International Law? That's for other nations, not US

On one hand I remember when the UN was an anti-American institution. Between the Soviet bloc, the Non-Aligned Movement, and the Chinese there were many instances of politically motivated criticism coming our way. So I do understand the administrations fears that US citizens could me brought before this Court for political reasons. I don't think that is implausible.

On the other hand I believe crimes like genocide definitely need to be stopped and prosecuted by (preferrably) the international community.

At this time I feel the status quo is effective. This Court can be called up on an ad hoc basis whenever there is a situation the international community deems it necessary (as with Serbia, Rwanda).

 

I disagree that the UN has been an anti-US institution. This is an old cliche repeated by conservatives who get frustrated when the UN takes positions against the US, often when te US is in a right oriented poltical mode. Repeating this cliche over and over does not make it correct.

If you look at the history of the UN, the US has traditionally had the most influence of any nation. However, where the US takes positions that are against most of the rest of the world, the UN can hardly be expected to side with the US.

 

This is the way I feel about most of your posts.

 

glynch,

First, I don't appreciate the implication that I somehow formed my opinion based on some cliche repeated by Rush Limbaugh or some other 'right oriented poitical' figure. I am 100% positive that I have done more research on the UN than you have. 100%. Can you say the same?

Second, you are simply incorrect. The UN has in the past been anti-American for political reasons. I specifically pointed out that political interests (the Soviet bloc, the PRC, and the non-aligned movement) were consistently critical of the US in rhetoric and action. Of course, someone blinded by their own political leanings might speculate that the Soviet bloc, for example, would never be critical to further their own interests at the expense of their main rival at the time, the US. But for those of us who live on THIS planet, such a conclusion would be laughable at best.

Third, I do not feel the UN is in that mode currently. But then again the Soviet bloc doesn't exist, the PRC isn't run completely by hardliners, and the NAM understands their bread is butter'd by cooperating with the West, not playing it off between the Soviet bloc and the West.

 

The UN has in the past been anti-American for political reasons. I specifically pointed out that political interests (the Soviet bloc, the PRC, and the non-aligned movement) were consistently critical of the US in rhetoric and action.

This doesn't make the UN anti-American though. The US & western powers did the same with Chinese / Soviet bloc states. If you use this to say the UN is anti-[pick a country], the UN would be anti-everyone.

 

Losing the Human Rights seat to Sudan isn't indicative of a pro-US UN either....

Genocide is bad... does that mean our Administration thinks the war on Iraq will go mainly urban, and many citizens will die as a result? Or am I reading too much?

 

This is why most people on this board who disagree with your politics don't take you seriously.

This is like saying, "I don't think the Soviet Union wanted an adversarial relationship with America". It's so far outside the bounds of rational thought as to be parody.

 

This is why most people on this board who disagree with your politics don't take you seriously.

This is like saying, "I don't think the Soviet Union wanted an adversarial relationship with America". It's so far outside the bounds of rational thought as to be parody.

Quote from Kagy.

Kagy, now you've hurt my little feelings, boo hoo.

Don't you realize that you have no argument--you just say it is self evident.

Well it isn't self evident to me. Try to prove it. At least Hayes gives an example.

Regarding Hayes' argument. The UN operates like a democracy, the various countries of the world have votes. Most of the time the US position carries the day. Sometimes it doesn't. That is the way the UN is supposed to operate. That doesn't make the UN "anti-US". If you want to argue that the US sometimes loses the votes, and that this upsets you greatly, ok but that doesn't make the UN anti-US.

To argue that the UN is so anti- US that it is is so self evident thus needing no argument or proof is indeed a parody of rational thought.

 

What part of "don't take you seriously" are you having problems comprehending?

I don't argue with the black helicopter folks handing out Zionist conspiracy tracts on the West Mall, either.

 

Damn, that's cold and funny at the same time for some reason.

B

 

I believe the US stance of gaining exemption is not necessarily a preventive measure to protect Americans from potential politically motivated criticism down the road, but to roadblock imminent action by the Intl Court for alleged war crimes by Americans in Kosovo. The US and EU nations have been in fact bickering over this issue all summer long. The US has even offered significant economic perks to several Eastern European nations to gain their vote for American exemption - so far I believe only Romania has taken the bait (possibly ruining their bid for a 2007 entry into the EU). Of course these alleged war crimes in Kosovo by Americans could all itself be simply politically motivated and a bunch of vendetta-laden BS, but I'd still like to hear some of the facts come out in some sort of court or arraignment hearing even if in a US court.

 

Is there a reason the Court will not work in its current form? The Serbian committed genocide, Milosevic is on trial in the Court. The Rwandan genocide is being handled by the Court. Is there a need to make it a permanent body? The current US position is not in conflict with the Court as it is.

 

I believe the problem is that the Court is not the General Assembly, where all nations get a vote, and hence the protection in numbers exists. If those who compose the Court form a particular bloc, in this example an Anti-American one, then the results can be a politically motivated prosecution of US citizens. Not from any actual wrongdoing, but as a result of the composition of the Court.

Look at it this way, in the UN a particular committee can be composed of representatives that are anti-American. The same could happen with the Court, which is the main concern as I understand it. While you can argue all you like about whether the UN in toto has been anti-American at one juncture or another (I think it is a non-starter, but let's assume for a moment you are correct), surely you can admit that a small group within the UN can be anti-American, and therefor could use the aparatus the permanent court provides to further their own agenda.

 

I mean it seems to work in its current form, which is convened on an ad hoc case by case basis. What is the point of a permanent Court, what advantages does it have over the current system?

Not really. Milosevic and the Rwandan officials pretty much don't have any supporters saying 'hey they didn't do anything.' The US supports the existence of the Court at all because its against genocide and crimes against humanity, and supports the idea of an international solution. No matter what you feel the propensity for such abuse to happen is, there is at least potential for abuse with a permanent court. In the current system more of consensus is needed to convene the Court, and so the propensity for abuse is less.

 

Hayes, I see your point, but I think you are straining to support the US position. A permanent court is useful just like we have permanent courts in the US for criminal and civil matters. A permanent court is more effiicent than having ad hoc courts.

Procedural safeguards can be put in to guard against bias, just like any other court system. There is no need to give the US a total exemption. If the US is not violating international human rights law it should have nothing to fear.

Of course if you assume that the UN is always biased against the US as some do, I can see your objection, though I don't accept this as I think the US is generally well liked if we don't act like ugly Amerians trying to impose our will on everyone. If you are talking about a potential occasional biased panel you can set up an appeal to the security council or whatever.

Under similar reasoning you could object to jurisdiction by any court including US courts due to potential bias. You know I believe historically kings and nobles wanted courts for the commoners, but did not want to be subjected to such objective procedures themselves. If you have the power it is human nature I guess.

I believe that actions like not supporting the Global Warming Treaty, not supporting the International Criminal Cout will greatly hurt the US in international influence. Granted we have the economic and particularly the militarily power to tell everyone else to screw off, but it will come back to hurt us.

 

Actually, I have been pretty critical of Bush so I don't think so. When I first heard about this I had the reaction that we've seen others make: why dispute the creation of a permanent court? But then I LISTENED to the arguments and I don't think there is a persuasive reason to have a permanent court. If there is, I'm all ears. So far, you don't make one.

The sheer volume of cases in the US requires permanent standing courts. There is no such volume to support an argument for permanency in this case.

Pure assertion. In what way is it 'more efficient?' And what does 'more efficient' mean? Currently there must be a consensus among a large number of national representatives for a Court to be convened. With the permanent Court, the decision is in the hands of fewer reps, feeding the argument that the possibility for political abuse is MORE likely. That is the only way it might be 'more efficient.'

On the other hand, pursuing the Court on a case by case basis allows for a true consensus to be reached BEFORE action is taken, and I still have not seen anyone even ATTEMPT to argue the current system is incapable of dealing with crimes like genocide. Emperically it IS as proven in cases like Serbian aggression and Rwanda.

That's like saying 'don't ask for a lawyer if you get arrested. if you did nothing wrong you have nothing to fear from the police.' Or 'don't ever refuse the police the right to search your house, if you are innocent you have nothing to fear.' It is pure fantasy land. I have articulated how the Court could be used as a tool against the US by a Court composed of anti-american forces. You have only replied with rhetoric. Do you deny it is possible? Procedural safeguards such as what? A security council veto? I'm sure the US would agree to that. Any other procedural safeguards you can think of? Be specific.

I agree if the US gets a security council veto then we're all good. But I don't think that is any different than giving US immunity. If you mean put it to a security council vote, then that runs the same risk as I mention for the court itself, since the Security Council is itself a small body more than capable of being used for political purposes.

Well, I don't think so. It would truly suck if US courts were biased against Americans, I admit, but that seems nonsensical.

Your problem is assuming the procedure is 'objective.'

The US will not gain credibility by supporting any international effort merely because it is an international effort. No doubt the US is not getting good press over the Kyoto Accords or the Intl Court, but we simply cannot take such a huge step for PR reasons. It has to be the 'right' decision in and of itself. So far, I've seen no convincing reason for a permanent court. And that does not even start in on the practical problems of the Court, like who is gonna pay for it (which is another objection that you have not dealt with).

"What they need to understand is that the United States will not be there, and the United States will not be paying any monies toward the ICC… that’s an important point. If you look at the [UN Tribunals for Yugoslavia and Rwanda], we’re paying close to I believe 28 per cent of the bill. And that’s a lot of money when you’re in the hundreds of millions of dollars." [from the US Ambassador on War Crimes]

Anther concern is the undefined nature of what constitutes a 'crime.'

"Ruth Wedgwood, a professor of international law at Yale and Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International studies, blasts the ICC's advocates for not taking such American concerns seriously enough...She says that there are still many real concerns that have not been addressed. For example, she worries about the undefined nature of crime of "aggression" in the ICC statute, which was left to be resolved at a follow-up conference in seven years." [from an article on American opposition]