International Court of Law, the Hague and Bush's Bill

Jun 8 20:55 UTC 2002

Saw this as an item on Dutrch television:
Pr. Bush is trying to pass a bill in which he refuses to recognize the 
new International Court of Law.
The reason behind it is that he will not give this alleged impartive 
court the power to bring war criminals to try if they are American 
(soldiers).
Whatsmore, he even said he is prepared to invade my dear insippid 
little country and free captured accusees if it ever should happen.

Does mr. Bush show contempt to the international community?
Is he, in fact, nullifying the supra national status of United Nations 
with this proposed bill? (It has to pass the Senate, and the Senate is 
majored by Democrats, so...)
Or is it a storm in a glass of water, or the direct result of 9/11?
Surely, atrocities are bound to happen with any army invading another 
country or fighting war anywhere. US soldier won´t be an exception. Or 
is US moral this high it will never happen?

Please give your opinion on the matter.

response 2 of 44:

Jun 8 21:38 UTC 2002

We're afraid of a one-world government, if there's a chance that the U.S.
won't be that government.  :(

response 4 of 44:

Jun 8 22:34 UTC 2002

R.1:  Also, I doubt Bush has any great problems with fucking over the
constitution.

response 6 of 44:

Jun 9 00:25 UTC 2002

Precisely.  The nation is not at ALL of one mind or opinion in the 
least bit.  Thus you have politicians making doublespeak and very 
broad, vague promises.  They also do whatever they can to court 
moderates and Independents while still remaining faithful to the 
stalwart of their political parties.

Voter apathy is a large problem, and the political parties no longer 
have strong support at the local level, at least in my area.  There 
are fewer people that are fully active as Republicans or Democrats.  
The appearance of the Reform and Green parties suggest desire for an 
alternative, but a two-party system is most conducive to political 
debate, and thus it remains.

Interestingly enough, we were reluctant to join the League of Nations 
when it began, and even when it became the U.N.  In recent years, 
however, I'd say the U.S. has strong sway and is very actively 
involved.

response 8 of 44:

Jun 9 03:47 UTC 2002

(Incidentally, I realize that many other countries do have freedom of speech
 and freedom of religion -- but most do not, and a number are actively opposed
 to ever allowing their citizens to have those freedoms.  Some assert that
 those freedoms are in conflict with their values (see, e.g., the "Asian 
 values" argument used by the governments of Singapore and Malaysia).  Even
 many European governments are way too cozy with organized religion for my
 taste -- and, for the record, so is the US government; I just don't see
 that world government would make it any better.)

Basically, I don't see any benefit to me from world government, and I see
a lot of potential detriment.

The war crimes courts are a different story.  I don't think we should be
opposed to them, but I can see why some people might be uncomfortable
about them due to uncertainty over how politicized they're going to be.
(A problem Bush isn't making any better by rhetoric like in #0.)

response 10 of 44:

Jun 9 14:28 UTC 2002

If you do, please post the URL.

I suspect -- Bush's jingoism and ignorance aside -- that a lot of people would
view those courts as an infringement on sovereignty, and they kind of have
a point.  I could see it if they were a last resort, but I don't think Canada,
for example, should have had to turn its soldiers over to an international
court for what they did in Bosnia provided that they dealt with the problem
themselves.

response 12 of 44:

Jun 9 15:50 UTC 2002

Is this the same "international community" that kicked the U.S. off of the
U.N. Human Rights Commission?

Is this the same "international community" that installed Syria as the head
of the U.N. Security Council?

Is this the same "international community" that sponsored the anti-Semitic
hate-fest in Durban?

Is this the same "international community" that gladly accepts US sponsorship
and payment for military defense?

(Shall I go on?)

Then by what right do they claim to have earned our respect?

response 14 of 44:

Jun 9 19:33 UTC 2002

The US appears to give strong support to the court trying Milosevich and
the other perpetrators of those war crimes. We appear as hypocrites
for being so selective in supporting world courts.

response 16 of 44:

Jun 9 20:25 UTC 2002

Re 8: you are the first responding to mny actual question.
I never said any word on a world government. If at all, in this current 
era, I guess the US would be it because of sheer dominance in military 
power.
Re 9: I would like to see that too. It was brought as a background item 
in a news program. I never saw anything in the papers.
Maybe the issue is all blown up and exaggerated.

As for the othe responses. Even mr. Milosevic has a point (the court 
mentioned in #' is in fact anothe rcourt than the one trying him) if he 
says that it is biased and NATO soldier or government leaders are never 
going to be tried by this court. So, how impartive is that court?
I can understand Bush's concern if he fears the evil tongues can make 
wild accusations even on war crime (when US soldier for instance are 
stationed in countries like Bosnia - I leave out Afghanistan as it is 
quie another action)


Re #12
I won't even go into this kind of rethoric...

Besides, one earns respect by showing respect.
Methinks many governments lack in the latter while claiming the other.

Rane, I think it's another court, see my response. I fear it's worse.
Karremans, the officer commanding Dutchbat in Srebrenica... do you 
expect he is going to be tried in any way because he didn't even 
attempt to defend those moslim people resulting in the deaths of 7,000 
men?



 

response 18 of 44:

Jun 10 13:54 UTC 2002

I agree with Rane, for once. If the US expects other countries to hand over
non-American terrorists, it is just plian disrespect to not show others the
same level of courtesy.

response 20 of 44:

Jun 10 16:17 UTC 2002

Yeah. From what I have read about the ICC treaty, it *should* have no 
impact at all on the US since it only would apply if we failed to try 
out own people for war crimes. Since we would get the opportunity to 
try our own people, they would get full constitutional protection. 

Also, the ICC treaty is very specific about the types of crimes it 
would try and all of them, to my knowledge, are things that already are 
illegal in the US or for US soldiers in combat situations. So, unless 
we are planning on ignoring our own laws, there is no harm in signing 
this treaty. We do, however, have quite a lot to gain by signing. A 
show of good will to our fellow nations is no small thing. 

response 24 of 44:

Jun 11 01:54 UTC 2002

Re #17:  There are US forces in a number of places around the world
which are essentially meant to be little more than a speed-bump
(Korea comes to mind), but if the adversary went over them they would
draw the USA into the conflict.  The point of the forces is to be a
deterrent to aggression; the Dutch really don't have any excuse other
than their orders, and whoever issued those orders or wrote those
terms of engagement is ipso facto responsible for Srbrnica.  (An
attack on Dutch forces brings NATO in, doesn't it?  That would have
been an adequate deterrent, had it been used.)