Another proud Bush Admin moment ... http://apnews1.iwon.com//article/20030612/D7RKBDBO2.html U.N. Grants U.S. War Crimes Exemption Jun 12, 1:21 PM (ET) By EDITH M. LEDERER UNITED NATIONS (AP) - The U.N. Security Council on Thursday approved another one-year exemption for American peacekeepers from prosecution by the new international war crimes tribunal, but it faced opposition from France, Germany and Syria. France, Germany and Syria abstained, despite a U.S. appeal not to further strain the bitter trans-Atlantic division over the war against Iraq. The three argued that a special U.S. exemption was not necessary and only weakens the International Criminal Court. U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan spoke out strongly against any attempt to try to make the exemption permanent - which the United States initially sought. He warned that this would not only undermine the court but the authority of the U.N. Security Council "and the legitimacy of United Nations peacekeeping." The resolution adopted by a vote of 12-0 with the three abstentions, authorizes a yearlong exemption from arrest or trial for peacekeepers from the United States and other countries that have not ratified the Rome treaty establishing the court. France and Germany, both members of the European Union, were in the forefront of opposition to the U.S.-led war against Iraq. Last week, the United States warned the EU that its criticism over the exemption request was putting more strains on trans-Atlantic relations. France's deputy U.N. ambassador Michel Duclos said agreeing to the renewal "risks in effect giving credence to the perception of permanent exceptions which can only weaken the court and impair its authority." During an open Security Council debate before the vote, Greece's U.N. ambassador Adamantios Vassilakis, speaking on behalf of the 15-nation bloc, put the United States on notice that "automatic renewal would be undermining to the letter and the spirit of the Rome Treaty and its fundamental purpose." All 15 EU nations are among the 90 countries that are party to the court, which will prosecute cases of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity committed after July 1, 2002. The court will step in only when countries are unwilling or unable to dispense justice themselves. The court got a boost Wednesday when China's U.N. Ambassador Wang Yingfan said his country was "positively considering" ratifying the Rome Treaty. Beijing was one of seven countries that voted against the Rome statute but in the last four years has taken a more positive attitude. "China's change reflects a growing support worldwide for the ICC and international justice," said William Pace, who heads the Coalition for the International Criminal Court, which represents more than 1,000 organizations supporting the tribunal. Then President Bill Clinton's administration signed the 1988 Rome treaty setting up the court, but the Bush administration has rescinded the U.S. signature. President Bush contends that Americans could be subject to the court's jurisdiction even if it is not a party to the pact. Washington argues that the court could be used for frivolous or politically motivated prosecutions of American troops. In addition to the exemption, it also has signed bilateral agreements with 37 countries not to prosecute American officials - and is seeking more. During Thursday's debate, Canada's U.N. Ambassador Paul Heinbecker appealed to the council to keep the exemption from becoming permanent and emphasized that "the ICC is not a court for frivolous prosecutions." He noted safeguards put in the treaty at U.S. request to ensure that such prosecutions will be screened out. Last July, the council unanimously approved a one-year exemption after a diplomatic battle in which the United States threatened to end far-flung peacekeeping operations from Afghanistan to Sierra Leone. Washington had asked for a quick vote on its resolution. But non-council nations asked for - and got - an open council meeting before the vote. The final deal dented the court's underlying principle that no one should be exempt from punishment for war crimes, and it angered court supporters and human rights groups. U.S. deputy ambassador James Cunningham called the Rome Treaty "fatally flawed" and said the resolution represented a compromise that should be respected by all nations. He denied that it violated the treaty.
Nah, I don't care about the international court, I believe we don't even recognize it's authority. It is doomed to fail, since the laws of each country differ greatly. DD
George W. Bush is a joke. No, wait: scratch that. Actually I'm not laughing. He wants to undermine or eliminate every international organization, tribunal, or treaty that could possibly impede him from further establishing us as a hyperpower. We are not the only nation on earth. We are not above rebuke or impunity. World Empire. Ya gotta love it.
Roxtia, No one is trying to undermine the rest of the world. It is just that they don't have the same level of laws and beliefs that we cherish. Why should we let Libya have a say? The US government's job is to protect it's people, and way of life. The world court does not fit. DD
We have our own punishment for troops that commit war crimes. Who's to say they don't try to punish ALL troops for their participation in the war because they view THAT ACT as a war crime? Sure they are not going to pull a ship to the coast with a roll call, but what about our guys already over there in parts of Europe. And can we please pull every last base out of Europe, especially Germany. Its crazy to put the lives of our soldiers in the hands of the imcompetent. Our troops deserve better than that.
it truly is It is a waste of trees [paper] and time and effort and money What hell are they always talking about what gets accomplished it is the start of something but it needs to grow the f*ck up . .. and grow some f*cking balls Rocket River
I think that's half-right. When we're talking about Serbs or Iraqis or Chileans and the like, we think it's the greatest invention ever. When it is suggested that we might be held to the same standard we hold the rest of the world to, it is suddenly a joke. Don't know why they won't cut the bull**** and just push through an amendment to say the rules apply to everyone else but the US can rape and pillage and torture all they like. Oh, wait, that's what they did. One thing I have to wonder though, who are the other principals that have not signed the Rome pact and are also exempt?
I remember the good old days of being active duty. You could roll over into any country and just rape the women, men and children and pillage the country with the good old US blessings. Man those there were the days
The bottom line is that all we have to do is refuse to participate in peacekeeping missions without the exemption. Since the US military makes up the bulk of what the UN can bring to bear, they will not vote against the US receiving an exemption. They might as well just make it permanent, because for all intents and purposes, that's what it is.
The international court doesn't have to be a joke. If the U.S. took it seriously, it wouldn't have to be a joke. The U.S. could be an example to the rest of the world, and model what we expect from other nations. DaDakota, if you believe our levels of laws are above other nations in the world, let's bring our success to the world court, and lend it what we can that it's lacking. So many times I hear politicians and others talking about the U.S. taking a leadership role in various matters. This one area where we could take a leadership role, that doesn't involve military might, conquest, or our own troops dying. Militarily is not the only way to lead. Leading by example of the justice we bring and partake in regarding the world court, would be a great way to spread democracy and American principles.
So the interests of the United States should be dictated by foreign countries? This isn't the ME where we let terrorist and criminals roam around like heroes.
You miss the point (you too, I guess, giddyup). If a US soldier commits atrocities against the will of the US Armed Forces, he can be court martialed and put to death (or whatever). Likewise, if a North Korean soldier or an Afghan soldier (or whatever) commits atrocities against the will of their respective armies, they can also be tried and put to death or imprisoned or what have you. After all, the World Court doesn't want to be involved if the country itself is willing and able to prosecute. However, if the North Korean Army or the Afghan Army willfully commits atrocities (this is assuming these two randomly picked countries have signed the Rome pact) or willfully ignores atrocities commited by their soldiers, they can be prosecuted in the World Court while the same behavior by the US would be exempt. This is unfair and unjust. Why shouldn't all countries be treated the same? And, the "they would do that kind of thing and we wouldn't" argument is lame. If we wouldn't do that sort of thing then there would be no harm in leaving ourselves open to prosecution, would there? I also don't put much merit in the frivolous charges argument. There was already a framework put in to filter out frivolous charges. And, of the remaining ones, why should we be any more protected from such frivolity than North Korea? They shouldn't have bull**** charges leveled against them either, should they? At least the Americans are wealthy and powerful enough to defeat frivolous charges while North Korea would be akin to the illegal immigrant high school drop-out with a public defender in facing the World Court.
BTW, there are allegations that the US jets bombed some ambulances in Iraq, which I believe would be a war crime. With the exemption, these allegations would not even have to be investigated by any party. I wonder what Bush's "moral clarity" would have to say about this.
people fail to realize WHY germany and france abstained from the vote. it's because they negotiated a general immunity for their troups when this treaty was first negotiated. the US messed up the negotiations and didnt get the same exemptions. they then tried to get them after the fact and are now being criticized for it. france and germany can say all they want, but they have already what we want, and just don't want to really talk about it. they cant vote against something they themselves have so they have to abstain from the voting. the reason everyone was critical of the US was b/c they asked for a permanent blanket immunity, which the others dont really have, or at least don't have forever. that is why they are perfectly willing to pass temporary immunity to the US and just put up a "fake" fight on it.
Number one, its arguably even as of right now, the US Military along with its Politicians, are responsible for war crimes in the eyes of the UN, when the U.S. attacked Iraq. For this world court to have any enforcement, the U.S. would have to acknoweldge its legitimacy. Since the Un currently condemed the act of war against the Iraq, this "world court idea" became irrelevant since "our self interest" (assming the WMD argument) was being compromised by two countries that were doing "under the deal tables with Sadaam." Should this type of activity be defining who we war with or not? So the question is, since the UN will be defining "who we can defend against, or not against" do we really want foreign countries with a seperate agenda (don't tell me we have one also, I know that) dictating our decisions? Number two, who is going to bring the defendants to Court? You going to tell me the only reason Sadaam or Bin Laden wasn;t turned over for war crimes was becuase they hadn't signed the pact? I'll just summarize with I agree with the Bush (scary, and didn't even vote for him). We have no reason to be part of this other than to just appease those who can't rest until "another governing power is above the U.S." To me thats not worth it.
S&T, I'd actually agree with you that the UN shouldn't dictate who the US gets to attack. That's not what I'm complaining about though. What I'm complaining about is the double-standard the US uses the UN to maintain. When the UN does what we want them to do, like pushing the Serbs around, we go along; but when they do something we don't like, suddenly they are illegitimate. If you're going to oppose the UN, oppose it for all countries for all events. Pull out of the Security Council and don't talk to them anymore. But, if you're going to continue your representation there and hold a permanent chair on the Security Council, it is hypocritical to turn around and say they have no legitimacy.
So your argument is, "either participate in the UN and World Court", or "have no activity in either?"
