICC was constitutional.

http://www.abanet.org/poladv/testimony/intl072500.html

I have no idea about changing our laws, or if this will do so. the acts the ICC considers illegal, the american domestic judicial system considers illegal too. No laws would change. Its still illegal for us to massacre civilians or force POWs to be sex slaves, no matter if we join or shun the ICC. Soveriginity wouldn't be abolished as these acts are illegal anyway, and the court would have no reason to prosecute us.

2. I agree. I think USA should quit the UN too. Our isolationism isn't good in an organization that wants to have large scale cooperation (aka globalism. something i am in favor of).

Besides, its easy to talk about soveriginity and national independence when it is your country who would be doing the war crimes, and not you recieving them. If Russia had won the cold war and was turning your sister into a sex slave i'm sure you'd have a different opinion on the International Criminal Court.

That is also double talk, as USA has repeadly interfered with third world countries. either to overthrow their governments or to establish Ad Hoc tribunals to try those they considered guilty of crimes (as they saw them).

3. We would just ignore whatever judgements came against us, as we have the better army. We did the same thing in 1984 when the World Court of Justice accused us of acts of international terrorism against Nicaragua.

No one seems to understand that the ICC was created because domestic courts aren't always willing to provide protection of basic human rights because courts are too politically & socially charged. Human rights that most countries on the world agreed upon when the wrote the Roman Statute. Saying things like 'Sharon might be prosecuted' brings to light why the court was created in the first place, because the strong can do whatever they want w/o fear of reprisal. If Ariel Sharon commits large scale crimes against humanity (which i doubt) he should be prosecuted for it, irrelevant of whether he is an ally or enemy.

A few minor inconveniences for america isn't that big a deal if it helps prevent large scale crimes against humanity from occuring. If america doesn't want to be part of the ICC, fine. We shouldn't try to stop it from existing though. The rest of the world has the right to work together if that is their agenda. Every NATO country except the USA & turkey has ratified the ICC, every E.U. nation has ratified it too. In under 4 years, 74 countries (rougly 39% of all the countries on earth) have decided they want to be part of the ICC. by 2006 that number will probably be up to about 65%. They should be allowed to live their lives without being threatened by america for joining an organization we don't agree with.

 

[cockdezl]

true, and we wouldn't want to get in trouble for putting into power murdering criminals either. it's a good thing we didn't sign it.

Yes, I am sure the UN would attack us on our involvement in establishing governments in other countries. And while they were bitching about us, the piece of shit, Robert Mugabe, of Zimbabwe, would still be killing white farmers and confiscating their land, in order to give it to his black cronies, all while his country is starving to death. Oh, and the UN is planning on giving food aid to Zimbabwe, instead of demanding his removal.

There is no Constitutional or logical reason for us to enter with the UN.

 

[Lao Tzu]

true, and we wouldn't want to get in trouble for putting into power murdering criminals either. it's a good thing we didn't sign it.

yup. We'd have prosecutions up the ass for aggression and assisting in human rights violations if we allowed the court to have jurisdiction over us.

 

[the nature boy]

yeah but at least the UN didnt put him into power, no?

 

[buddy28]

yeah but at least the UN didnt put him into power, no?

heh.


Nordstrom,

Your knowledge on this isssue far exceeds mine, so I can offer only my semi informed 2 cents.

In my opinion, US concession of national sovergnity to an international tribunal indirectly comprimises US national security by restricting actions available to the US Executive and Intelligencee-Military branches which further secure 'US interests abroad' = Shah of Iran adcetrta.

Personally, i think its bullshit. Let the US be prosecuted. Talk about hypocrisy. Drape yourself int he American flag, boast about furthering the cause of democracy which is intrinsically a humanitarian effort, then install some *dictator* like Saddam, give him biological weapons technology which he ends up using on his own people, then stand beside him all the while and call him a close 'ally'.

Even if Roman Statue ratification forbad retroactive prosecurtion of national human rights violations committed before ratification of the treaty, the US probably still wouldnt sign. The US will always favor highly unethical covert operations targeting foreign countries when US national security or US interests are comprimised.

ill come back this later. ..

 

[the nature boy]

hey buddy, welcome back.

 

[buddy28]

hey buddy, welcome back.

thanks nb. Been busy with some not so pleasent personal issues, but Im in my own place now so things should be returing back to normal soon.

Holding down the fort?

 

[p0ink]

nord, how do you feel about charges being brought against ariel sharon?

 

[danielson]

nord, how do you feel about charges being brought against ariel sharon?

since he's not online, how do u feel?

some belgian dude's trying to sue him currently.

 

[Lao Tzu]

nord, how do you feel about charges being brought against ariel sharon?

I don't know enough about the middle east to know what the consensus is on sharon's acts. If sharon is actualy committing important war crimes and crimes against humanity, as defined by the convention against torture, the geneva convention or as described by the Roman Statute he should be tried, but he is probably no worse, and probably better, than 1/2 the political leaders on earth. I'd rather the ICC go after someone more important.


Might makes right. And i'd rather those with 'might' be non-profit organizations dedicated to human rights and social/economic development than countries like America, China or Russia which mainly care about themselves and their economies. One of the main reasons the 1st world is so great is because we have political stability, industrial & economic development and personal freedoms. I am all for exporting these attributes to the rest of the world, it would be nice if most countries on earth created groundbreaking scientific discoveries every week instead of just 3 or 4 1st world countries.

Also, if the USA doesn't want to be part of the court, fine. Just don't try to change it to exempt us from prosecution. That would turn it into a kangaroo court and a political tool.

 

[cockdezl]

I don't know enough about the middle east to know what the consensus is on sharon's acts. If sharon is actualy committing important war crimes and crimes against humanity, as defined by the convention against torture, the geneva convention or as described by the Roman Statute he should be tried, but he is probably no worse, and probably better, than 1/2 the political leaders on earth. I'd rather the ICC go after someone more important.

Well thats real nice, and who the hell determines who is an important target or not? I guess you only want the ICC to go after American figures, since we are so evil in comparison to the rest of the world.

Might makes right.

Sounds like a true democracy, which is also known as a mob, or a tyranny. At least you are consistant with liberal ideology.

And i'd rather those with 'might' be non-profit organizations dedicated to human rights and social/economic development than countries like America, China or Russia which mainly care about themselves and their economies.

You never cease to amaze me with your thinking. Tell us why these "non-profit" organizations, who are dedicated to human rights are the harbingers of all that is good? Have you ever read the UN Declaration of Human Rights? Read #29 and tell us what it means. Tell us about the great human rights work the UN is doing with women rights in Romania, such as the prostitution trafficking that is occuring under their eyes, and allegedly with their help. Also, tell us about CEDAW's stance on forced abortions to help combat overpopulation.

Explain to us why we have to take care of the world, why we should shoulder the burden of others. This is called slavery. When a man works so that another may dispense with his earnings, you are no longer free. And after we take care of the other countries' pathetic economies', who is going to take care of ours?

Your concept that America is a stain on a otherwise peace-loving world is a farce, same as the UN.

One of the main reasons the 1st world is so great is because we have political stability, industrial & economic development and personal freedoms. I am all for exporting these attributes to the rest of the world, it would be nice if most countries on earth created groundbreaking scientific discoveries every week instead of just 3 or 4 1st world countries.

Great Disney fairy tale. Tell us why we have all of the above atributes, yet we are one of the youngest nations on earth. Could it be from our heritage and the beliefs of Western Europeans? Could it be that we applied the concepts reasoned by our ancestors? Could our belief in individualism and natural law have any part? You can't just give this to others, this is something that we developed over hundreds of thousands of years. Plus it won't work in countries that do not understand or care about individualism, collectivist countries or dictatorships will not suffice. You think we could give our system to Afghanistan and they would become a great nation? It would be like giving a car to a child and asking him to change the oil.

And in reference to scientific discoveries, the US produces more Nobel Laureates than any other country, and this is not just native citizens, this is foreign students here in the US also. This is a testament to how our system allows all people to excel, not only the American born.

Also, if the USA doesn't want to be part of the court, fine. Just don't try to change it to exempt us from prosecution. That would turn it into a kangaroo court and a political tool.

Yes you would have us hand our heads on a silver platter to our enemies.

 

[Lao Tzu]

1. Well thats real nice, and who the hell determines who is an important target or not? I guess you only want the ICC to go after American figures, since we are so evil in comparison to the rest of the world.



2. Sounds like a true democracy, which is also known as a mob, or a tyranny. At least you are consistant with liberal ideology.



3. You never cease to amaze me with your thinking. Tell us why these "non-profit" organizations, who are dedicated to human rights are the harbingers of all that is good? Have you ever read the UN Declaration of Human Rights? Read #29 and tell us what it means. Tell us about the great human rights work the UN is doing with women rights in Romania, such as the prostitution trafficking that is occuring under their eyes, and allegedly with their help. Also, tell us about CEDAW's stance on forced abortions to help combat overpopulation.

4. Explain to us why we have to take care of the world, why we should shoulder the burden of others. This is called slavery. When a man works so that another may dispense with his earnings, you are no longer free. And after we take care of the other countries' pathetic economies', who is going to take care of ours?

5. Your concept that America is a stain on a otherwise peace-loving world is a farce, same as the UN.

6. Great Disney fairy tale. Tell us why we have all of the above atributes, yet we are one of the youngest nations on earth. Could it be from our heritage and the beliefs of Western Europeans? Could it be that we applied the concepts reasoned by our ancestors? Could our belief in individualism and natural law have any part? You can't just give this to others, this is something that we developed over hundreds of thousands of years. Plus it won't work in countries that do not understand or care about individualism, collectivist countries or dictatorships will not suffice. You think we could give our system to Afghanistan and they would become a great nation? It would be like giving a car to a child and asking him to change the oil.

7. And in reference to scientific discoveries, the US produces more Nobel Laureates than any other country, and this is not just native citizens, this is foreign students here in the US also. This is a testament to how our system allows all people to excel, not only the American born.



Yes you would have us hand our heads on a silver platter to our enemies.

1. no, and please stop replying to my posts if you can't formulate an argument that isn't just an angry tirade.
An international prosecutor, a panel of judges or the security counsol will be responsible for determin

2. THe powerful can do whatever they want w/o fear of reprisal, which is why the ICC was created in the first place.

3. I would rather a non profit organization have power than a country with an agenda of economic exploitation.
I've never heard about that stuff in the UN. i could care less about article 29, i've known about that for a while. Boo hoo, a country can't violate the Universal Declration of Human rights, I'm going to cry myself to sleep over that.
I can't find any info on your accusations. Thats odd, you seem to level headed to make shit up. Even anti UN websites don't mention forced abortions. If you really do give a shit about forced abortions (which i'm sure you don't) why don't you support the ICC. Article 7, section 1, subsection g specifically considered 'forced sterilization' to be a crime against humanity. Besides, UNICEF, WHO, WFO, and a variety of other organizations are far too valuable. And so waht if the UN makes a mistake or two. Lets just throw out the whole domestic court system too because someone was unfairly prosecuted in 1943. OR better yet, lets become radical right wing terrorists.

4. Who says we have to. And what is so wrong about it. The more you reply to my posts, the more i realize what a shitty repressive world we would live in if people like you ran things.

5. explain how.

6. its probably a result of europeanization. I don't see why economic growth isn't exportable. Japan grew pretty fast in the 20th century. India is industrializing.

7. good for us

8. Read post 4. 'i only want a court if it is unable to prosecute us'. What if china or Russia said the same thing? Besides, i could care less if we really are guilty and get prosecuted for it. We deserve to be prosecuted. If we aren't guilty, hopefully the multitude of safeguards and the fact that our political allies are the major forces behind the court will protect us. I'm not willing to throw something so important out because it may one day be used to inconvenience us.

 

[the nature boy]

AMEN brotha norstrom!!!

 

[gymnpoppa]

There seems to be a number of posters on this subject who do not know what the hell they are talking about.


This is a legit concern, about global problems, and idiots posting here on emotional tirades need to just shut up.

The idiotic assumption that the ICC was formed to attack American interests/personnel/military is a crock of shit.

The obvious possibility that some of the dirty-ass shit we have done in the past could come to light, or the fact that these countries can actually have a voice to say something about our covert ops and involvement in coups, or other previously denied involvement is a good thing.

I'm for all of the dirty shit we've done being put out on the table.

If we're not involved in any dirty shit, then what's the problem?

That's the current logic being used to justify the restriction and intervention of our liberties by the Justice Dept, and the FBI......

 

[gymnpoppa]

Wha? bump for debate.

damn, did I run everybody off?

 

[danielson]

can they actually bring past cases to the tribunal?

if so sharon wont be brought up on shabra and shatilla as he faced in israeli board of inquiry. but anyting else he;s done which the israeli;s havent tried him on may be brought up

 

[gymnpoppa]

can they actually bring past cases to the tribunal?

if so sharon wont be brought up on shabra and shatilla as he faced in israeli board of inquiry. but anyting else he;s done which the israeli;s havent tried him on may be brought up

Nope, no past cases....which Americans will remain ignorant about the murders we committed involving gen pinochet. I'm amazed people think this behavior is acceptable. Especially since if someone attempted to assassinate any official, or overthrow our government, we'd have a serious problem with it. But it's okay for us to support communist dictatorships, train them here in the US on techniques used to commit human rights abuses..........what hypocrisy.

 

[danielson]

shit when pinochet was over here we even had politicians stand uo for him because he helped us in the falklands.....and this was just to prevent him from standing trial

 

[p0ink]

isnt one of the reasons why the US had opted out of the ICC is because they want to charge 65 individual american soldiers for war crimes, even though they were there on a peace keeping mission in bosnia. we do not need other countries disciplining our troops/citizens; i think we are more than able to do it on our own. plus why would you want these europeans that sympathize with arafat running this kangaroo court?

 

[p0ink]

and all this talk about charging people with genocide, give me a break. arent there already guidelines within the UN that prohibit genocide? hasnt their already been trials for people accused of genocide? look at how milosevic is treating this thing....do you expect these other uncivilized dictators to respect the UN and it's laws? no. do you really think the ICC will do a better job at what the UN has already been doing? no.

 

[the nature boy]

I thought I was paraniod, many of you are more paranoid than I am.

 

[gymnpoppa]

isnt one of the reasons why the US had opted out of the ICC is because they want to charge 65 individual american soldiers for war crimes, even though they were there on a peace keeping mission in bosnia. we do not need other countries disciplining our troops/citizens; i think we are more than able to do it on our own. plus why would you want these europeans that sympathize with arafat running this kangaroo court?

Again, no one can be tried for past "offenses" in the ICC, which makes any publicly stated American rhetoric involving such bogus.

Why would anyone want to just charge soldiers, American soldiers for war crimes? p0ink? What is your theory? And if you could, please post the reasons they want to try them. Not trying to flame you bro, but in Nam, we did commit war crimes....such as rape, murder of innocents, etc. Many of those went unpunished. NOW, if we are not going to discipline our own, then, and only then, after WE investigate, could the ICC bring charges. There are rules in place to prevent just wanton abuse. Is it perfect? I don't think so....but something needs to be done........

As far as the M East, the only way to deal with arafat, and israel, is to be even-handed. Not saying I side with arafat, or sharon, but who expects anyone to listen to a proposal that was written by someone who is decidely against you?


And also, soldiers that committed crimes overseas that I knew, our CO left them in those countries, gave them a dishonorable discharge or bad conduct discharge, and forgot about them. which is exactly what should have happened.

 

[p0ink]

gympoppa, i am not sure about the individual crimes of the 65 soldiers, and i will try to find out what there were. all i know is that the ICC wants to charge 65 peacekeepers for various war crimes. my whole point is that each country, not just us, should be responsible for their soldiers and should discipline them accordingly. we don't need some limp-wristed european deciding the fate of an american citizen. if someone committed some crime, such as the ones you listed above, they should be punished by their own military, not a bunch of small countries that have very little relevance in this world.

as to the whole middle east thing, i am all for bush's plan. these people should listen to it because if the palestinians want to continue to receive american money and support for their new palestinian state, they have to actually behave themselves and pick new, non-corrupt leaders. if they don't and continue to go about their terrorist ways (which they most likely will), america will simply wash our hands of the situation and let israel do as it pleases, or atleast i hope.

 

[gymnpoppa]

gympoppa, i am not sure about the individual crimes of the 65 soldiers, and i will try to find out what there were. all i know is that the ICC wants to charge 65 peacekeepers for various war crimes. my whole point is that each country, not just us, should be responsible for their soldiers and should discipline them accordingly. we don't need some limp-wristed european deciding the fate of an american citizen. if someone committed some crime, such as the ones you listed above, they should be punished by their own military, not a bunch of small countries that have very little relevance in this world.

as to the whole middle east thing, i am all for bush's plan. these people should listen to it because if the palestinians want to continue to receive american money and support for their new palestinian state, they have to actually behave themselves and pick new, non-corrupt leaders. if they don't and continue to go about their terrorist ways (which they most likely will), america will simply wash our hands of the situation and let israel do as it pleases, or atleast i hope.

Again, your logic ignores the fact that dictators such as Arafat will not prosecute their own. Which is EXACTLY the reason Israel is doing what they're doing. Correct me if I'm wrong....at least that is the stated reason. Also, you are ignoring the fact that the Icc will only act if the host country refuses to. Where is the danger of prosecution for American soldiers now? It's not as if they will be thrown in jail somewhere and rushed to a tribunal.


as for the M East, these people are not going to listen to it as it is now.....they don't give a damn about American aid, and I believe that some other mediator is going to have to intervene to get it done. To think that someone more capable of arafat is available is ludicrous. The other prospects are more radical than him. Then what?

Of course bush should just wash his hands of it......it's obvious he doesn't want to get involved. The only reason he did anyway is because he wants some regional support from places like Saudi, and Jordan.

I could find a lot better things to do with that 3 bil per year we give to Israel.

 

[danielson]

Also, you are ignoring the fact that the Icc will only act if the host country refuses to. Where is the danger of prosecution for American soldiers now? It's not as if they will be thrown in jail somewhere and rushed to a tribunal.

this is the reason britain and france dont support the US (when they usually do)

but whats to stop the soldiers country rushing through the case and always delivering a 'not guilty' verdict? im sure there muist be legislation in place to stop that?

 

[gymnpoppa]

how will we benefit from joining this court? the whole point of this court is so little shit countries can vote to prosecute americans.

can you think of anything better to do with the money we give egypt?

Why would they need to vote, why wouldn't they just keep killing Americans as they have been? by terrorist attacks?

did you know that we have NEVER caught the guy who committed the first terrorist murder 25 years ago?

Of course not, why would Americans have anything to worry about anyway? I've lived overseas, I never had a problem with following the laws of the countries I was in......in the M East, or Europe. Name ONE American who has been detained by a court unjustly. Please.

What could I do with the money? Pay teachers, firemen, policemen, and the military much better. For starters.

 

[gymnpoppa]

so now the entire international community is killing americans by terrorist attacks? why should america give foreign countries the right to prosecute americans? the whole point of the court is to be used against america. if you dont see it then its not important. plenty of people do.

i didnt ask what you would do with the money. i really just wanted to make sure you knew we wasted almost as much money on egypt as we do israel. wonder why you only mentioned israel.

I know we waste money on both countries....total per year is about 6 bil....and the hypocritical thing is....Egypt is a dictatorship, they have poor ass people just like the Palestinians, and other poor ass countries. Where is that money going?

No, the entire global community is not killing americans by terrorists attacks. What is your proof that foreign countries are trying to prosecute americans? I saw no proof of it when I lived there? Post a link. Again, name some proof of ANY country that has even attempted to detain an American illegally. You, nor the government can offer any proof. plenty people do is nothing to back up your claims.

 

[gymnpoppa]

check out this link and the comments: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/708634/posts

hopefully this is just the beginning of what is to come.

Hey, I didn't read your link yet, but if we decide to pull out fine.

I'm all for it. The sooner the better.

Problem is, though. Your president can't attack Iraq without some help. Nor does he want China to keep growing and dominate the world market. So if we're going to pull out, pull out everywhere. Period. No point in us expecting anyone to listen to us for trade and such either. American companies should bring theirselves back to American soil, shut down the sweatshops.........Nike, and all of that. No more offshore accounts in other countries, to avoid taxes, and shit.

If we do trade with anyone, tax the shit out of them, and we get the same in return. I'm all for it.

 

[gymnpoppa]

umm no. we can pull out of the UN and still use cheap labor of other counties for our companies. we can still attack iraq and if the euroweenies dont want to help maybe israel would be willing to. i dont see why you seem to think that it has to be all or nothing. it doesnt.

Those people deserve something other than cheap, slave labor right?

We cannot attack Iraq alone, period. Otherwise we'd be planning to do it.

 

[the nature boy]

Those people deserve something other than cheap, slave labor right?

hey gym, it's no wonder some people dislike americans. know what I'm saying bro?

 

[Lao Tzu]

and all this talk about charging people with genocide, give me a break. arent there already guidelines within the UN that prohibit genocide? hasnt their already been trials for people accused of genocide? look at how milosevic is treating this thing....do you expect these other uncivilized dictators to respect the UN and it's laws? no. do you really think the ICC will do a better job at what the UN has already been doing? no.

Milosevic & the Rwandian generals are being tried in something called 'Ad Hoc Tribunals'. These tribunals were set up by america.

What is the harm in trying? gang members will murder people whether there are laws or not, you don't react by shutting down the domestic court system and declaring mob rule. You try to maintain order.

 

[the nature boy]

deal. j/k

 

[the nature boy]

if it were to benefit humanity would it be worth it then?

 

[Lao Tzu]

isnt one of the reasons why the US had opted out of the ICC is because they want to charge 65 individual american soldiers for war crimes, even though they were there on a peace keeping mission in bosnia. we do not need other countries disciplining our troops/citizens; i think we are more than able to do it on our own. plus why would you want these europeans that sympathize with arafat running this kangaroo court?

aren't you referring to afghanistan where 65 individuals were killed.

The icc recognized the fact that states should have supreme power. But not every state considers what they do a war crime or is willing to stop. So a general description of what constitutes crimes against humanity was created so if the home country couldn't/wouldn't prosecute the individuals responsible then the ICC would.

 

[gymnpoppa]

hey gym, it's no wonder some people dislike americans. know what I'm saying bro?

precisely. Why do you think the president isn't rushing aid, and building schools like other countries are? If the people get education, then they can do what we have done here........precisely why he's sucking up to China, because they could very easily dominate the global economy if they continue on their pace of progress.


Shit, you don't have to look any further than the catholic church for abuse of children dude.

What makes you think we can impose our rules on other people?
We cannot fight wars all over the world.

 

[Lao Tzu]

you dont start something like this by asking "what is the harm in doing it?" you ask what is the benefit. there is no benefit to america by joining this.

The benefit would be a sense of justice for certain victims, a message to the world that certain acts are not ok to commit, and hopefully a deterrent message to the world.

If america doesn't want to join, fine. I'm ok with that, as long as the countries that really do commit domestic evil are penalized for their activities. But attempting to turn the court into a kangaroo court that is able to prosecute everyone on earth except the worlds most powerful nation is violating why the court was created in the first place. To give those w/o power something to stand up for them.

I don't think it matters anyway, as i don't think we commit war crimes as much as we did in the 70's and 80's. Our domestic society is pretty free.

 

[danielson]

if it were to benefit humanity would it be worth it then?

it depends on whether benefit to america = benefit to humanity



the US is supposedly afraid of havng its troops convicte by foreign courts.

but the court rules state that if the country chooses to try its own personel in a fair court of law the ICC will not intervene



not to mention im sure there is a get-out clause where if the US feels it is getting a raw deal it can pull out. im sure the same option is afforded to other countries.



smegma.....would u have the US pull out of NATO too? what about trade relations with other countries (i.e. u recently overtaxed fillipino fishermen on tuna compared to latin america (to try and stop them shippng heroin etc), as a result all the fillipino's cant sell their tuna)

doesnt US participation in global forums allow dialogue?

 

[the nature boy]

I think there's nothing wrong with this. What do we have to hide, this stuff will make sure that there are no milosevechs and shit that happened in rowanda and chechnia never happens. If this UN thing had some teeth and actually enforces the law then I don't see ANY way the US can object.

 

[danielson]

again, you people are making it as if its all or nothing. the UN is anti-america so i want america out. this court is anti-america so i want america not to be a part of it. i havent commented on pulling us out of foreign trade or nato.

sorry lemme explain a bit more


america has threatened to pull all its peacekeepers correct?

this would create problems withing nato as descisions on peacekeepers are made here (kosovo etc)

so this would promote the use of an EU army and a move away from nato which isnt in the US's interests.

not to mention a further gap between europe and the US





the UN also prvides a forum to discuss grievances. pullng out would further distance the US from anyone else and not allow these grievances to be talked about. what was the reason u lost ur seat on human rights anyway?

the conference on racism was just that, a conference. the palestinians+middle east had a claim that the israeli's treatment of palestinains was racist, and israel disagreed so vehemently it pulled out. fine. why did the US have to go too?

 

[gymnpoppa]

what other countries are rushing aid and building schools?????? they all expect america to do it while they continue to shit on us.

I know that our Congress has reduced humanitarian aid for YEARS, and just last year, we were 22nd among nations providing aid........countries with far worst economies were giving more than we were.


Read your link, closely, there isn't a chance of that happening, being convicted by a ICC court. as long as we do the investigation, and punish our own.

A bullshit argument by US, about soldiers.

You can do better than that.

 

[gymnpoppa]

you know something, you really cant state any reason for joining this court.

other than the fact that it would allow countries to have a voice......and stop us from doing shit like funding dictators we like........I sure can't.


Your reasons are bullshit.....there are safeguards in place to prevent the lame-ass argument you keep harping about.

Post the reasons we shouldn't, and I'll use your posted link to filet them.

 

[danielson]

what is nato without america?

the UN provides a forum for small weak countries to voice their jealousy and bullshit against america. that is why we were kicked out of the human rights commission. if you look at its members can you really say its justified? if they want to pull that bullshit fine, we should just leave.

the conference was complete bullshit. the UN constantly codemns israelis actions and says that racist bullshit but has never said anything against the terrorists or muslim countries. you are trying to tell me the muslim countries arent incredibly racist and commit countless human rights violations? bullshit. america was right in leaving also. america doesnt have to put up with that bullshit and neither does israel.

1. a little naive to downplay every country in NATO other than the ?US perhaps

a collection of vast armies and troops of many different countries as well as some of the best traines soldiers and special forces in the world. as well as former colonies, land and airbases spanning the globe, and many more allies

america has heavy lift equipment and a large proffesional army. these are v.important factors in NATO being so impressive. but even without nato europe has HUGE force behing it militrarily. enough to worry the US about the creation of the EU army (outside nato's juristiction), and publicly so

2. that doesnt constitute much of a reason. i wanna know the official one. i suspect it is much dfferent. should the fct that 'weak' countries have a voice be even more reason to promote it. as it goes the US has a leading voice as one of the 5 major countries

3. israel = country
terrorists = come from palestine (not a country)

why would the UN comment on something it is not appropriate for it to comment on. however if allegations are made against israel surely it is appropriate for them to be voiced at least. again israel could have attended and the walked out if it wished

 

[danielson]

hopefully not. i truly hope the US doesnt pull out of peacekeeping else nato will then be stretched to fill the vacuum

what if the US lost its seat for legitamate reasons? its possible.....it might have just been a techinicality

israel has been commented on by the UN, with it saying its building of settlenents in the west bank are illegal (or conflict with tenant iof the UN israel agreed to). if they are illegal by international law then they are illegal. period. if they arent illegal, then the UN is simply voicing its opinion on the matter, words dont hurt israel do they.

at no point has the UN endorsed terrorism. as for the conference.....no pre-made descison had been reached with zionism=racism

 

[Lao Tzu]

How does that relate to the UN. I saw no mention of the UN in that message board or article. In fact the UN has several organizations designed to prevent things like that from happening. UNIFEM, OHCHR, INSTRAW, women watch, DAW, not to mention attempts to provide human rights.

WHy aren't you bothered that that happened in Pakistan, and Pakistan is a military ally of america? double standards.... Arguments are full of them, and it dimishes credibility.

 

[Lao Tzu]

the UN has at least 4 organizations designed to help women avoid being persecuted.

UNIFEM (United Nations Development Fund for Women) , INSTRAW (International Research and Training Institute for the Advancement of Women)
women watch
DAW (Division for the Advancement of Women).

 

[Lao Tzu]

pakistan is no ally of america. my point in posting that link was to show that the UN spends a great deal of time attacking israel for protecting itself while real atrocities are happening that the UN doesnt seem to give a shit about.

Pakistan was a gigantic ally in the cold war. They also helped the CIA found the Taliban. THey are also our allies in the war on terrorism. I'm sure there are other examples of them being our ally.

I don't know enough about the Israel/palestine conflict, but i'm sure if most of europe is condeming Israel it is because of a reason, not just spite. However, i am too ignorant of the issue to know what those reasons are.

 

[AAA]

they have done things for us but it wasnt because they are our allies. they are still a muslims terrorist country that wants us destroyed. they are just playing politics a little bit.

Exactly!!!

 

[Lao Tzu]

i know enough about the israeli/palestinian conflict to comment. there is no true reason for europe condemning israel. the muslim population in europe is increasing and the fear terrorism there. they have a history of anti-semetism. they are socialists and jealous of america and anything america supports.

can anyone comment on this? Why are there multiple resolutions at the UN where out of 114 or so countries, all side with palestine except except Israel & US condemned israel. Is it a conspiracy, hatred, or what.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/USvsWorldUN_WBlum.html

click on edit, then find (on this page), then type in israel. There are about 40 on the israel/palestine conflict.

I found this one funny

Nov. 9 36/19 126-1 (US)

The right of every state to choose its economic and social system in accord with the will of its people, without outside interference in whatever form it takes