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.

44 responses total.

A lot of americans are in defenite fear of a one world government.  They
believe th U.N. does nothing for the larger nations and are opposed to
american Ideals.

If he supported giving over jurisdiction to the U.N. it would violate the U.S.
Constitution, and he would never be able to pass another thing in the senate
nor would he be re-elected.

We Americans do consider ourselves superior to the rest of the world.  If not
for us the majority of he world would be living under the heals of the Nazis,
the Imperial Japanese, and the Russians Socialists.

We weren't threatened immediately, but we sent materails, weapons, and finally
our young men to die in wars we never started.

Sorry if that makes you uncomfortable.  Many americans feel they have paid
a price that you can never repay.

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

R.1:  I hate them 'socialists!'

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

there are many americans who would not agree at all with #1.

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.

I agree with only a couple parts of #1.  I don't want a world government by
the United Nations, or by any other body.  I don't think a bigger government
will protect my rights better, I don't feel like I have much control over my
government now, and I think adding another layer will only make the situation
worse.

I don't consider myself superior to people from other countries.  I also
don't consider myself inferior to people from other countries.  I don't
want to be subject to rules made up by people who don't have
Constitutional guarantees of free speech, or freedom of religion.  Having
those freedoms doesn't make me, or the US, superior, but I prefer to keep
them rather than giving them up to conform.

So... screw Bruce's last three paragraphs, but I can see where the first
two are coming from.  I wouldn't want to be part of a large-scale EU,
where important decisions are made by people I didn't even pretend to
elect, based on a philosophy of conformity to a bland standard.  And I
*really* don't want to be part of a world government where the majority of
the countries are out to cut mine down a notch or two.

(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.)

i'd like to see a full article about #0 .. maybe i can find one

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.

I think the answer is yes, absolutely, Bush shows contempt for the
international community.

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?

I favor an ICC as proposed. 

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.

The USA favors world courts that dont apply to us or our citizens. 
Either because we think they are too harsh or because we think they are 
too lenient. To my knowledge the death penalty would not be an option 
for anyone tried in the ICC and I think that does bug some people. 

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?



 

I don't know the situation surrounding the Dutchbat's failure to protect the
Moslems as well as you do, probably, because I'm restricted to English-
language sources.  The impression I've had, though, is that they didn't have
the firepower to do anything more than act as a speedbump (i.e. the Serbs
would have rolled over them), and that they may also have been operating under
rules of engagement and orders from above that didn't permit them to
interfere.

Is that accurate?

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.

here's the closest thing i could find:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/4/12/191103.shtml

i think it's really sick the US thinks it is above getting in trouble for war
crimes/crimes against humanity. that this will somehow hinder our military
power. i think this proves that the US is or plans to be up to no good in this
"war on terror". how ironic.

just like a coke head to think this way.

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. 

Sort of odd that he won't.  I suspect it's a sovereignty thing.

This response has been erased.

probably. even more nauseating ..

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.)

Re world government: Something like was tried a couple hundred years ago on
a smaller scale - multiple 'states' joining together to form an overgovernment
for the purpose of dealing with the rest of the world, yet retaining the right
to make their own internal laws. Somehow or other that right of home rule got
eroded somewhat as the overgovernment started passing laws that should have
been outside its jurisdiction. I think a lot of the citizens of these 'states'
are suspicious of the UN for that reason.

This response has been erased.

Re #24:  I don't personally know enough about the circumstances to compare
         the situation with Dutchbat to the US forces in S. Korea.  I *do*
         know that other peacekeeping forces (the UK, specifically) didn't
         always have the backing they needed to do anything about ethnic
         cleansing, in part because nobody in power realized what was going
         to happen.  That isn't a defense for the people in power, who should
         damn well have been able to figure it out, but it can be a defense
         for the soldiers in the field.

I agree with Russ.
Even if they weren't backed up enough with fire power (requests for air 
support were repeatedly turned down by HQ in zagreb), they still should 
have made a stand. They were there to protect the people of Srebrenica, 
not their own hides.

Have you seen an English-language article that goes into any depth on this?
I'm genuinely interested, but haven't been able to find one.

eeehhh.. I could go start looking for it.
I can tell you that after all those years, the publication of the final 
report has made the government fall a month their term ended.
List Pim Fortuyn was the next step.

All this made me realise this:
NATO states that *any* attack on a member state will be considered an 
attack on all memeber states.
Does thgis imply that if, the US invade Holland to free war criminals, 
the other states have to declare war on the US?
But what if the US, as a result is attacked?
This is quite confusing.

The US will not invade Holland. There are too many Americans of Dutch
descent, who vote. 

Oh, come on. The armed forces deserve a break. Just think what a nice
vacation could be had in a Holland invasion? Why should our troops
always have to go out to distant jungles, deserts and mountains?

Aha! Said invasion could somehow be tied into the war on drugs!
It would be US and our new found friends in Colombia and Afghanistan
against the rest of NATO.  The French could start on one side and
switch to the other at halftime.  [Visions of Woody Allen selling
hot-dogs and pop-corn in "Love & War"]

Besides, what would the US get? A lot of real estate that is going
to flood with global warming. How would that help developers?

<puts on her floaties>

Here are a couple of links I found on the subject:

http://www.hrw.org/summaries/s.bosnia9510.html

http://www.rnw.nl/hotspots/html/srebrenica010713.html

http://www.ikv.nl/ikv/srebrenica/pb-engels.html

Re #33: We could capture Dutch engineers for their dike-building expertise,
which will become highly valuable in coming years.

Hey, we are going to need them more than you are.
The only town you'll lose is New Orleans.
We are goping to lose an entire country.

* going *

should i start saving for a barge?

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss