US disapproval of new international war crimes court

[sharonbn]

"UNITED NATIONS (AP) -- The United States agreed to a 72-hour extension of the U.N. peacekeeping mission in Bosnia on Sunday, shortly after vetoing a six-month extension because it didn't give American peacekeepers immunity from the new International Criminal Court."

For the full article:
http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe....ap/index.html

US stand against the new international court is strong:
"It also underlined Washington's willingness to stand against virtually all other council members, including its close allies, and to end all U.N. peacekeeping missions if necessary -- not just the Bosnian missions."

Israel and US have not signed the treaty that empowers the court and establishes is jurisdiction.

Its nice to have a strong ally like US in such a principal issue

[Vic]

How does this particular act translate into support for Israel? The US is protecting its own citizens only in this case.

[sharonbn]

Originally posted by Vic
How does this particular act translate into support for Israel? The US is protecting its own citizens only in this case.

This act helps in delegitimizing the international war crimes court and diminish its strength. It exposes this institution as means of settling political scores, rather than bringing justice.

[Northlander]

I cant see how this helps israelis? I cant see how this benefits anyone but americans that truly are guilty of crimes. Its a very strange demand that it should not even be possible to put criminals on trail for crimes commited. Israelis should be against this as well. When you consider that americans, and others, have done some very disgusting things in the balkans, its outragous to hear this. Im surprised even USA can be this arrogant. Why should they stand above the law alone? Some US soldiers raping a young bosnian girl and things like that. Almost unbelievable arrogance. Im starting to get very tired of USA trying to show their supremacy. If this is some plan to make people anti-american its really succeful.
International laws should be equal for all. I dont care if warcrimes are commited by my countrymen or americans or arabs. Just punish them and punish them hard. This should not be a patriotic question for americans either.

[cerulean]

People should be punished for crimes, if found guilty after a trial in which they have had legal counsel and due process.

But, how is it reasonably possible that the UN, with Syria as head of the Security Council, will ever be a fair and impartial body? There's no use pretending all countries are equal when it comes to legalities and due process.

[Mediocrates]

This is nothing new in fact the US has maintained the same position for over 2 years. The question is not about international law or your oprobium. It's about when the rule of law and jurisprudence and process become subverted and perverted by political and other hidden agenda. It's like the racism and ethnic cleansing card you are so fond of. Why would any court work too hard or sweat the details when they can make claims of ethnic cleansing and it simply becomes fact w/o further adieu.

That's the problem. That and the confusion over rules of order, evidence, procedure, rights, authority, appeal and so on. For example in each country the rules of evidence, rights to jury trial are different, the rules defining appeal are different, hell, in Scottish law there are THREE verdicts, not two. That's the other problem that the entire process becomes a kind of watered down ersatz sham where the rules are vague and the court plays to an arbitrary standard.

[Northlander]

Maybe its not a prefect organ but its the best we have. Its like saying democracy is wrong because its not working perfectly. UN trails are better than none. Without the possibility of trail I would think the crimerate gets higher. Probably true for americans too.
If americans are excluded I agree the courts are useless. If brittain and france can accept it USA should be able to do that too. Its just smokescreens to prevent the situation when american reputation drops rapidly in the case of american soldiers put on trail.

[Northlander]

And the alternative? Soldiers commiting crimes without punishment? Like in Israel? Well, I guess there is the reason for sionists applausing this US move.

[Mediocrates]

Which is presumed: innocence or guilt - it depends on which standards you apply. And would the Bethlehem terrorist frat boys loose in Europe now have been tried?

[sharonbn]

Originally posted by Northlander
I cant see how this helps israelis? I cant see how this benefits anyone but americans that truly are guilty of crimes. Its a very strange demand that it should not even be possible to put criminals on trail for crimes commited.

Northlander,
I think you're missing the point.
The question is not whether war criminals should be punished or not. You don't serioulsy think that US will let an American soldier rape a Bosnian girl and get away with it, do you?
Such a criminal will be judged by an American court and if found guilty, he will go to jail.
Same thing happened with Israeli soldiers that were prosecuted for looting Palestinian property in Nov. 2001.

The question is who put a Dutch judge (or Belgian, or Swedish...) responsible for judging an American soldier? What if the soldier shot a civillian by mistake? you know, these things happen at war times. Should the soldier fear prosecution while performing his duty?

Examine the case of the IDF operation in Jenin during "defense wall" operation. This is an Israeli army fighting to destroy terror infrastructure. IMO, it is a legitimate self-defense act. Palestinians see this differently. Why should the Europeans intervene in what's obvously a conflict that does not concern them?

[Vic]

Originally posted by sharonbn
Examine the case of the IDF operation in Jenin during "defense wall" operation. This is an Israeli army fighting to destroy terror infrastructure. IMO, it is a legitimate self-defense act. Palestinians see this differently. Why should the Europeans intervene in what's obvously a conflict that does not concern them?

A) It helps to distract from domestic problems
B) The Palestinians have been brainwashing the people here for decades
C) It gives the man on the street a warm and fuzzy feeling of having the rest of the world under control
D) It strengthens ties with Israel's neighbors, quite significant if you think of economical and security aspects
E) Then there is of course the unpopular term that starts with "a" and ends with "m"
F) The political class is never the more intelligent part of any country's population

etc.

[James]

Originally posted by sharonbn
"UNITED NATIONS (AP) -- The United States agreed to a 72-hour extension of the U.N. peacekeeping mission in Bosnia on Sunday, shortly after vetoing a six-month extension because it didn't give American peacekeepers immunity from the new International Criminal Court."

For the full article:
http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe....ap/index.html

US stand against the new international court is strong:
"It also underlined Washington's willingness to stand against virtually all other council members, including its close allies, and to end all U.N. peacekeeping missions if necessary -- not just the Bosnian missions."

Israel and US have not signed the treaty that empowers the court and establishes is jurisdiction.

Its nice to have a strong ally like US in such a principal issue

I agree, it's nice to have a strong ally like Israel. America stands
(proudly) in Israels corner. It makes me proud of my country to see Arafat & his cronies shocked by President Bush's speech rejecting Arafat & company.

[Northlander]

You don't serioulsy think that US will let an American soldier rape a Bosnian girl and get away with it, do you?

No I dont. But you are missing the point. Some other countries wouldnt necessarely act against their own soldiers. The countries that reason as Israel and USA on this point are countries like China,India,Pakistan,Indonisia,Iraq and Turkey. They havent signed it at all. And USA, Israel, Russia, Egypt and Iran have signed but not accepted it.

The national courts are always in priority here. If USA decides to act agaisnt warcrimes commited by it own soldiers it would still be able to do so. Also only one arab country are represented so far and that is Jordan. Its absoultely BS that US troops or even IDF would be put on trail by syrians or whatever I hear from you guys. It takes 3!! international judges to even put someone on trail which basically makes political trails impossible and still USA can stop any trails by just putting them on trail in USA which in that case sanks the argument that there are even the slightest risk at seeing americans on trail by enemies. As I said. If USA´s closest allies can see this one has to start thinking of what is the real reason. You are in a group of not very democratic countries here.

The question is who put a Dutch judge (or Belgian, or Swedish...) responsible for judging an American soldier? What if the soldier shot a civillian by mistake? you know, these things happen at war times. Should the soldier fear prosecution while performing his duty?

Do you think a Dutch,Belgian or Swedish judge would do a worse job than an american? Do you think that only patriotism can give an american a fair trail? As I said. It would need three judges even to get to procecution. Im sure a soldier shooting by mistake would have great chances of going free. Wouldnt even come to procecution. Also finally USA can with its vetoright in the security council even as it is now prevent all decisions to even promote a case to ICC. That is probably the strongest arguement why USA as it is now should stop whining about this. Its not possible at all to put americans on trail in ICC if USA doesnt agree to it. So again why is USA on the same side as lets say Iraq on this? Who is gaining by a world without regulations, rules and working diplomatic channels? Russia could probably be forced into ICC and China convinced. All it takes is USA to make it really effective. A USA that has nothing to lose and all to win. This is so clearly a policy from the Bush administration to show american superiority and I dont think they really understand what signals its sending out. Even britain are objecting to this.

[Northlander]

Also this blackmail type of action against the policework in Bosnia is really low. It was already decided that europe was going to take care of that from the start of next year. Now with this short notice it will be harder and the only ones suffering from that will be people in the region. Again the Bush administration is neglecting its allies and only the sign that the european members of NATO is calling for separate meetings should be taken serious by USA.

[Mediocrates]

But the charter of the court is mysteriously vague. What exactly is a 'crime of aggression'?