Gosh let’s take that wonderful organization called the UN where Israel and the US are repeatedly attacked by what kind of nations exactly? democratic? human rights respecting? civilized? So we have Libya chairing human rights and Sudan on the committee but the US is voted off? and then we almost had Iraq under Saddam chairing the disarmament committee? Why should the US worry about the International Criminal Court? Oh. Hmmm. Gosh. Well… Got me…
Is that the best you can do? Your increasing facetiousness is indicative of you having no counter-argument. Face it, despite having espoused the superiority of ‘The American’, you are no better or worse than anyone else and special exceptions should not be made ‘just’ for Americans. :snore:
A tribunal worth its salt would guarantee the rights that US citizens enjoy under the US system.
Without the basic protections of a fair trial, who’s to say what case has merit? You yourself believe Bush should be killed.
I think the US concern regarding the lack of basic rights in the ICC that we are guaranteed under our Constitution is a valid concern.
Its a real difficult problem, to be certain. But, the fact remains, the US shoulders the vast majority of the burdon and responsibility in peace-keeping missions, some of which are not supported by some nations. So long as the US shoulders such a disproportionate amount of the responsibility/burdon, the US will be disproportionately at risk of having charges brought against her citizens for politically motivated reasons.
I don’t think it is that simple.
Of course not. I am, however, saying that the ICC lacks certain very basic and fundamental rights that are guaranteed under the US Constitution, and that further, the ICC is by its structure and nature, very open to conducting political witch hunts.
I have very little respect for many international institutions, including the UN and the ICC. I think there is plenty of reason to regard these institutions with scorn.
These insttutions should come up a peg or two. Why should we dumb down for them?
Well Broon Ale:
There is a very large difference that you as a British citizen should appreciate. How many countries are engaged in peacekeeping operations around the world? A handful? How many are actually engaged in the fighting that is sometimes necessary to take down a regime like Saddam’s? The US and Britain for all practical purposes. Now, you know what the French are like. You see what happens when the Arab League votes in the United Nations. Do you see any threat to a group within the International Criminal Court becoming excessively politicized and using the court as an axe to control, dictate or punish legitimate American foreign policy goals? Who will determine the appointment of judges? Who will oversee the prosecution procedures? etc.?
Me.
OK. Interesting. All the more reason to get more countries signed up. Two wrongs don’t make a right. By wantonly refusing to endorse the principle of an ICC, the US is inadvertently siding with despots who wish to avoid being held accountable for their actions. You are better off changing from within rather than whingeing from the outside. Richard Goldstone always struck me as a reasonable bloke; what are you afraid of?
Just stop espousing the superiority of the US to the point where you believe you need not be held accountable for anything, right or wrong. There has to be something that maintains a modicum of justice over international criminals. Nothing is not the answer.
It is very simple…any foreign organization with jurisdiction over US military personel is not in our best interests.
Folks don’t like? Think that the US is something special? The US is an exception? Well, boo-fucking-hoo. Some here forget that the cornerstone of diplomacy, international relations, war, etc… is the promotion of self-interests. It is not a matter of being nice or fair…it is a matter of self-interests.
[quote=“BroonAle”]OK. Interesting. All the more reason to get more countries signed up. Two wrongs don’t make a right. By wantonly refusing to endorse the principle of an ICC, the US is inadvertently siding with depots who wish to avoid being held accountable for their actions. You are better off changing from within rather than whingeing from the outside. Richard Goldstone always struck me as a reasonable bloke; what are you afraid of?
Just stop espousing the superiority of the US to the point where you believe you need not be held accountable for anything, right or wrong. There has to be something that maintains a modicum of justice of international criminals. Nothing is not the answer.[/quote]
The US was one of the nations that originally advocated some form of jurisdiction over despots, thus, the US is not opposed in principle. And the US is the nation that actually shoulders most of the burdon and responsibility in combatting despots.
The ICC is flawed, tremendously.
How will the ICC get personal jurisdiction over despots without US military assistance?
The US judicial system is superior to the system under the ICC.
[quote=“Durins Bane”]It is very simple…any foreign organization with jurisdiction over US military personel is not in our best interests.
Folks don’t like? Think that the US is something special? The US is an exception? Well, boo-fucking-hoo. Some here forget that the cornerstone of diplomacy, international relations, war, etc… is the promotion of self-interests. It is not a matter or being nice or fair…it is a matter of self-interests.[/quote]
With “boo-fucking-hoo” as your answer, you merely re-inforce the need for the US to be accountable somehow. Why not engage in something that is in the world’s best interest, rather than merely your own. You selfish moron. No wonder you lot are so increasingly unpopular. I believe that the removal of Bush by any means is in our best interests. Offended? Well boo-fucking-hoo to you too. Dipstick.
Let’s all play nicely. This is a good discussion.
[quote=“tigerman”][quote=“BroonAle”]OK. Interesting. All the more reason to get more countries signed up. Two wrongs don’t make a right. By wantonly refusing to endorse the principle of an ICC, the US is inadvertently siding with depots who wish to avoid being held accountable for their actions. You are better off changing from within rather than whingeing from the outside. Richard Goldstone always struck me as a reasonable bloke; what are you afraid of?
Just stop espousing the superiority of the US to the point where you believe you need not be held accountable for anything, right or wrong. There has to be something that maintains a modicum of justice of international criminals. Nothing is not the answer.[/quote]
The US was one of the nations that originally advocated some form of jurisdiction over despots, thus, the US is not opposed in principle. And the US is the nation that actually shoulders most of the burdon and responsibility in combatting despots.
The ICC is flawed, tremendously.
How will the ICC get personal jurisdiction over despots without US military assistance?
The US judicial system is superior to the system under the ICC.[/quote]
So why not engage the international community in improving this flawed sysstem of international justice? No No No because the US doesn’t like it is not answer. What are you afraid of?
hence why north korea should keep the nukes and tell the US to fuck off. Or why every tin pot dictator should try to get as many nukes as possible from whatever source. Or why you shouldn’t whinge about the french attitude to Iraq etc etc etc. You might want to think about the idea of pareto suboptimal outcomes and game theory before you start yapping about self interest. These too play a major part in international relations theory.
I thought I was, actually. Blame DB for denegrating the thread to the level of the abusive. Not me for once.
I believe that we are engaged. May I ask why the international community is afraid to guarantee the fundamental rights we enjoy under the US Constitution?
I thought I was, actually. Blame DB for denegrating the thread to the level of the abusive. Not me for once.[/quote]
Dearest BruneAle,
I did not mention you by name. I asked that we “all” play nicely. “All” includes even me. 
P.S. Are these emoticons not working for you guys? They are not visible to me and they’re screwing up my pages.
[quote=“BroonAle”]
With “boo-fucking-hoo” as your answer, you merely re-inforce the need for the US to be accountable somehow. Why not engage in something that is in the world’s best interest, rather than merely your own. You selfish moron. No wonder you lot are so increasingly unpopular. I believe that the removal of Bush by any means is in our best interests. Offended? Well boo-fucking-hoo to you too. Dipstick.[/quote]
If I were a leader of a country and I based my diplomatic relationships on the prinicple of being “popular”, I would be failing in my duty.
“Why not engage in something that is in the world’s best interest, rather than merely your own”
Only if by doing so it would promote my self-interests.
In treating the world outside, and inside the US I might add, the US government historically has not always guaranteed constitutional rights (inside the US as it must) and not adhere to its spirit (outside the US as it might and could if it does indeed believe those rights to be important)
All of these countries, for better or for worse, are promoting their perception of their self interests.
I thought I was, actually. Blame DB for denegrating the thread to the level of the abusive. Not me for once.[/quote]
I did not call anybody names or was abusive to anybody. Now please…