|
U.S. Bans Aid to Nations For Not Exempting Americans From Int'l Criminal Court
|
View this Thread in Original format
| DrummeRaver86 |
| Ridiculous...Justice is blind to everythn, including nationality. If an American committs a crime against humanity, he deserves to be put in front of the ICC. |
|
|
| Galapidate |
| this is in stupid :whip: :whip: :mad: :mad: :whip: :whip: |
|
|
| occrider |
MILITARY AID. The US will not partake in peace keeping duties in country's not signing it. Please take the time to learn why the US refuses to accept the ICC. I've posted an article previously about the situation and nobody really commented about it or addressed some of the issues at hand ...
http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...+criminal+court |
|
|
| DrummeRaver86 |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
MILITARY AID. The US will not partake in peace keeping duties in country's not signing it. Please take the time to learn why the US refuses to accept the ICC. I've posted an article previously about the situation and nobody really commented about it or addressed some of the issues at hand ...
http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...+criminal+court |
ok...i read the other article. I still stand by my comment that Americans should be prosecuted like anyone else. The Americans have nothing to hide in Bosnia, right? So why are they scared of the ICC? I find it ridiculous that ANY country for WHATEVER reason should be exmpted from the ICC. I don't care what one thinks, if you committ a crime against humanity, or an atrocity, you pay. It shouldn't matyter where you come from, bottom line. There is NO reason to think otherwise.
I'm sorry, but frankly I'm sick and tired of the Americans always demanding to be exempted from something, and then they expect that that other countries should suppourt them. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by DrummeRaver86
ok...i read the other article. I still stand by my comment that Americans should be prosecuted like anyone else. The Americans have nothing to hide in Bosnia, right? So why are they scared of the ICC? I find it ridiculous that ANY country for WHATEVER reason should be exmpted from the ICC. I don't care what one thinks, if you committ a crime against humanity, or an atrocity, you pay. It shouldn't matyter where you come from, bottom line. There is NO reason to think otherwise.
I'm sorry, but frankly I'm sick and tired of the Americans always demanding to be exempted from something, and then they expect that that other countries should suppourt them. |
Lol are you sure you read it? The US wants a compromise ... either give the security council the final say in the matter over whether peacekeepers should be prosecuted by the ICC, especially since the security council is the organization to approve peacekeeping duties, for the following reason:
Source of America's Concern. As an unaccountable legal bureaucracy claiming the authority to arrest, prosecute, and punish nationals from any country who are accused of war crimes, genocide, crimes against humanity, and the undefined crime of aggression, the ICC invites political manipulation. The United States must protect its citizens from a court that would not observe such basic rights as trial by a jury of one's peers, protection from double jeopardy, and the right to confront one's accusers.
Or the US simply doesn't participate in peacekeeping duties. It has nothing to do with avoiding prosecution of war criminals. It has everything to do with an untransparent, unaccountable, political beurocracy surrounding the ICC. It should come as no surprise that the US would raise objections since it's the primary nation to send peacekeepers globally. Even Clinton expressed grave misgivings about signing any kind of agreement of the ICC. So it all boils down to the simple fact, if the world wants the US to send peacekeeping troops around the world then US misgivings should be addressed with respects to improper prosecution. Otherwise let any other country send peacekeepers ... no harm no foul. |
|
|
| DrummeRaver86 |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
Lol are you sure you read it? The US wants a compromise ... either give the security council the final say in the matter over whether peacekeepers should be prosecuted by the ICC, especially since the security council is the organization to approve peacekeeping duties, for the following reason:
Source of America's Concern. As an unaccountable legal bureaucracy claiming the authority to arrest, prosecute, and punish nationals from any country who are accused of war crimes, genocide, crimes against humanity, and the undefined crime of aggression, the ICC invites political manipulation. The United States must protect its citizens from a court that would not observe such basic rights as trial by a jury of one's peers, protection from double jeopardy, and the right to confront one's accusers.
Or the US simply doesn't participate in peacekeeping duties. It has nothing to do with avoiding prosecution of war criminals. It has everything to do with an untransparent, political beurocracy surrounding the ICC. It should come as no surprise that the US would raise objections since it's the primary nation to send peacekeepers globally. Even Clinton expressed grave misgivings about signing any kind of agreement of the ICC. So it all boils down to the simple fact, if the world wants the US to send peacekeeping troops around the world then US misgivings should be addressed with respects to improper prosecution. Otherwise let any other country send peacekeepers ... no harm no foul. |
Argh!! There's no winning with you, is there?
Whatever, I feel like being stubborn today. I feel that when it comes to the ICC, there should be no compromising. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by DrummeRaver86
Argh!! There's no winning with you, is there?
Whatever, I feel like being stubborn today. I feel that when it comes to the ICC, there should be no compromising. |
Hehe well I feel that there should be no compromise when it comes to war crimes either ... what I'm more afraid about is prosecution when war crimes have not been committed. So by all means I'll bow out of the argument in defeat if you can dismiss the US concerns about the ICC. I really do think that the ICC needs to have a greater system of accountability then 5 or whatever untouchable judges who are not bound by any legal doctrines.
But think about it this way ... if countries all ratify the ICC then the US simply responds by not sending peace keepers anywhere. It's a no win situation for everybody. Therefore it's within the best interests of the ICC to at least restructure its organization to allieviate US fears. |
|
|
| DrummeRaver86 |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
Hehe well I feel that there should be no compromise when it comes to war crimes either ... what I'm more afraid about is prosecution when war crimes have not been committed. So by all means I'll bow out of the argument in defeat if you can dismiss the US concerns about the ICC. I really do think that the ICC needs to have a greater system of accountability then 5 or whatever untouchable judges who are not bound by any legal doctrines.
But think about it this way ... if countries all ratify the ICC then the US simply responds by not sending peace keepers anywhere. It's a no win situation for everybody. Therefore it's within the best interests of the ICC to at least restructure its structure to dismiss US fears. |
True. The ICC is rather "old-fashioned" in their doctrine. But, we do need US peacekeeping forces around the world. But, there HAS to be another way out of this.
Hopefully, this will end in a total win-win situation. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by DrummeRaver86
True. The ICC is rather "old-fashioned" in their doctrine. But, we do need US peacekeeping forces around the world. But, there HAS to be another way out of this.
Hopefully, this will end in a total win-win situation. |
Agreed. Furthermore I'm not taking a hardline pro-US stance here. I think there should be compromise on both sides to resolve this issue. |
|
|
| DrummeRaver86 |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
Agreed. Furthermore I'm not taking a hardline pro-US stance here. I think there should be compromise on both sides to resolve this issue. |
Yeah...or else it's not really a compromise. both sides have to sacrifice something. |
|
|
| Izzy |
I'm glad the US did not ratify its admittance to the ICC. i studied a lot about the issue last semester when i participated in a roundtable discussion here on campus and went to a panel discussion with some of the policy makers.
i posted a thread about it:
http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...?threadid=75565
agian... the ICC isnt the ideal institution we'd like for it to be, maybe in the future, for now it shouldnt be respected by any american citizen |
|
|
|
|
