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)[/quote]
So,… we should just chuck it all because we haven’t always lived-up to the ideals?
No, I think we need to continue striving for the ideal.
[quote=“tigerman”]
So,… we should just chuck it all because we haven’t always lived-up to the ideals?
No, I think we need to continue striving for the ideal.[/quote]
I guess we agree on this. However, I do not believe that the US is interested in striving for the ideal. The ideal in this case should not merely be a carbon copy of the US judicial system with its own flaws but a truly international system of justice instituted by consensus. I fear that the US is increasingly isolating itself and eroding the respect it once had because of the Boo-Fucking-Hooists in the current US administration.
Blanket rejection of the ideal would render the US a hollow entity for what are you without ideals?
Really Broon Ale:
The US has lots of ideals and unfortunately they include military options and not just attempts at peaceful dialogue. That is really where this whole debate has come from. Why not let Europe do more for its own defense so the people understand that military and security solutions are also part of the equation. Europe can still have its separate interests but until the majority of Europeans understand that the military has a role to play in maintaining the peace, peace is just about pushing back the timeline for a much bigger more destructive war. Would have thought that was patently obvious after WWII but then… I must lack a sophisticated nuanced view of world affairs being a shit kicking gun toting cowboy redneck oh yes and religious fanatic.
Oh now that’s low. Say what you want about me but associating me with the Bush Adminstration is really hitting below the belt. 
The trend towards isolationism of the US on the world stage is the unfortunate result of Bush’ foreign policies. It is not a policy unto itself.
Isolationism comes in many forms. England had its “Splendid Isolationism”. I advocate that for the US.
Those who want the US to remain isolationist have to remember two things: We benefit greatly from stability in the international system as the largest economy. Who benefits second most for this stability? The European Union. In fact, with the larger combined GDP, it now is in the prime beneficiary role. Now, how is all this peace and security maintained? Hmmm U.S. military forces around the world. Anyone not American who would advocate having the US pull back and “isolate” itself clearly therefore understands very little about what underpins our present global economic and security framework. haha Someone wanted to say the UN didn’t you Rascal?
Now for those Americans who want to pull back and isolate ourselves. Please explain how. Considering that Taiwan and East Asia are our high-tech nexus, can we allow rack and ruin to befall South Korea, Japan or Taiwan or see great instability in Southeast Asia? Given that our major allies are highly dependent on Middle Eastern oil can we allow them to crash for lack of energy resources? Would be nice to run away and slam the door on the nasty assed world but I don’t think we have that luxury anymore so we must do what we can to ensure that the greatest number of people are moving on the path of democracy, capitalism and human rights. We have succeeded beyond our wildest dreams in East Asia and Central Europe and Eastern Europe (you’re welcome Europe. Remember who is responsible for this) and to a large extent in Latin America. Now, we must deal with the Muslim and Arab world.
[quote=“fred smith”]Those who want the US to remain isolationist have to remember two things: We benefit greatly from stability in the international system as the largest economy. Who benefits second most for this stability? The European Union. In fact, with the larger combined GDP, it now is in the prime beneficiary role. Now, how is all this peace and security maintained? Hmmm U.S. military forces around the world. Anyone not American who would advocate having the US pull back and “isolate” itself clearly therefore understands very little about what underpins our present global economic and security framework. haha Someone wanted to say the UN didn’t you Rascal?
Now for those Americans who want to pull back and isolate ourselves. Please explain how. Considering that Taiwan and East Asia are our high-tech nexus, can we allow rack and ruin to befall South Korea, Japan or Taiwan or see great instability in Southeast Asia? Given that our major allies are highly dependent on Middle Eastern oil can we allow them to crash for lack of energy resources? Would be nice to run away and slam the door on the nasty assed world but I don’t think we have that luxury anymore so we must do what we can to ensure that the greatest number of people are moving on the path of democracy, capitalism and human rights. We have succeeded beyond our wildest dreams in East Asia and Central Europe and Eastern Europe (you’re welcome Europe. Remember who is responsible for this) and to a large extent in Latin America. Now, we must deal with the Muslim and Arab world.[/quote]
Off Topic.
Durins Bane: I deleted your name in my reference to “Boo-Fucking-Hooists” because I am a fair man.
Accept my apologies for putting it there in the first place.
No. The US complains that we shoulder a disproportionate amount of the responsibility and burdon of peace-keeping and security on the planet. That is one of the factors that is important in our assessment of the flaws in the ICC.
Broon Ale:
It relates to the isolationist option posted in DB’s thread and again stresses that the US is the only one with the military that can maintain world peace and security. Let’s face it that ain’t going to come from Europe. But we cannot allow pacifist European nations to benefit disproportionately from our preserving the peace and global stability and then turn around with blatant self-righteous hypocrisy and prosecute our troops for doing what no European has the balls to do anymore. I mean a few thousand peacekeeping troops here and a couple hundred more there are not enough to do what needs to be done. Alternatively, please explain to me how other nations will move to build their forces so that the US is not the only policeman in town. I would be interested to see a realistic plan for that. I imagine that Bush and Rumsfeld would like to be able to count on our allies for more than “peacekeepers” as well. That might then balance things out on any International Criminal Court. But I still say there would have to be someone to bribe all of the African, Arab and Latin countries a la France to ensure the right voting is done. And really isn’t that what happened in the UN vote? I would give Chile and Mexico the benefit of the doubt but Guatemala, Cameroon, Guinea and what? Angola? Come on who’s kidding who here?
TM: Strangled an Iraqi General in November, huh? and were these two detained immediately? Nah, doubt it. The only reason they may be charged now is because Abu Ghraib exposed the innate thuggery of the US military and you are desperate to make amends. Chances are they would not be prosecuted had world opinion not expressed outrage at the allegations of prisoner abuse. This strengthens the case even more for the need to hold ALL accountable for actions undertaken, including the US. You would just loved to have got away with it…
BA:
You are wrong again. The investigations into the abuses in Abu Ghraib was going on long before this was aired in the media. So nice try but a toally unfair assessment of the US military policing procedures. Ditto for the Iraqi general.
How long by the way do trials in the UK take? Say roughly? For example? Say I was arrested today? Um how long would it take for my trial to take place? Hmmm? Roughly? er many months or even more than a year would you say for something serious like rape or murder? What exactly is the average? Hmmm? And seeing how often the British criminal is put back out onto the streets, are you suggesting that we treat these American criminals with the same leniency? Perhaps it was something in their childhood? Isn’t that the kind of liberal understanding that you would normally give any criminal in the UK who was attacking some rich person or stealing their property? How should the same standards not apply here and be careful. Are you really asking that European standards be applied to these troops here? Hmmm?
No. The US complains that we shoulder a disproportionate amount of the responsibility and burdon of peace-keeping and security on the planet. That is one of the factors that is important in our assessment of the flaws in the ICC.[/quote]
There was no mention in FS’s post about the ICC. He was pontificating again on other issues while deviously tryingt o lure Rascal into a discussion about something else.
I respectfully disgree. Mr Effess repeatedly deviates from the thread at the earliest opportunity to harp on about other things more than adequately harped on about all over the IP forum.
[quote=“fred smith”]BA:
You are wrong again. The investigations into the abuses in Abu Ghraib was going on long before this was aired in the media. So nice try but a toally unfair assessment of the US military policing procedures. Ditto for the Iraqi general.
How long by the way do trials in the UK take? Say roughly? For example? Say I was arrested today? Um how long would it take for my trial to take place? Hmmm? Roughly? er many months or even more than a year would you say for something serious like rape or murder? What exactly is the average? Hmmm? And seeing how often the British criminal is put back out onto the streets, are you suggesting that we treat these American criminals with the same leniency? Perhaps it was something in their childhood? Isn’t that the kind of liberal understanding that you would normally give any criminal in the UK who was attacking some rich person or stealing their property? How should the same standards not apply here and be careful. Are you really asking that European standards be applied to these troops here? Hmmm?[/quote]
Quite a long time I should imagine. It’s not perfect but there are aspects of British jurisprudence that are positively beneficial to the implementation of justice. You are not necessarily the best at everything you know.
Duly noted.
Just the important things.
Broon Ale:
But if you are arguing that the US system is inadequate, please show how. Are other nations capable of conducting investigations and prosecutions with greater speed or fairness? After all, we did have Alien and her Greek chorus bewailing loss of rights under the Patriot Act. Now, these soldiers’ rights are being respected and this is bad because it (I love this) is causing Iraqis to lose their rights!!! Like what rights would these people have had without these US troops overthrowing Saddam? So, when you can show me that US military tribunals are unable to effectively police their forces or that this was somehow a coverup, feel free to supply the facts. Until then, this is just media hype. The US was investigating these abuses nearly a year ago and this has been in full gear since January. So? Again, how long would such a trial have taken in the United Kingdom? And given the war situation in Iraq would you argue that resources are more or less plentiful than in the UK? Please feel free to take your time. I know something of the UK justice system and I would say for serious charges like these, at the very minimum six months would be needed just to get the preliminary paperwork and legal proceedings taken care of. I would say a year would be more likely and that depending on complications, it could drag out even longer through the appeals process. What would you say Broon Ale? And given the time frame here, how exactly has the US investigation been inferior to what goes on every day in the supposed “civilized” world?
Fred and Tigerman
I think maybe you need to get a little perspective on this ICC thing. If the US system is as adequate as you believe it to be then the ICC will have no impact on your troops anyway.
Fred
regarding your view of the global security structure, would you subscribe to the hegemonic stability theory? This seems to cover the way you view the world at present and I think I would agree with the description. The problem for the US that it is natural for people to free ride if they can. At the moment most of the world gets to free ride on the back of the US imposition of security. Europe knows that the US has no choice but to provide security. You’re basically complaining about Europe making rational choices given the current situation. Given this problem, i would have thought that US involvement in rules based international systems would be benificial to the US because over time it will lessen the demands placed on the US. Trouble is that international rules only gain power through observance over time which leads to a building of trust. Showing commitment to a system of international rules, for example through being involved in the ICC and indeed trying to improve it from within, would offer an opportunity to firm up the system of rules which over the longer term would offer benifits to the US through less free riding.
Just some thoughts, will be interested to see how quickly they get ripped apart!
The US went thru all this isolationist BS before WWII when we paid no attention to what was happening in the world because the League of Nations was supposed to get everybody to use world diplomacy to work out their differences. And look what a mess Europe and Asia got themselves in. Can’t anybody learn from past mistakes as recorded in history? Why do intellegent people procastinate and make excuses to delay any effective action untill the events become castastrophic? I think something very important has been omitted from their education and that is common sense and reason. The current liberal thinking is a disaster waiting to happen. And so it begins.
[quote=“butcher boy”]Fred and Tigerman
I think maybe you need to get a little perspective on this ICC thing. If the US system is as adequate as you believe it to be then the ICC will have no impact on your troops anyway.[/quote]
How do you figure that?
The US has a number of serious objections to the ICC. These include a lack of adequate checks and balances on the powers of the ICC prosecutor and judges, and the lack of any effective mechanism to prevent the politicized prosecution of US citizens.
Despite these objections, the ICC has now been established. The US has decided not to join. All the US requestsis that its decision - and US sovereignty - be respected.
The ICC has failed to do that. Instead, the Rome Treaty gives the ICC authority to detain and try US citizens even though the US has not agreed to join the treaty or grant the ICC this jurisdiction. The ICC’s assertion of authority is unprecedented under international law - and illegitimate and dangerous.
As such, US soldiers acquitted of charges in US courts risk prosecution for the same acts before the ICC. Americans who have risked their lives to defend freedom risk prosecution if the ICC is prepared to transform political criticism of America’s world role into a criminal indictment. The US has learned by bitter experience that unaccountable prosecutors constitute a danger to the rights and welfare of its citizens.