America exempt from war crimes

Question:

Only for a year though. So if there are any Americans who want to commit war crimes, you better hurry. They take a lot of planning.

Not at all! But as with most things in life, only two matter: Practice, practice, practice. And location, location, location. — What Would Jesus Do To Your Penis With A Cup Full Of Cockroaches? — nu-monet

Response:

feverishly; – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Thank you, George Bush! Any find, red-blooded American citizen may rape, pillage, plunder, and genocide as long as her wears an American uniform. Way cool [NOT!]. Since the USA government is utterly lawless, is it any wonder that Scientology and its ilk are also? http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/americas/newsid_2126000/212640… Only for a year though. So if there are any Americans who want to commit war crimes, you better hurry. They take a lot of planning.

Not if you’re not worried about getting caught. David Patrick

– Joe Cosby http://joecosby.home.mindspring.com A canyon related to the darkness accidentally hated the wheel, because the wedge beyond a nightmare explored some torch. Sig by Kookie Jar 5.98d http://go.to/generalfrenetics/

Response:

The United States, like any other country, is innocent until proven guilty. Questioning the jurisdiction of the court bringing charges is a common and accepted legal tactic. If you’re gonna play by the rules, play by the *fucking* rules. — Chaos.

Response:

I’m of two minds on this one. On the one hand, we seem so dammed imperial; our attitude is that we can do no wrong. On the other hand, we are playing world’s policeman, and sometimes we do good. There are folks who would bring phony charges against us just for their own political gain while we are engaging in some worthwhile police action, and that could tend to deter us from acting boldly when it was necessary. Unfortunately, Dubby is not trustworthy, and I have grave doubts about the motivation behind any "humanitarian" action undertaken on his watch. — John Starrett

Response:

Only for a year though. So if there are any Americans who want to commit war crimes, you better hurry. They take a lot of planning. David Patrick

Response:

Which is a problem. It reminds me of the British Empire at its height. We thought we had a divine right to do what the hell we wanted anywhere on Earth. On the other hand, we are playing world’s policeman, and sometimes we do good. There are folks who would bring phony charges against us just for their own political gain while we are engaging in some worthwhile police action, and that could tend to deter us from acting boldly when it was necessary. Unfortunately, Dubby is not trustworthy, and I have grave doubts about the motivation behind any "humanitarian" action undertaken on his watch.

I don’t think so. There are safeguards in place to prevent abuses of this kind and under the normal course of events no American (or Briton for that matter) would actually have to go to the court or be tried outside of America. Here’s a quote from a BBC article about America’s refusal to join: (begin quote) "In response, the Europeans point to the many safeguards built into the Rome Treaty governing the court – in particular, the principle that it can intervene only if a country cannot or will not prosecute crimes against humanity in its national courts. They stress how unlikely it is that American peacekeepers would commit such crimes; or that, if they did, the Americans would not deal with it themselves." (end quote) Any false allegation would clearly be weeded out before it became a problem. America would never be in the position of one of its generals being dragged before the court on a trumped up charge in the Hague. David Patrick

Response:

Thank you, George Bush! Any find, red-blooded American citizen may rape, pillage, plunder, and genocide as long as her wears an American uniform. Way cool [NOT!]. Since the USA government is utterly lawless, is it any wonder that Scientology and its ilk are also? http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/americas/newsid_2126000/212640… Saturday, 13 July, 2002, 10:07 GMT 11:07 UK Anger at war crimes court deal "Serious consequences" if US troops are prosecuted Supporters of the new global war crimes court have reacted with anger to a United Nations compromise that exempts American peacekeepers from any prosecution. The UN Security Council voted unanimously for the 12-month exemption – to be renewed annually – to end a bitter row threatening peacekeeping operations. Washington got only a temporary reprieve of dubious legality and a strong taste of global outrage Human Rights Watch Canada’s ambassador to the UN, Paul Heinbecker, said the Security Council had exceeded its powers. But America warned of "serious consequences" if the International Criminal Court (ICC) ever arrested a member of the US military. The BBC’s UN correspondent says the new resolution will have little practical effect on the court’s work. But he says it has set the bad precedent of Security Council interference in an internationally agreed treaty. ‘Not in mandate’ Ambassador Heinbecker told reporters: "We think this is a sad day for the United Nations. "We don’t think it’s in the mandate of the Security Council to interpret treaties that are negotiated somewhere else." The compromise resolution permitting the one-year exemption in investigating or prosecuting peacekeepers applies to countries, like the US, that do not support the ICC. Deal was not in Security Council’s mandate, said Canada’s ambassador But the possibility that the exemption would not be renewed brought a stiff warning from US Ambassador to the UN, John Negroponte. "We cannot accept a structure that may transform the political criticism of America’s world role into the basis for criminal trials of Americans who have put their lives on the line for freedom," he said. "Should the ICC eventually seek to detain any American, the United States would regard this as illegitimate. "No nation should underestimate our commitment to protect our citizens." President Bush’s administration had been threatening to veto all future UN peacekeeping missions if the American military was not granted permanent immunity from the ICC. After the compromise Security Council resolution was passed, the UN’s peacekeeping mandate in Bosnia was immediately renewed. ‘Time out’ Human rights groups attacked the deal. "For all its arm-twisting, Washington got only a temporary reprieve of dubious legality and a strong taste of global outrage," said Richard Dicker of Human Rights Watch. The British Ambassador at the UN, Sir Jeremy Greenstock, defended the deal. He said it would offer a "time out for the right action to be taken by the member state whose nationals are accused or indicted". And France’s Jean-David Levitte said the compromise was "absolutely in line with the statute of Rome" which set up the ICC. The ICC is the first permanent court to try war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. The Rome Statute entered into force on 1 July and the court is expected to begin processing charges in The Hague in about a year. —- http://desertphile.org — Insane nut rant at http://www.linkline.com/personal/frice "Commodore Rimjob" is available at http://crimjob.tripod.com Why did the Scientologist cross the road? – mimus To slug Bob Minton. – Shydavid (See http://www.BobMinton.ORG/

Response:

Filed under: Human Rights

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

TrackBack URL | RSS feed for comments on this post.

Activism Change

Learn, read, react :: Activism