|
U.S. Bans Aid to Nations For Not Exempting Americans From Int'l Criminal Court (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| DrummeRaver86 |
| like I said. Arguing with this man is useless....damn you occrider!!:D |
|
|
| King of Clubs |
| The thing that upsets me most is the way that the US is lobbying for their cause by threatening to withdraw military aid to 50 states. Its a disgrace! |
|
|
| trancaholic |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
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. |
You have some nice arguments in your posts occrider, but to me it sounds like they mostly deal with protecting US-citizens on a right-here-right-now basis. If you look further into the future the fate of indivuals ought not to outweigh that of nations.
For instance, assume the US joins the court, which allows for some number of US-soldiers to be prosecuted (being magnanimous let's say 10000). As the US is part of the court it has influence on what criterias these soldiers are judged by, which means that not all of them are necessarily found guilty. Again, let us be unrealistic and say that a thousand US-citizens is sentenced to life in prisonment.
Now, what happens if we look at the consequences which have already manifested themselves from the current stance:
1: The US is not getting any more popular and eventually business relations *will* suffer. Let us - unrealistically - assume that only a thousand US-citizens are forced permanently into poverty. What would you prefer - being in a Milosovic-like prison with TV and free meals, or standing freezing next to your empty oil-barrel, trying to light a fire with a case of wet matches?
2: Already the US has ceased to offer "military assistance" to a number of countries including mostly east-european countries (who really do not need it anymore). However, one of the countries on the list is Columbia, where the US currently helps the government fighting down rebels in exchange for help with limiting the amount of cocain being let into the US. This is part of the "war on drugs" - if anybody remembers this prequel to the "war on terror". What happens to the drug market in the US when it backs out of Columbia? Does the term "wasted effort" applies in this case? And, as we add drug problems to the burden of the aforementioned man standing at the oil-barrel, I'll enquire whether you still think this course of action is in the best interest of the US? |
|
|
| Renegade |
Occrider, I've read both the articles you posted (the one above and the one in the other thread) and while I can understand where you're coming from (and to a lesser extent where the US state is coming from) the reasoning still seems flawed.
Let's go through it one by one:
| quote: | | 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. |
There are few facets of life - particularly those governing interaction between sovereign states - that aren't subject to "political manipulation" in differing degrees. Perhaps there will be more cases raised against US citizens, purely because US citizens are more involved in peacekeeping operations than citizens of other nations, but the rule of law is simple - abide by your obligations under international law and you're immune from prosecution. Regardless of the protests US officials may wish to make about the "unaccountability" of the ICC, the alternative is, in my mind, much worse:
| quote: | In order for the rule of law to have true meaning, societies must accept their responsibilities and be able to direct their future and come to terms with their past. An unchecked international body should not be able to interfere in this delicate process.
For example: When a society makes the transition from oppression to democracy, their new government must face their collective past. The state should be allowed to choose the method. The government should decide whether to prosecute or seek national reconciliation. This decision should not be made by the ICC. |
Thus we're relying on states to prosecute those of their own citizens who have grossly violated international law - how far is that going to get us? Would Pol Pot have died a free man if there was a more rigorous effort to force him to stand trial under an international court for the international laws he'd violated? The ICC may be subject to "political manipulation", but it's much harder for an international body to err as a result of political bias than it is for independant states. An international body cannot act out of self-interest in the same way an autonomous state can, which is where the possibility for "political manipulation" of the system decreases significantly.
Moving on:
| quote: | First, we believe the ICC is an institution of unchecked power.
[...]
Take one example: the role of the UN Security Council. Under the UN Charter, the UN Security Council has primary responsibility for maintaining international peace and security. But the Rome Treaty removes this existing system of checks and balances, and places enormous unchecked power in the hands of the ICC prosecutor and judges. The treaty created a self-initiating prosecutor, answerable to no state or institution other than the Court itself. |
How is the court unaccountable - or at least any more unaccountable than national courts - then? It's still accountable to international law - the creation of the ICC simply represents the will to manifest a "judicial" branch of international law where there currently only exists the legislative branch. What's the point of having international laws if there isn't a body there to enforce them? Are US courts "unchecked" because they are bound by nothing more than domestic law? Why should we consider the ICC unchecked, then, when its scope is bound by international treaties ratified by UN member states?
If the US designed an international court, to what or whom would they make it accountable to remove this problem? Themselves alone I can only presume?
| quote: | Second, the treaty approved in Rome dilutes the authority of the UN Security Council and departs from the system that the framers of the UN Charter envisioned.
The treaty creates an as-yet-to-be defined crime of “aggression,” and again empowers the court to decide on this matter and lets the prosecutor investigate and prosecute this undefined crime. This was done despite the fact that the UN Charter empowers only the Security Council to decide when a state has committed an act of aggression. Yet the ICC, free of any oversight from the Security Council, could make this judgment. |
This seems fair enough to me. The ICC should not have the right to make up crimes as it goes along, the crimes and laws preventing them should be tabled up in the UN by the member states and the ICC should merely exist as a means of enforcing them.
On the other hand, the suggestion that only the UNSC has the power to interpret and deliberate upon international law is preposterous. If Russia, France, China, the UK or the US commit an international crime, what's stopping them from blocking the motion via use of their veto power? If it is believed that the UNSC should wield this much power, then how would the author of this article reconcile it with his opposition to unaccountability and political bias? Surely granting the UNSC this much power would erode accountability (to whom is the UNSC - or more particularly, its member states - accountable?) and political manipulation (see the resolutions tabled against Isreal vetoed by the US)?
| quote: | | Third, the treaty threatens the sovereignty of the United States. The Court, as constituted today, claims the authority to detain and try American citizens, even through our democratically-elected representatives have not agreed to be bound by the treaty. |
I wonder if Slobodan Milosevic agreed to by bound by the treaty? Should we let him go because the Yugoslavian constitution doesn't allow its citizens to be put to trial under violations of international law?
| quote: | | While sovereign nations have the authority to try non-citizens who have committed crimes against their citizens or in their territory, the United States has never recognized the right of an international organization to do so absent consent or a UN Security Council mandate. |
Allowing sovereign states to prosecute citezens of other nations, as with the above point, surely raises more issues of unaccountability and political manipulation than the ICC? I'll use two real world examples:
1) Camp X-Ray: The US has been able to hold hundreds of foreign nationals for - in some cases - nearly two years without the right to trial. Given the paranoia about terrorism in the US, and the fact that they're considering building an execution chamber in the camp, what are the chances of those detained there receiving a fair trial? There's an Australian national (David Hicks) who's been detained there since the war in Afghanistan - could we have him back and give him a trial here please? Wasn't it mentioned earlier in the article that it should be up to sovereign states to determine how to deal with those in violation of international law? Aren't these two views contradictory? How do we go about determining whether individuals in violation of international law are tried in their own nation or some other nation?
2) The tank incident in South Korea: Why weren't these soldiers tried in South Korea?
http://www.spacedaily.com/2002/0211...7.gd3u6owt.html
Why were they let off? Surely under the current system and taking into account cases like this, military personell operating in foreign nations are both "unaccountable" and their legal culpability subject to "political manipulation". Would they have been let off in the ICC or if they had stood trial in a South Korean court? Should they have been?
| quote: | Fourth, the current structure of the International Criminal Court undermines the democratic rights of our people and could erode the fundamental elements of the United Nations Charter, specifically the right to self defense.
With the ICC prosecutor and judges presuming to sit in judgment of the security decisions of States without their assent, the ICC could have a chilling effect on the willingness of States to project power in defense of their moral and security interests.
This power must sometimes be projected. The principled projection of force by the world’s democracies is critical to protecting human rights — to stopping genocide or changing regimes like the Taliban, which abuse their people and promote terror against the world. |
If the qualm is legitimate then there isn't much to worry about. If the action is sanctioned by the UNSC then there isn't much to worry about. The only reason the US want this right to "project power" to be unbound by international law is because their conception of "self-defence" differs drastically from that of every rational human being on the planet.
| quote: | Fifth, we believe that by putting U.S. officials, and our men and women in uniform, at risk of politicized prosecutions, the ICC will complicate U.S. military cooperation with many friends and allies who will now have a treaty obligation to hand over U.S. nationals to the Court — even over U.S. objections.
The United States has a unique role and responsibility to help preserve international peace and security. At any given time, U.S. forces are located in close to 100 nations around the world conducting peacekeeping and humanitarian operations and fighting inhumanity.
We must ensure that our soldiers and government officials are not exposed to the prospect of politicized prosecutions and investigations. Our President is committed to a robust American engagement in the world to defend freedom and defeat terror; we cannot permit the ICC to disrupt that vital mission. |
Read:
We don't want to be made accountable for actions that are illegal, immoral, or grossly negligent in nature. If we want to run over school girls in South Korea, bomb water plants in Iraq or keep Afghani refugees in abhorrent, inhumane conditions (shooting them periodically for good measure) then it is not for the ICC to disrupt these "vital missions".
Once again, I'll say it - if you aren't breaking international law then there isn't much to worry about.
The ICC may not be perfect in nature, but the qualms raised here merely reflect an American attitude of xenophobic paranoia and desire for moral and legal hegemony rather than inherent faults of the ICC. I can only ask you Occrider, if the ICC were ratified by the US and all other nations in its current form, what is the worst case scenario? How could it permit situations worse than those I've mentioned above? |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by trancaholic
You have some nice arguments in your posts occrider, but to me it sounds like they mostly deal with protecting US-citizens on a right-here-right-now basis. If you look further into the future the fate of indivuals ought not to outweigh that of nations.
For instance, assume the US joins the court, which allows for some number of US-soldiers to be prosecuted (being magnanimous let's say 10000). As the US is part of the court it has influence on what criterias these soldiers are judged by, which means that not all of them are necessarily found guilty. Again, let us be unrealistic and say that a thousand US-citizens is sentenced to life in prisonment.
Now, what happens if we look at the consequences which have already manifested themselves from the current stance:
1: The US is not getting any more popular and eventually business relations *will* suffer. Let us - unrealistically - assume that only a thousand US-citizens are forced permanently into poverty. What would you prefer - being in a Milosovic-like prison with TV and free meals, or standing freezing next to your empty oil-barrel, trying to light a fire with a case of wet matches?
2: Already the US has ceased to offer "military assistance" to a number of countries including mostly east-european countries (who really do not need it anymore). However, one of the countries on the list is Columbia, where the US currently helps the government fighting down rebels in exchange for help with limiting the amount of cocain being let into the US. This is part of the "war on drugs" - if anybody remembers this prequel to the "war on terror". What happens to the drug market in the US when it backs out of Columbia? Does the term "wasted effort" applies in this case? And, as we add drug problems to the burden of the aforementioned man standing at the oil-barrel, I'll enquire whether you still think this course of action is in the best interest of the US? |
Well I think that one of the main reasons why the US is hesistant to simply subject peace keepers to such a court system is because it goes against pretty much everything the constitution stands for ... basically it doesn't cover all the "inalienable" rights that are so defined. Perhaps going against everything it stands for is too strong of a stance, but look at it this way ... the constitution is essentially the absolute law of the land. You probably know that hte supreme court makes a bunch of wierd, silly decisions based upon the exact wording of the constitution. By allowing an ICC court to override all the checks and balances of the constitution/court system you are potentially subjecting every single peace keeper/commander to malicious prosecution. Now I don't think this would ever happen, but I think the principle of the matter is what upsets most US officials, that there is potential for abuse or loopholes in the system that could be taken advantage of.
I understand what you are saying about the good of the individual shouldn't outweigh the good of the nation, but I think that's a very, very slippery slope that you are tredding upon with that statement. Using such a precedent, couldn't a country take any individual possesions, liberties, rights, etc. from an individual to contribute towards the "good of the nation?" Wasn't that the platform of Russian communism? Personally, I would prefer a government protect me rather than sacrifice me for the good of others. Having said that, I think that the problem is not just an issue of protecting rights but part of it is politicized and transformed to an issue of control. The US doesn't want to hand over control to an "outside" court. I'm all for the prosecution of war crimes individuals (I thought the Lt. Calley trial was a disgrace and a great injustice to American honor), however, I think there should be compromise on both sides to A) Set up an impartial court system which provides equal justice to every individual in the world. And B) A court system which has greater accountability and is not as flawed as the current ICC system.
Just to clarify with respects to the war on drugs in columbia, several states are excempt from the ban on military aid, Columbia being one of them.
Renegade: Excellent arguments, that I'll have to address by a point by point basis when I'm not so tired ... I knew somebody like you would give me a hard time, so I actually read some of the ICC Rome Statute to get a better understanding of the court's jurisdictions and composition :). With respects to the issue of accountability I've definetely seen a few points that I've had problems with. First, crimes of aggression are not defined ... AT ALL. This in combination with complete prosecutorial discretion to investigate and bring charges against anyone deeply worries me. Secondly, the court does have some accountability ... however very little. Any judge can be dismissed by a greater than 2/3 vote from member states who are signaturies to the rome statute. A prosecutor can be dismissed by a majority vote by member states. When you take into account that the majority of member states are, shall we say less than inpecuous democratically elected nations, and nations that are completely inelligible to send peacekeepers ANYWHERE much less maintain peace in their own nations, that there would be some cause for concern? Furthermore you mentioned how is the US court system more accountable than the ICC system ... granted if the ENTIRE US court system were corrupt and in league with each other there would be no difference. However local courts are subjective to district courts, district courts are subjective to appeals courts, appeals courts, subjective to state supreme courts, all the way up to the supreme court of the country. Judges and officials are elected ... compare this with the ICC whose decisions are final (who does the ICC answer to?), prosecutors/judges are not elected by common people, and I think you would again be concerned about the sanctity of such an institution. The ICC does have on fallback of accountability ... cases can only be dismissed only by a UNANIMOUS vote of the security council. However, the entire process seems overtly subjective to political motivations ... more to comment tomorrow.
http://www.icc-cpi.int/docs/basicdocs/rome_statute(e).pdf
PS: As you seemed to imply renegade, perhaps the US government position are motivated for reasons different than my own, however, I cannot support such a court in its current form unless some of the issues I raised are addressed. But like I said before ... worse comes to worse, the US doesnt send peacekeepers abroad a lose-lose situation for everyone that the US and the ICC should strive to avoid. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
[quote]
There are few facets of life - particularly those governing interaction between sovereign states - that aren't subject to "political manipulation" in differing degrees. Perhaps there will be more cases raised against US citizens, purely because US citizens are more involved in peacekeeping operations than citizens of other nations, but the rule of law is simple - abide by your obligations under international law and you're immune from prosecution. Regardless of the protests US officials may wish to make about the "unaccountability" of the ICC, the alternative is, in my mind, much worse:
|
Certainly political motivations or political manipulation can factor into every decision/court process. However, like I mentioned in my above post, there are certain checks and balances in virtually every single institution to ward off mistakes or malicious prosecutions. In what democratic institution is there an absolute consolidation of power? What if you were under prosecution by the ICC and they made a mistake or error in your trial and you were wrongly imprisoned? Who would hear your appeals case? What higher court would overturn a wrongful conviction if the ICC court were to ever become biased?
| quote: |
Thus we're relying on states to prosecute those of their own citizens who have grossly violated international law - how far is that going to get us? Would Pol Pot have died a free man if there was a more rigorous effort to force him to stand trial under an international court for the international laws he'd violated? The ICC may be subject to "political manipulation", but it's much harder for an international body to err as a result of political bias than it is for independant states. An international body cannot act out of self-interest in the same way an autonomous state can, which is where the possibility for "political manipulation" of the system decreases significantly.
|
I think this statement is making a direct reference to Eastern Europe, South Africa, etc. or cases of reconcilation in countries where former gov't officials were members of the Stasi party, apartheid government, or members of the KGB and their probable crimes were granted immunity in order to gain unity, stability, and resolution in a troubled country. Would the white south african government have abolished apartheid and handed over control to blacks if they were faced with imprisonment by international organizations the minute they became ordianry citizens? Would East Germany have folded back into a united Germany if its former masters knew the only way to remain free is to retain their harsh control? Certainly the worst of offenders would and should be prosecuted, but I think that history has successfully shown that sometimes a nation must come to terms with its own past and make their own decisions on how to make a transition to freedom.
| quote: |
How is the court unaccountable - or at least any more unaccountable than national courts - then? It's still accountable to international law - the creation of the ICC simply represents the will to manifest a "judicial" branch of international law where there currently only exists the legislative branch. What's the point of having international laws if there isn't a body there to enforce them? Are US courts "unchecked" because they are bound by nothing more than domestic law? Why should we consider the ICC unchecked, then, when its scope is bound by international treaties ratified by UN member states?
If the US designed an international court, to what or whom would they make it accountable to remove this problem? Themselves alone I can only presume?
|
The ICC is not "accountable" to international law. The court is only there to prosecute what it deems as violations of international law. As for what it may categorize as being a crime of aggression one can only guess! Having a clause where a court can convict an individual for something as loosely defined as a crime of aggression is like having a clause in a constitution stating that a nation may try an individual for crimes against the state. Laws should be designed to punish people while protecting our rights should the POTENTIAL for abuse arise. There's a reason why you may read articles of high courts throwing out cases of murderers who confessed but were not read miranda rights or had a dead body in the car but were subjected to an illegal search. I would much rather prefer that laws err on the side of caution and release 10 guilty men rather than convicting 1 innocent man as the saying goes. Installing a superior court whereby a prosecutor has virtually unlimited, unchecked powers to prosecute any indvidual with the only constraint being a 3 man judicial panel sounds much more likely that a situation of abuse would arise whereby the innocent were to be jailed. And much like I stated before, what court could claim superiority to overturn any conviction that the ICC court set? Furthermore, not only would the ICC have jurisdiction over crimes committed by peacekeepers in warring nations, but it would have jurisdiction over crimes committed on any signatory nation's own soil! I can't think of anything worse than a court that has jurisdiction ANYWHERE, with unprecedented prosecutorial powers to indict ANYONE, with the only fallback or system of accountability being the unanimous vote by the security council to overturn an indictment. As Kissinger stated, "any universal system should contain procedures not only to punish the wicked but also to constrain the righteous. It must not allow legal principles to be used as weapons to settle political scores." I think we all remember how the church utilized unprecedented jurisdiction and powers to achieve "righteousness" in the world.
| quote: |
This seems fair enough to me. The ICC should not have the right to make up crimes as it goes along, the crimes and laws preventing them should be tabled up in the UN by the member states and the ICC should merely exist as a means of enforcing them.
On the other hand, the suggestion that only the UNSC has the power to interpret and deliberate upon international law is preposterous. If Russia, France, China, the UK or the US commit an international crime, what's stopping them from blocking the motion via use of their veto power? If it is believed that the UNSC should wield this much power, then how would the author of this article reconcile it with his opposition to unaccountability and political bias? Surely granting the UNSC this much power would erode accountability (to whom is the UNSC - or more particularly, its member states - accountable?) and political manipulation (see the resolutions tabled against Isreal vetoed by the US)?
|
You're correct. Ultimate power in such an institution probably should not be solely delegated to any one member of the security council ... perhaps a seperate institution should be set up to monitor or check the powers of the ICC. A democratic institution. Perhaps it should be a majority vote by the security council, or the human rights commission. A vote by the entire UN body? A Reesus monkey flipping cards? ANYTHING would be better to limit the powers granted to the ICC by the rome statute. The reason why the author raised the issue that the ICC should be checked by the security council is because the security council was the instittion to authorize peacekeepers to beign with.
| quote: |
I wonder if Slobodan Milosevic agreed to by bound by the treaty? Should we let him go because the Yugoslavian constitution doesn't allow its citizens to be put to trial under violations of international law?
|
The international tribunes were designed with specific constraints and specific jurisdictions in mind. They were established to deal with situations where the enormity of the crime is evident and the local judicial system is clearly incapable of administering justice, such as the former Yugoslavia. At any rate, Milosevic is indicted for crimes carefully documented over the years in Kosovo and Croatia, not Serbia. Furthermore, Serbian soveriegnty was respected and Milosevic was extradited only when the newly democratically elected serbian government agreed to hand Milosevic over.
| quote: |
Allowing sovereign states to prosecute citezens of other nations, as with the above point, surely raises more issues of unaccountability and political manipulation than the ICC? I'll use two real world examples:
1) Camp X-Ray: The US has been able to hold hundreds of foreign nationals for - in some cases - nearly two years without the right to trial. Given the paranoia about terrorism in the US, and the fact that they're considering building an execution chamber in the camp, what are the chances of those detained there receiving a fair trial? There's an Australian national (David Hicks) who's been detained there since the war in Afghanistan - could we have him back and give him a trial here please? Wasn't it mentioned earlier in the article that it should be up to sovereign states to determine how to deal with those in violation of international law? Aren't these two views contradictory? How do we go about determining whether individuals in violation of international law are tried in their own nation or some other nation?
2) The tank incident in South Korea: Why weren't these soldiers tried in South Korea?
http://www.spacedaily.com/2002/0211...7.gd3u6owt.html
Why were they let off? Surely under the current system and taking into account cases like this, military personell operating in foreign nations are both "unaccountable" and their legal culpability subject to "political manipulation". Would they have been let off in the ICC or if they had stood trial in a South Korean court? Should they have been?
|
Well I disagree with the establishment of camp xray. There should be a proper institution set up to afford rights to every person on this planet, I'm not disagreeing with that, I'm arguing that the ICC set up as it is would be a horrible idea. With respects to current methods of determining in which nations individuals are tried, the current method is to negotiate extradition treaties or some other form of negotations. However, even in extradition treaties, nations still have rights over people in their countries as demonstrated by some European countries keeping convicted US murderers in their countries to protest the US death penalty.
| quote: |
If the qualm is legitimate then there isn't much to worry about. If the action is sanctioned by the UNSC then there isn't much to worry about. The only reason the US want this right to "project power" to be unbound by international law is because their conception of "self-defence" differs drastically from that of every rational human being on the planet.
|
Once again you're attributing the US's attitudes against the ICC as an attitude of moral abhorence against justice. The US does prefer to protect its own troops it bases in other nations to defend their borders which is why it signs such agreements, yes. However, it does seek to attain justice in instances of criminal acts such as the rape of the okinawan school girls and that women. The ICC is not an infallible instituion for which there is no cause for concern. It is a flawed institution capable of great abuse.
| quote: |
Read:
We don't want to be made accountable for actions that are illegal, immoral, or grossly negligent in nature. If we want to run over school girls in South Korea, bomb water plants in Iraq or keep Afghani refugees in abhorrent, inhumane conditions (shooting them periodically for good measure) then it is not for the ICC to disrupt these "vital missions".
Once again, I'll say it - if you aren't breaking international law then there isn't much to worry about.
The ICC may not be perfect in nature, but the qualms raised here merely reflect an American attitude of xenophobic paranoia and desire for moral and legal hegemony rather than inherent faults of the ICC. I can only ask you Occrider, if the ICC were ratified by the US and all other nations in its current form, what is the worst case scenario? How could it permit situations worse than those I've mentioned above? |
A worst case scenario is the establishment of a court in which signatories are legally bound to its jurisdiction and ultimate authority to extradite anyone it wishes from any country with no recourse or repurcussions for its actions. Furthermore, it can trod on the democratically elected legal systems already established in nations and overturn any court proceeding it deems invalid to try that individual again in the ICC. I'm sure you can agree that there are flaws to the way the ICC is set up ... why is it so hard to make changes to the ICC structure rather than sign a contract binding you to a flawed institution? Would you ever sign a legal agreement that was vague in nature with legal loopholes that could result in a flawed arrangement against you? Let me ask you something, I think nearly everybody here (including myself) is a critic of the Patriot act and rave act. What was the worst case scenario that could happen out of those acts? They were designed for the betterment of society as a whole ... so what if the government has more spying rights against civilians? So what if the government can hold aliens indefinetely without charge to determine if they are terrorists? If you're not a terrorist than there's not much to worry about right? Given how I hear quotes and references to Orwell and 1984 so much, I find it somewhat surprising that everybody here is so ambivalent and supportive of setting up an institution with unprecedented and unchecked power that transcends all national borders ...
This is nothing but a souped up amber alert bill that everybody supports because it champions moral righteousness :rolleyes:. Well let me ask you, whose moral righteousness does it uphold? I only ask because the ICC has yet to fully define or provide clarification in that area. So I can't say what my government's intentions on the matter are, but the arguments they provide to support their decision contain merit. Let the ICC eliminate those reasons and causes for concern then I'll back it 100%. But until then, I'm saying no to the ICC. |
|
|
| trancaholic |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
...
I understand what you are saying about the good of the individual shouldn't outweigh the good of the nation, but I think that's a very, very slippery slope that you are tredding upon with that statement. Using such a precedent, couldn't a country take any individual possesions, liberties, rights, etc. from an individual to contribute towards the "good of the nation?" Wasn't that the platform of Russian communism? ...
|
Point taken. However, isn't anarchy the correct description of the other extreme?
Covering your first and third point, let me just say that I understand your points about principles and the constitution, as well as your wish for a better deal than that offered by the ICC. Not being american I cannot say whether the following is true, but as I understand things, the constitution has a built-in safeguard agains tampering, in that it cannot be altered, but ammendments are allowed. This - along with things such as the electorate voting system - suggests to me that the constitution was written by a group of people, so certain that they had crafted the optimal guidelines for running a nation, that they effectively ruled out the possibility of circumstances changing and the need for alterations to arise.
In my view, blind faith in the ability of a document written hundreds of years ago to foresee the best form of conduct today, is a little naive. In Denmark we have a similar constitution first drafted in 1848. It has been revised several times since then, and will probably have to be revised in the near future again, in order to allow for full integration into the EU. Whenever these revisions take place, the constitution is debated, and changed to fit the current consensus. To me, that seems more democratic than for people long dead and buried to have the final say in how my country is run.
I understand that the US is a (the) superpower and can do pretty much as it pleases, but if there is really any momentum and intention behind the power-terms of globalization, world peace, trade on a global scale and so forth, the US must be willing to leave not only the responsability but also some of the decisions to international organs. As you have pointed out, this goes against the constitution, but maybe change is not necessarily for the worse?!? To me it seems like the US has moved halfway into a rushing river, got a better look at the shore it is approaching, and is now having second thoughts on whether it really wanted to cross to the other side, in the first place.
As to your point on the ICC being less than perfect: I agree, to some extend, but there is the possiblity of changing things along the way, as and when concrete problems surface. For all I know, the US could withdraw from the agreement once it turns out to be an awful deal - after all, Bush withdrew from the ABM-treaty, right? :D |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by trancaholic
Point taken. However, isn't anarchy the correct description of the other extreme?
|
Agreed, something to be avoided as well. However, a good government should respect our inalienable rights rather than sacrificing them for the good of others.
| quote: |
Covering your first and third point, let me just say that I understand your points about principles and the constitution, as well as your wish for a better deal than that offered by the ICC. Not being american I cannot say whether the following is true, but as I understand things, the constitution has a built-in safeguard agains tampering, in that it cannot be altered, but ammendments are allowed. This - along with things such as the electorate voting system - suggests to me that the constitution was written by a group of people, so certain that they had crafted the optimal guidelines for running a nation, that they effectively ruled out the possibility of circumstances changing and the need for alterations to arise.
In my view, blind faith in the ability of a document written hundreds of years ago to foresee the best form of conduct today, is a little naive. In Denmark we have a similar constitution first drafted in 1848. It has been revised several times since then, and will probably have to be revised in the near future again, in order to allow for full integration into the EU. Whenever these revisions take place, the constitution is debated, and changed to fit the current consensus. To me, that seems more democratic than for people long dead and buried to have the final say in how my country is run.
|
Actually the constitution can be changed by adding or removing amendments (such as prohibition). Amendments to the Constitution may be proposed by a 2/3 vote of both houses of Congress, or by a Constitutional convention called by Congress upon the appeal of 2/3 of state legislatures. Any proposed amendments must be ratified by 3/4 of state legislatures or by Constitutional conventions called by the states. If you are referring to the preamble or articles of the constitution, there's nothing I would want to change there ... they do not grant any rights but merely go into the structure and division of government. But those too could conceivably be changed (why would you want to?) by amendments I suppose.
| quote: |
I understand that the US is a (the) superpower and can do pretty much as it pleases, but if there is really any momentum and intention behind the power-terms of globalization, world peace, trade on a global scale and so forth, the US must be willing to leave not only the responsability but also some of the decisions to international organs. As you have pointed out, this goes against the constitution, but maybe change is not necessarily for the worse?!? To me it seems like the US has moved halfway into a rushing river, got a better look at the shore it is approaching, and is now having second thoughts on whether it really wanted to cross to the other side, in the first place.
|
Decisions and responsiblities are left to international organs ... who do you think makes up most of the decisions when it comes to trade? The world trade organization. Everybody must essentially submit to trade arbitration decisions made by the WTO. There's nothing restricting the US from ceding such responsibities to international organizations such as the UN or the WTO. When it comes to the rights of people, however, the whole point of the bill of rights is to protect people from abuse by the government. Why would the US (being forced to limit its own powers to ward off abuse of the individual) all of a sudden grant the lifting of said protections to a foreign organization that is suceptible to abuse? It doesn't make any sense, and it goes against the principles upon which America was founded ... that the power resides in the people not the government.
| quote: |
As to your point on the ICC being less than perfect: I agree, to some extend, but there is the possiblity of changing things along the way, as and when concrete problems surface. For all I know, the US could withdraw from the agreement once it turns out to be an awful deal - after all, Bush withdrew from the ABM-treaty, right? :D |
Why not just get it right the first time? |
|
|
| Izzy |
occrider great posts, they have definetly re-affirmed my committment to opposing the ICC. true in an idealistic world it would be nice, but at current standings the ICC would just be another platform for countries to continue their world politics, a useless orginization. I'm glad america isnt selling out its souverginty or the rights of its citizens, that should be its primary concerns, not the whims and sways of the international community. Not only that with all the anti-americanism going on around the world the US has the most to lose by signing on to such a treaty, i can already see it - all the worlds rage being taken out on many frivolious cases be it on specific soldiers, commanders, or even the cheif himself
:rolleyes: |
|
|
| Arbiter |
Given that a nation whose leaders or key officials are accused of crimes by the ICC can always opt to go to war rather than submit to its judgment, the organization seems more likely to initaite strife than to bring about justice.
How many more lives should we sacrifice to make sure we can bring a war criminal to justice? If we are killing people, to kill a person, because he killed people, are we really furthering the principles we purport to uphold?
It's a nice idea, but like many systems of so-called justice, it fails under the harsh light of realism. |
|
|
| trancaholic |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
Actually the constitution can be changed by adding or removing amendments (such as prohibition). Amendments to the Constitution may be proposed by a 2/3 vote of both houses of Congress, or by a Constitutional convention called by Congress upon the appeal of 2/3 of state legislatures. Any proposed amendments must be ratified by 3/4 of state legislatures or by Constitutional conventions called by the states. If you are referring to the preamble or articles of the constitution, there's nothing I would want to change there ... they do not grant any rights but merely go into the structure and division of government. But those too could conceivably be changed (why would you want to?) by amendments I suppose.
|
That I did not know - and very interesting. I assume the constitution works like a computer program, with ammedments being plug-ins, then?!?
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
Decisions and responsiblities are left to international organs ... who do you think makes up most of the decisions when it comes to trade? The world trade organization. Everybody must essentially submit to trade arbitration decisions made by the WTO. There's nothing restricting the US from ceding such responsibities to international organizations such as the UN or the WTO. When it comes to the rights of people, however, the whole point of the bill of rights is to protect people from abuse by the government. Why would the US (being forced to limit its own powers to ward off abuse of the individual) all of a sudden grant the lifting of said protections to a foreign organization that is suceptible to abuse? It doesn't make any sense, and it goes against the principles upon which America was founded ... that the power resides in the people not the government.
|
As far as I remember, several cases in which the US has imposed embargos on merchandise - in conflict with WTO rulings - exist. On the aspect of limiting the US power over its own population, you are right in that it makes little sense. However, if you expect to streamline the world concensus to the ideas of freedom, liberty, and democracy (as seems to be the current intentions of Busc & co.) then it wouldn't matter to move the power over individuals to an international organ, would it?
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
Why not just get it right the first time? |
Because, apparently, the participants do not share the same idea of cause and effect. The US-administration sees the ICC as an instrument for "getting back at the US", while the EU (among others) sees it as an incentive to proper conduct by waring parties. Only by carrying out the experiment, can the true effect be determined and the ICC altered accordingly. In my view, that is. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by trancaholic
That I did not know - and very interesting. I assume the constitution works like a computer program, with ammedments being plug-ins, then?!?
|
Hehe that's a very 21st century way to look at it ... but yes I suppose that amendments could be considered plug-ins or different versions of a software program. Although it's very hard to change the constitution it is possible. Generally though, it's not a document that could particularly engender abuse of individuals (with one exception being prohibition). If anything, honest citizens would want MORE amendments outlining protections and granting more rights to them. However, it's the dishonest citizens that prevent this from happening.
| quote: |
As far as I remember, several cases in which the US has imposed embargos on merchandise - in conflict with WTO rulings - exist. On the aspect of limiting the US power over its own population, you are right in that it makes little sense. However, if you expect to streamline the world concensus to the ideas of freedom, liberty, and democracy (as seems to be the current intentions of Busc & co.) then it wouldn't matter to move the power over individuals to an international organ, would it?
|
Hmmm I wasn't aware of any rulings the US ignored but you could be right. The wto and trade was a poor example altogether. The thing about trade is that any country can do whatever it wants. If you don't want to trade me a fish, I can't really force you to trade it to me right? The WTO is an arbitration organization designed to encourage countries to relax trade barriers and develop free trade. However, its decisions are not binding. The whole point of arbitration is to avoid a trade war.
But at any rate, I wouldn't mind moving power over the people from national governments to the international level through an international organ ... as long as that international organ offers me the same protections that I demanded from my national government. And therein lays the crux of the argument. Everybody is going to disagree about what party is going to hold the power and how is that power going to be structured. But like I said before, if the ICC were to restructure it so some of my concerns are allieviated then hell, I say give it all the support it wants.
| quote: |
Because, apparently, the participants do not share the same idea of cause and effect. The US-administration sees the ICC as an instrument for "getting back at the US", while the EU (among others) sees it as an incentive to proper conduct by waring parties. Only by carrying out the experiment, can the true effect be determined and the ICC altered accordingly. In my view, that is. |
For better or for worse? That's part of the problem ... the US doesn't want to see what happens if it's for worse :). Who's to say it would be altered? It seems like the insitution is fairly resistant against any kind of change right now that I wouldn't be too optimistic of any reform once it goes "live". We'll see what happens when the ICC starts its proceedings against its current member countries. I don't doubt that it will be stepping on a few toes and will piss some countries off. |
|
|
|
|
