USArmy NOT Immune From International Justice

Politics International Politics
1

Finally the Bushist regime has caved in with regard to its attempts to put their own above international law and thus allow the Abu Ghraib-type thugs to please themselves. This blatant attempt by the US to demand immunity from prosecution for war crimes for its military personel had always been a disgusting attempt to put themselves above the law and now they have given up trying. Hoorah!

Who do they think they are, thinking they can just go around pleasing themselves? One law for the US, another for the rest? Bullshit!

Another nail in the coffin for Adolf Bush’s foreign policy…HAH!

2

what international law is there?

3

The Rome Treaty.

4

I hope there is more than one or a tiny bit of piss-taking is afoot.

5

I hope there is more than one or a tiny bit of piss-taking is afoot.[/quote]

BruneAle,

Would I take the piss? I’m a Yank and not even certain about using this phrase.

No, the Rome Treaty (also called the Rome Statute) is the treaty that established the Hague-based International Criminal Court and is currently the primary source of international law regarding war crimes prosecution. The US signed it (under Clinton) but it was not ratified by the US (unless I’m mistaken).

Of note, the UNSC has permitted troops involved in UN peace-keeping missions to enjoy limited immunity.

6

There is sufficient cause for worry. After all, that ridiculous politician in Belgium was going to try to charge various US politicians and generals with war crimes. When Belgium was reminded that this would hardly enable them to keep the NATO hq, wow, lo and behold that little proviso was dropped quickly.

The Europeans are going to have to decide whether they want to play ball or not. That means getting more involved with peace-keeping operations rather than just relying on the US. Don’t hear much about prosecuting the Dutch UN peacekeeping troops that allowed the massacre at Srbreniza to happen do you?

OR realizing that the US is pulling most of the weight when it comes to military operations and muzzling their most strident critics so that frivolous law suits are not possible.

I fully encourage the Europeans to develop their own independent defense structures. I think that they are going to have to take a serious look at defense and military strategy as well as the requisite funding that makes military solutions an option.

7

[quote=“fred smith”]
Don’t hear much about prosecuting the Dutch UN peacekeeping troops that allowed the massacre at Srbreniza to happen do you?

I fully encourage the Europeans to develop their own independent defense structures. I think that they are going to have to take a serious look at defense and military strategy as well as the requisite funding that makes military solutions an option.[/quote]

Firstly, the Dutch Peacekeepers at Srebrenica were hardly wilfully trying to inflict suffering though their actions were questionable and negligent. IMO that’s a pretty weak analogy.

Second, about the Europeans becoming less dependent on an irritable and increasingly unstable US government, foreign policy etc., couldn’t agree more.

8

But that really is the problem isn’t it Brune Ale?

I mean the Europeans never want to lift a finger to do anything so naturally they are respected for being peaceful and all that, but how long can these sins of omission be weighed favorably against the US and its alleged sins of commission?

I mean you let millions of Iraqis die because you cannot be bothered to do anything about the problem, then squeal like hell that the US has directly and indirectly resulted in 5,000 to 10,000 Iraqi deaths (not all of them civilians and many killed either fighting in the war or by terrorists not US troops).

So from the European point of view, they cannot be prosecuted because they didn’t do anything but the US can because it chose to act? What a moral muddle the Europeans find themselves in today. I suggest spending more time in your church or synagogue and less time reading those French nihilistic philosophers. Because while so cool, so trendy, so chic, n’est ce pas? it would appear that the moral compass has become somewhat skewed.

9

[quote=“fred smith”]But that really is the problem isn’t it Brune Ale?

I mean the Europeans never want to lift a finger to do anything so naturally they are respected for being peaceful and all that, but how long can these sins of omission be weighed favorably against the US and its alleged sins of commission?

I mean you let millions of Iraqis die because you cannot be bothered to do anything about the problem, then squeal like hell that the US has directly and indirectly resulted in 5,000 to 10,000 Iraqi deaths (not all of them civilians and many killed either fighting in the war or by terrorists not US troops).

So from the European point of view, they cannot be prosecuted because they didn’t do anything but the US can because it chose to act? What a moral muddle the Europeans find themselves in today. I suggest spending more time in your church or synagogue and less time reading those French nihilistic philosophers. Because while so cool, so trendy, so chic, n’est ce pas? it would appear that the moral compass has become somewhat skewed.[/quote]

The Bush administration has conceded to the international community on this issue and by striving to avoid international law acknowledges that there is an international law and by doing a u-turn recognizes this. You however seem to want to fervently defend your own perceived superiority over others by continuing to deny accountability of your own and in turn go against a smart (but late) decision of an admistration you rabidly defend to the point of utter ridiculousness. Wierd. :s

10

if the US houses didn’t ratify it, the US isn’t in on it, ala kyoto. right? if the US ain’t in on it…what is the international law?

11

Oh, sorry, didn’t realise that if the US “ain’t in on it” it doesn’t matter. Silly me. Well carry on pleasing yourselves but don’t be surprised if your war on terror fails as you piss more of the world’s population off. Carry on…targets. :smiling_imp:

12

Right. And the US isn’t the only nation not to ratify it.

Well, that’s a tricky question.

The Rome Statute is the international treaty that addresses and provides for the prosecution of war crimes.

However, not all nations have ratified this treaty, and the UNSC has granted immunity from war crimes prosecution to the soldiers of states involved in UN peace-keeping missions if their nations have not ratified the treaty.

The US objects to the Rome Statute for the reasons that FS has identified above and because the Rome Statute does not grant the types of judicial procedures that the US believes are fundamental to a fair trial.

So long as the US is providing the bulk of the soldiers for peace-keeping missions where most of the rest of the world is not about to raise a hand to help, we feel that it is important to protect US soldiers from a trial system that we believe to be fundamentally unfair in its procedures and where certain prosecutions might be more politically than fact motivated.

Its that simple.

13

[quote=“tigerman”][
The Rome Statute is the international treaty that addresses and provides for the prosecution of war crimes.

The US objects to the Rome Statute for the reasons that FS has identified above and because the Rome Statute does not grant the types of judicial procedures that the US believes are fundamental to a fair trial.

[/quote]

Isn’t it a bit sanctimonious of you to regard your own legal system as the only one against which all others are measured? Man, you are so arrogant (not you personally) but your idea that this is so.

14

again, what is the international law? there AIN"T any. international affairs is in a state of anarchy. either the US puts out the fires or everything burns.

yes, you are welcome. keep pissing and moaning but we all know who you’ll cry for help from when come evil comes your way.

15

[quote=“skeptic yank”]
yes, you are welcome. keep pissing and moaning but we all know who you’ll cry for help from when come evil comes your way.[/quote]

Oh God thank yes evil here us help please…

Webster Broon (Oxon)

16

[quote=“BroonAle”][quote=“tigerman”][
The Rome Statute is the international treaty that addresses and provides for the prosecution of war crimes.

The US objects to the Rome Statute for the reasons that FS has identified above and because the Rome Statute does not grant the types of judicial procedures that the US believes are fundamental to a fair trial.

[/quote]

Isn’t it a bit sanctimonious of you to regard your own legal system as the only one against which all others are measured? Man, you are so arrogant (not you personally) but your idea that this is so.[/quote]

I don’t think it is sanctimonious at all. Where would BruneAle prefer to be tried… in the US or in Saudi Arabia? Why should the US defer to “international standards” when such are clearly not as high as those found in the US?

The Rome Statute places signatory nations under the jurisdiction of the ICC at the Hague, grants ICC prosecutors extraordinary powers and grants ICC officials lifetime immunity. I don’t think I like the sound of that.

The Rome Statute gives the ICC the right to review US court decisions and re-try individuals if the ICC determines decisions “were not conducted independently or impartially,” or were for the purpose of “shielding the person concerned from criminal responsibility.” Can you not see the possibility for political persecution here?

The ICC also does away with rights gauranteed to US citizens under the Constitution, such as the right to confront one’s accusers, due process, trial by jury, a public and speedy trial by an impartial jury, and protection from cruel and unusual punishments.

Particularly with respect to the rights raised in the paragraph immediately above, I prefer the US standards over those of the ICC, and yes, I most certainly do believe that the US system, at least when measured against the ICC system, comes out on top.

You are certainly entitled to disagree, however.

17

On the other hand, it might be irresponsible of a government to waive important legal rights of its citizens (soldiers). After all, you would’nt agree to an international treaty that would not allow a soldier’s right to legal representation, would you?

Thus, it becomes a question of which particular elements of the US system that the US regards as crucial to a fair trial are missing and indeed are they that crucial?

But I don’t think its a case of being either sanctimonious or egotistical. The question is simply is the government reneging on important individual rights or can the particular proceedural rights be sacrificed.

18

I think that the US is right to be concerned about politically motivated targeting of its soldiers and leaders.

After all, we hear more about how the US has not signed onto this criminal court but wait, nary a word about how Libya can head the UN human rights commission, Iraq was scheduled to chair disarmament but the US is not on either committee? Why not?

I say the time has come to start backing out of as many of these treaties as possible or start coming up with our own politically motivated treaties and insist that others sign.

We have reached the end of the road in so many areas. Many European leaders are not our friends nor are they interested in equitable solutions. They have gone down the path of immoral nihilism so far that they are unrescuable. Let them sink or swim where they may. Let us finally pull out of the UN and admit that as structured today the whole thing is a farce. We should draw up a new treaty with a new UN made up of only recognized democracies that respect human rights. Otherwise, how is a vote in the General Assembly meaningful when it can be shanghaied by a bunch of tinpot Arab and African dictatorships supported by and in collusion with China, Russia and France?

You will be happy to note however that your nation also plays a prominent role in world peacekeeping missions and is equally concerned.

19

[quote=“tigerman”]
I don’t think it is sanctimonious at all. Where would BruneAle prefer to be tried… in the US or in Saudi Arabia?[/quote]
Good of you to pick an easy comparison for yourself. How about France, the UK, Germany, Sweden, Netherlands etc. Would you be scared to be tried in one these places? The US doesn

20

I’m not familiar with the judiciaries of those places. All the more reason for the US to use its own judicial system as a measuring stick… and in this case, the system being measured is that of the ICC. My example above was given merely to demonstrate that it is quite possible that the US system is better than some other systems. I think the example I provided is quite illustrative of that point.

Perfection is an ideal… its OK to strive for it, but I’m not holding that up as the measuring stick. I don’t know how odd the statistics are, however, I ask again, where would you rather be tried for a capital offense… in the US or in Saudi Arabia?

I don’t think so. I am using Saudi jurisprudence to make a point… an obvious point. I explain how this point applies even in the case of the ICC below.

The US does try soldiers for war crimes. US soldiers are not immune from prosecution. The US only objects to trials conducted by a tribunal (ICC) that does not afford the same safeguards that the US system provides.

I’d rather not trust in mere speculation. Do many people in the world regard the UN with esteem? I think yes. However, IMO, the UN is about as trustworthy as the vendor who raises his price for me due to the color of my skin, or the taxi driver who attempts to take me the long way home.

No thanks, I like having fundamental rights built into and made a part of the system… rather than being at the discretion of judges appointed on the basis of politics who sit with impunity.