Are you suggesting that the US is guilty of this?

Washington Fights Battle to Change New Global Court Tuesday, June 13, 2000

By Evelyn Leopold

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - To the dismay of its close allies, the United States has introduced a proposal that would weaken the prosecutorial powers of a soon-to-be-established International Criminal Court (ICC).

The United States contends that the current statutes for the court would allow trials of American soldiers and U.S. civilians on duty around the world. But Western allies, including all 15 European Union nations, say they told Washington earlier this month its proposal was unacceptable.

U.S. legal officials formally introduced the proposals on Monday at the start of a three-week preparatory commission meeting, the last round in which fundamental changes can be made for a new permanent global court to try war criminals.

Washington, in an essentially reworded provision that was rejected two years ago, wants the international court to try a person only if his country has signed the treaty establishing the tribunal or if the U.N. Security Council approves.

Unless a last-minute compromise is found, legal experts say the court will go ahead without American participation. It is expected to be established in about two years in The Hague, Netherlands, after 60 countries ratify a treaty endorsed at a conference in Rome in July 1998.

Unlike the existing International Court of Justice, or World Court, at The Hague, which hears cases between states, the ICC would try individuals accused of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity.

"The American side has obtained so many concessions since Rome that, taken together, add up to a near guarantee that the court won't be prosecuting Americans," said Richard Dicker, a lawyer for the New York-based Human Rights Watch.

"Why insist on this exemption? Why is Washington determined to set a price that would mean the effective destruction of this court?" he asked.

"This session is in a sense the last opportunity to fundamentally change the treaty and that is why the pressure is on. The clock is going to run out on June 30," Dicker said.

Alone among the Western democracies, the United States joined China, Libya, Iraq, Yemen, Qatar and Israel in voting against the statutes at the 1998 Rome conference. Israel is now considering joining the treaty after it succeeded in changing wording last December it feared would make its settlement policies in the West Bank a war crime.

But Secretary of Defense William Cohen told reporters en route to Moscow on Monday that the court's rules, which exempted the prosecution of citizens from countries with functioning judicial systems, were still unacceptable.

U.S. SEES POTENTIAL FOR 'FRIVOLOUS' ALLEGATIONS

Without supervision by the U.N. Security Council, where the United States has a veto, the court had the potential "for allegations to be made against our soldiers that can be frivolous in nature," he said.

"You could have charges brought, or you could have soldiers apprehended and brought before The Hague," Cohen said. "And this would be very destructive to our international participation."

Many Europeans say, however, that even if changes were made to gain U.S. support, U.S. negotiators at the conference can give no guarantee the Clinton administration would sign up.

One reason is that Sen. Jesse Helms, the North Carolina Republican who chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has declared that the court treaty would be dead on arrival if submitted to his panel. The committee recommends U.S. ratification on treaties and has turned down nearly every international convention for years.

In contrast, France, which was worried about its foreign legion overseas, succeeded in getting concessions at the Rome conference two years ago and signed the treaty on the spot.

A total of 97 countries have signed to date, and France last Friday was the 12th nation and the first permanent Security Council member to ratify it.

MACTEP - is the U.S. being hypocritical? Probably. Do we have the right to be? Yep. Can anyone enforce the law against us? Nope. Can we do it to others? Yep. Is this wrong? Maybe. Will this change? Not anytime soon, not in our lifetime at least.

Toecutter - I agree with that first post of yours. Them lawyers can kiss my @$$.

El Diablo

quote:

---

Originally posted by El Diablo:

MACTEP - is the U.S. being hypocritical? Probably. Do we have the right to be? Yep. Can anyone enforce the law against us? Nope. Can we do it to others? Yep. Is this wrong? Maybe. Will this change? Not anytime soon, not in our lifetime at least.

---

I think new court is a good movement indeed! We will have more stable world and more friendly environment. No one would be afraid that some superpower would harm them.
BUT same apply to those third world countries, where governments will be afraid to do wrong! It will be harder for Iraq to reighn wars on neibours and same goes for african countries which are in constant wars, etc.

Ask yourself why you won't do crime? Cause you afraid of punishment and don't want to be become outlaw -> hated by most and wanted for punishment. So only stupid & desperate ones do crimes, OR those who aren't afraid since they are out of law's reach.

I understand Americans here -> they are proud of might of their country, BUT justifying hypocracy... be more humane=kind, tolerant.

>>>I think the problem is that the US sees this court as a weapon
>>> of the small and the weak. Why should we give tools to our foes?

H@ll, even OJ got off, what are they worried about anyways?!?

Show yourself accountable before you start waving fingers at everyone else....

Well, for one thing the third world tends to shoot at us a lot. And your comment that "the US tends to be the bully" just proves my point. We are already judged and found guilty. Why should we even bother to show up for the trial?

Personally I'm not against any US involvement in such a court. We do make mistakes and they should be paid for. I believe we owe Sudan a new pharmacuticals plant. But I don't think the US can afford to allow it's men and women in uniform to be hauled off and tried in some monkey court where the defeated can win against the victors. Recruitment is too difficult as it is and our armed forces are under enough pressure without having to worry about being thrown in jail for fighting back or carrying out their orders to kill the enemy. When our soldiers are charged with committing a crime, there already is precident for handing them over to the proper authorities, as one rapiest that use to wear a US uniform but is now sitting in an Japanese jail found out. But we will never hand over our soldiers to someone like Milosovic who cries "war crime" because he is incapable of hurting us any other way.

As for the Americans griping about third world countries shooting at them: why do you wear a canadian flag when you go to Europe? Why is it that Americans are universally hated in most other countries (not up here, here we find them entertaining...)? Well, if you'd shut up and listen to people and understand the complexities of issues instead of jumping in half-assed and half-cocked you probably wouldn't be hated.

You came late to two world wars, and you like to think that you alone won both of them (which you didn't, the Brits and French pretty much won the first one [with a lot of help from un Canucks], and the Russians won the second), you go around demanding everything *your* way, instead of opening your mind up to other options. You have big mouths that you fill with brags. You bomb people *WAY* too much. Then you wonder why people hate you.

Paul, part of the problem with the United States military presence in the world is that it is still bound up in the cold war. It is a vast and potentially powerful destructive force whose fundamental basis is the defence of the United States and its interests in the world. One of those interests is Canada. Canadian national defence is not anything that would have worried the Soviet Union and certainly doesn't worry China, for example, now. This reality, I think, is the source of American super patriotism among the Canadians, who sing the praises of Americanism with a vigor that embarrases many Americans. It is also the source of confusion about the benevolent character of the Canadian military, which has nothing like the pressures that the US military has on it.

Contrary to popular belief from the conspiracy theorists, the US has long been resistant to letting itself be subject to rulings from these various global entities like the World Court and the World Trade Organization (among others), constantly flouting the UN General Assembly and even the UN Security Council on many occasions. And thank goodness for that! We've often been wrong when disagreeing with the rest of the world, but at least we still have our sovereignty, more or less!

At the risk of annoying you

FYI, Russians won the first one, as well, as they carried the majority of fighting in 1914-1917.

They also invented strategic breach. As you must know, new phenomenon of WWI was positional stalemate. Attacking infantry could not overcome dug-in defenders without taking prohibitive losses. Russians were first to invent and implement a way around, which is presently well known - concentrate forces on a narrow front, overcome the lines head on with numbers and send mobile units (cavalry) into the breach to crush anything they can find behind the lines.

First successful strategic breach of WWI was Brusilov's breach.

The US adheres to the Geneva convention just as well as any other Western nation.

"As for the Americans griping about third world countries shooting at them: why do you
wear a canadian flag when you go to Europe? Why is it that Americans are universally
hated in most other countries (not up here, here we find them entertaining...)? Well, if
you'd shut up and listen to people and understand the complexities of issues instead of jumping in half-assed and half-cocked you probably wouldn't be hated."

I'll grant you one point here. We do tend to go in with a lack of understanding the complexity of the situation. But I find your high moral stance rather bizzare considering that our good ally Canada is usually bombing right along with us be it Iraq or Kosovo.

As for why we Americans are hated more than Canadians it is because the actions of the US government are more noticible. When we bombed Kosovo the majority of the missions were done by US aircraft. Few seem to realize that the Canadian air force was there as well making a solid contribution to the effort.

Canadians do get shot at a lot in these conflicts but because their military is smaller and their government less noisy about their involvement it doesn't get as much attention.

I don't want to turn this into a US verse Canada thread, but I do want to point out that there are few things that the US is guilty of that Canada doesn't do as well. Like selling arms to nations that are warring and have questionable integrity:
http://www.bc.ndp.ca/News/Democrat/1998-3%20May/arms.htm

"You came late to two world wars, and you like to think that you alone won both of them
(which you didn't, the Brits and French pretty much won the first one [with a lot of help from un Canucks], and the Russians won the second)"

Interesting version of history you have. I suggest reading a bit more on the first world war, pay attention to the stalemate part before the arrival of US troops. (Not that we had the slightest idea what we were doing in war. We simply threw troops at the exhusted Germans.) And on the second I believe that Russia would have defeated Germany alone, but Japan probably would have been victorious in its East Asia campaign without US involvement.

"..you go around demanding everything *your* way, instead of opening your mind up to other options."

Hey, we listen to your music. Rush, Alanis, Bare Naked Ladies...

You want to back that up at all? What about Verdun and the Somme? Ypres?

LOL! You really are clueless if you think we view americans that way.

>it is worth noting that the United States
>had nothing to do with actually starting
>these wars.

If that is true, then neither did France or Britain (and certainly not Canada). However, I think part of the blame for World war two can be placed on the big three of WWI, France Britain and the US put such stupidly severe conditions on Germany that another war was all but inevitable and paved the road for Hitler's rise to power. This is not to say that the US or France or Britain is responsible for Hitler's attacks, but if anyone besides Hitler is, the US should be included.

>Russians won the first one, as well, as
>they carried the majority of fighting in
>1914-1917.

The Russians certainly did their part at trying to exhaust the Germans, but the simple fact is that the Russians bowed out before it ended, so while they contributed, undoubtedly, their contribution failed to achieve victory.

>The US adheres to the Geneva convention
>just as well as any other Western nation.

Note the relativism inherent in your statement "as well as...". The US's obligation is to adhere to all of the treaty's conditions, which it hasn't. In Kosovo they intentionally targetted journalists and civillians (sometimes these decisions were high level decisions, sometimes they were low level). The US has a duty to adhere to *all* of their obligations.

>I suggest reading a bit more on the first
>world war, pay attention to the stalemate >part before the arrival of US troops. (Not
>that we had the slightest idea what we were
>doing in war. We simply threw troops at the
>exhusted Germans.)

Despite the human wave attacks of the US troops, they gained virtually no ground on the Germans. Most of the movement which resulted in the end of the war occurred in the British sector (US troops were in the center of France in the French sector) in Flanders, particularly in the Section controlled by the Canadian Corps.

As for your contention on Canadian arms sales, I agree, we shouldn't be selling arms to these nations, but I should point out that you folks do far worse.

We sell (according to your article) to: "Argentina, Chile, Saudi Arabia, Thailand, the Philippines, Turkey, Zambia, and the United Arab Emirates." Of those nations, Turkey, Phillipines, Thailand and Saudi Arabia are already extensive US clients. Plus, we could add to the US side Pakistan, Colombia, El Salvador, Guatamala and a host of other states with poor human rights records.

As for our music, the only reason you listen to it is because a) we're the only ones doing anything different and b) you have no clue we're Canadian (see the movie: _The Canadian Conspiracy_ [Lorne Green, Green Card, coincidence? I think not]).

A little nationalistic aren't we? I was merely pointing out that Canada participates in the same sort of activity that you are condemning the US for.

Let's see, then you partly blame us for WW 2.

"However, I think part of the blame for World war two can be placed on the big three of WWI, France Britain and the US put such stupidly severe conditions on Germany that another war was all but inevitable and paved the road for Hitler's rise to power."

Of course you are referring to the Treaty of Versaille which the US did not sign because it was felt to be too harsh. The US signed a seperate peace with Germany.

"Note the relativism inherent in your statement "as well as...". The US's obligation is to adhere to all of the treaty's conditions, which it hasn't."

Sure it's relative, because no nation that has signed the convention has strictly adhered to it. It's impossible. In war mistakes happen, civilians die. Do you think during the World War Two bombing raids the convention was being followed? Didn't the Canadians fly night missions with the RAf? What were you guys aiming for again? Cities?

Then it's on to pretending that the US made no note-worthy contribution to WWI. Continuing to ignore that the allies almost lost the war to German offensives before the arrival of the Americans. Even if US troops just sat in defensive positions for the whole war, which they didn't, you can't deny it forced the Germans to shift what little strength they had to counter the potential offensive. Such movement made breakthoughs in other sectors possible.

And then it's onto declaring that I only listen to Canadian music because I don't know it's Canadian. That's one dozy of an inferiority complex you got there. Completly unnecessary too. I know who Canadians are and what their contributions are. I even know that the company that put out Homeworld, Relic, is Canadian. (And a big thanks to those Canadians, that is one great game.)

I'm sorry that you've apparently run into some rather boorish Americans. We're not all beer guzzling idiots. (And it's Canada's fault for those of us that are for making such fine beer.)

>This reality, I think, is the source of
>American super patriotism among the
>Canadians, who sing the praises of
>Americanism with a vigor that embarrases
>many Americans.

and you responded,

"LOL! You really are clueless if you think we view americans that way."

Small and weak are your foes? What a definition of an enemy!? No comment here!"

Yes, small and weak foes. They know they can't fight the US, so they find a sympathetic enemy of the US and blame us in international court. Sound similar to something else (hint - think of litigation)? Personally, I think we should pull out of all the conduct of war "treaty" BS. Then we don't have to worry about looking too hypocritical. And since the US usually winds up being the country enforcing these kinds of laws, we'll just watch the treaty become nonexistant. The hell with that new court or whatever.

And for those of you who are history-challeged (i.e. don't know what you are talking about), the entry of the US into WWI, though late, greatly sped up the ending of the war. France and Britain were pretty worn out, and Russia was no longer in the war. It could easily have turned into a stalemate, if not for the US. And in WWII, the US entry into the war was also very important in quickening the end of the war in Europe, with the Normandy invasion. Yes, I know the invasion involved other allies, but would it have been possible without us? Probably not. And I wonder who led the force? A certain American named Dwight D. Eisenhower. And the US was pivital to the quick success of the Pacific war. WE fought the Japanese, island by island, in Iwo Jima, the Phillipines, on the ocean at Midway and Leyete Gulf, and in Japan itself, with the bombing raids, and the atomic bombs. Don't tell me the US wasn't important in these wars.

An I condemn my own government for the same.

>Sure it's relative, because no nation that
>has signed the convention has strictly
>adhered to it. It's impossible. In war
>mistakes happen, civilians die. Do you
>think during the World War Two bombing
>raids the convention was being followed?

Then those nations should not have signed that treaty. Btw: the Geneva convention sections which deal with the intentional targetting of civillians were included in the post-war revision of the convention (1948 IIRC) and were done largely because of the effects of RAF's bombing of Germany (Harris was, imo, a very brutal man who made some very stupid decisions and should have been punished for them).

I never said the US made 'no noteworthy contribution to WWI', they did. However, they certainly were not the cause of the allied victory.

>I even know that the company that put out
>Homeworld, Relic, is Canadian.

Most of EA's operations are in Canada too. That's where Relic's owner got his start.

>I have heard such sentiments as I describe
>from Canadians expressed at this forum.

The Canadians represented at this forum are not in any way indicative of the majority of Canadians. I'd be willing to bet that no Canadian here voted for the Liberal party in the last election (they won a majority), and that includes myself.

>France and Britain were pretty worn out,
>and Russia was no longer in the war. It
>could easily have turned into a stalemate,
>if not for the US.

LOL! Not quite. Britain and France were rather tired out, but France had been tired out since 1915. The Commonwealth provided a healthy batch of fresh troops though, right into 1917 and 1918. In fact, the corps which gained the most ground during the 1917 offensives was *you guessed it* the canadian corps. This can be attributed to the very late introduction of conscriptuon in Canada and other commonwealth countries. Germany was also spent after the first wave of their summer offensive, that's why the end came when it did.

As for WWII, the US did play an important role, particularly in providing materiel and logistical support. However, the British and commonwealth forces played a much larger role than the US gives them credit, and the war in Europe would have ended without a western front. The Germans were already being forced back into their territory in poland when we landed in Normandy. In fact, many reputable scholars have suggested that the normandy landings were more about stopping the russians from overrunning all of europe than of the defeat of Germany.
Yes, the US played a very important, even pivotal role in the war against japan. I still think it that the US version of history, that they *won* the war for everyone else is very, very skewed, biased and frankly a lie.

Every nation takes pride in its war time accomplishments, US history buffs fascination with the battles US troops fought is no different than your touting of Canadian accomplishments.

In the end it becomes rather pointless to argue about which side contributed more. Did the Americans run into stiff resistance? Did the Canadians not meet much resistence at all or did their experience and training win them the day? Each side fought and died for their nation. What more can be asked of them.

Yeah, about 150 million or so of them...

The point is not that one country is better than the other or that one country 'won the war'. Alliance wars are always about cooperation, but the US, in its media, in its pop culture and in its actual recorded history (both pop and scholarly) minimizes the role of the other allies and maximizes US involvement. Canadians tend to make their accomplishments sound good too, but it is my opinion that we have little pretension about our accomplishments, we are a nation of 30 Million after all.

When a student doesn't believe the anti-US claptrap he or she is taught, he seeks out alternative material. Unfortunately, such materials are either not provided or are as shallow on the other side as was the original anti-US propaganda.

You might take a look at a recent Fred Reed column to get a feel for some of the problems of American education. A few months ago I went on at length about the problems of education here.
http://www.FredOnEverything.com/Legos.html

The last ones to blame are the students themselves, the product of this poor education. Most people cannot tell that they are poorly educated, and more than an insane person would know that he is insane. He has no way to make a comparison with the "norm."

Skoonj

------------------
Excelsior, Fathead!
--Jean Shepherd

The NEA and AFT are constituent groups of, guess what: the Democratic Party. And they support every leftist cause in sight. They control the curriculum, and I'm sure you've seen what they have done to textbooks. They are devoid of fact, but rich in leftist ideology and multiculturalism.

There are NO private interests fostering poor curriculae in public schools. They have no say in it. The teachers unions do. These refugees from the 1960s are teaching as they see fit, and the children are suffering as a result. My own daughter starts kindergarten this year, and I'll be damned if I'll let her go to a public school. Though I'm an atheist myself, she's going to a Roman Catholic school. At least there I know the educational standards are quite high.

Skoonj

------------------
Excelsior, Fathead!
--Jean Shepherd