Blair 'war crimes' case launched

[Earthborn]

In particular, we are concerned that when
the Court comes into existence, it will not only exercise authority over personnel of states that have ratified the Treaty, but also claim jurisdiction over personnel of states that have not.

Still true or not?

Sort of:

The 'Unchecked' Power of the ICC

Jurisdiction Over Non-State Parties

Administration: According to the May 6th State Department Backgrounder, "The ICC purports to have jurisdiction over crimes committed in the territory of a state party, including by nationals of a non-party. Thus the court would have jurisdiction for enumerated crimes alleged against U.S. nationals, including U.S. service members, in the territory of a party, even though the U.S. is not a party."

Reality: The ICC will have very limited subject matter jurisdiction to try individuals accused of the most serious crimes condemned by all nations: crimes against humanity, genocide, and war crimes. Its jurisdiction is limited to "the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole." This high legal threshold necessitates that the criminal act must have occurred on a large scale, must shock the conscience of humanity, and must, in general, be the result of deliberate plans or policies by a nation or organization. Thus, the Court does not have jurisdiction over all war crimes, only the worst (Article 5 of the Rome Statute).

Reality: Even if U.S. peacekeepers commit such crimes (a possibility which is highly unlikely, given the nature of their mission) Bilateral Agreements, such as SOFA (Status of Forces Agreement), which are always signed by both the host country and the contributing country before a peacekeeping mission is dispatched, will ensure that the U.S. receives jurisdiction over its nationals (Article 21, Paragraph 1-b of the Rome Statute). The White House is acting under the presumption that these agreements will not be honored in the event of a reported misconduct.

But more must be done. Court jurisdiction over U.S. personnel should come only with U.S. ratification of the Treaty. The United States should have the chance to observe and assess the functioning of the Court, over time, before choosing to become subject to its jurisdiction.

Again the US's wishes, served on a silver platter:

By joining the Court, the US would also be able to benefit from the many advantages written into the treaty for state parties. For example, parties to the Court can choose not to accept the Court’s jurisdiction over war crimes for seven years. By invoking this provision, the US could see how the Court handles such cases from the beginning and the United States could withdraw from the Statute if the Court exceeds its authority by engaging in political prosecutions. As a party, the US could also protect its nationals from prosecution for the crime of aggression or any other new crimes added to the Statute if it found the definitions unacceptable.

Which has to do with the second paragraph of President Clinton's that I've quoted.

Are you also going to tell me where you quoted them from? And when Clinton said it?

 

[epepke]

Are we to conclude then that the signature of a head of state is meaningless, and later governments can safely ignore it? That sets a nice precedent.

Well, I keep hearing over and over again about how Europeans are so smart and educated and know everything about the US while all those American dumbskis know nothing.

I don't really expect that level of sophistication by Europeans, but I do think that one or two of you should have heard about the League of Nations by now.

 

[Ziggurat]

.Starting an illegal war is not a nice thing to do. It will not make you many friends. But it is not a crime that one can be prosecuted for by the ICC. The ICC only takes cases of war crimes, genocide or crimes against humanity, which are very clearly and narrowly defined here.If

You're kidding me, right? They've included a crime, "agression", AND IT ISN'T EVEN DEFINED! How the hell "narrow" a definition is that? I could include just about anything. And don't try to claim it won't, that everything will be peachy keen, because international institutions like this have proven time and again that they are NOT in fact trustworthy (the UN sure as hell isn't). Even the stuff that is defined is pretty damned broad if you actually parse it carefully.
http://denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2002/07/MoreontheICC.shtml
The crime of persecution, for example, is ambiguous enough that just about any peackeeping force could be charged with it if they find themselves needing to impose martial law to maintain order.

Just imagine that the Founding Fathers used that sort of logic. "Ah, we don't need a Bill of Rights to restrict the power of government. We have a very nice government now! The government can always write a Bill of Rights when it goes bad."No, of course not. The same is true for almost all ICC members, and still they signed and ratified the treaty. And for some strange reason all the bad regimes didn't! The good ones have something to gain: a little extra protection for when things go horribly wrong. Dictatorships have nothing to gain.

Once again, you prove that you do not understand America, or the constitution. The Bill of Rights was about limiting the power of government: the founding fathers knew, as most Europeans still do not, that they should not trust government to behave itself, but must bind the government to keep it from overstepping its bounds before it did so. You aren't arguing for limiting government power before it's too late, you're arguing for MORE government power before it's needed. And a government that isn't even answerable to the population it presides over at that. Sorry, but you've got it backwards from the founding fathers - they would stay the hell away from this kind of treaty.

 

[aerocontrols]

Sort of:

I would characterize that as 'no'.

Are you also going to tell me where you quoted them from? And when Clinton said it?

I would expect you to be able to find Bill Clinton's statement (made when he signed it) on your pro-ICC website. You mean they don't link to it, or discuss any of the objections he had when he signed it?

And it doesn't explain why Bush 'unsigned it' at the time that he did?

 

[Skeptic]

Yeah, the deal is, if you kill people without a DAMNED good excuse (as opposed to, say, some confection of lies and doublespeak about WMD and your sincere concern for the ickle people), people tend to take it badly. And if you do it in the context of a war, it's called a war crime.

...which is why Arafat is now on trial in the ICC together with Hamas, Syria, North Vietnam, etc., etc., etc.

Oh wait.

An unprovoked attack on another country is illegal.

Which is why the ICC put Saddam on trial the moment he invaded Kuwait. The US was simply executing the ICC's previous ruling, you know.

Oh wait.

Check out the Nuremberg Trials, when America tried the Nazi leaders for attacking Poland, France and the Sovier Union without provocation...they hanged.

Which is why Saddam, who invaded Kuwait without provocation, Ho Chi Min, who invaded South Vietnam in violation of all agreements, Arafat, who did the same with israel, and so on are all on trial in the ICC as we speak.

Oh wait.

The Nazi leaders had an excuse for every attack.

So do Arafat, Saddam, Ho Chi Minh, and the rest. You know, "we shall wipe the jewish scum from the holy Arab land" (replace with "American", "imperialist", etc. as needed), that sort of thing.

Still you don`t have to worry, when did you ever see a non-foreigner get taken up to the ICC?

The day they'll try a dictator for war crimes, instead of using it as a battlefield against the "racist" western governments and/or israel.

So it's all black people and shifty Arabs from here on in.

Actually, the problem is that "black people and shifty Arabs" get a free pass. Do you really see Quaddafi or Mobutu on trial there? No, it's ONLY western democracies that are "put to the question" in the ICC.

 

[Earthborn]

You're kidding me, right? They've included a crime, "agression", AND IT ISN'T EVEN DEFINED!

Crimes of agression and other 'new crimes' that are not defined yet, fall outside the jurisdiction of the ICC until the ICC member states have agreed on a definition. If one of them does not agree with the definition for whatever reason, they can prevent the ICC from having jurisdiction on that crime over their region. Again one of those things the US has negotiated agressively for before Clinton signed the treaty.

How the hell "narrow" a definition is that? I could include just about anything.

Yes, and if you can convince the other member states that yours is a good definition, you might even be able to get the ICC to try someone for it.

And don't try to claim it won't, that everything will be peachy keen, because international institutions like this have proven time and again that they are NOT in fact trustworthy

International institutions only get their power from the nations that support them. An international institution that cannot count on support from its member states will seize to exist.

(the UN sure as hell isn't).

What did the UN ever do to you? Step on your toe?

Even the stuff that is defined is pretty damned broad if you actually parse it carefully.
http://denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2002/07/MoreontheICC.shtml
The crime of persecution, for example, is ambiguous enough that just about any peackeeping force could be charged with it if they find themselves needing to impose martial law to maintain order.

None of the examples the author of the article presents is a crime that the ICC has jurisdiction over at this moment. I can imagine that they are crimes that are considered to be included or have been proposed to be included, but the ICC member states could not yet commonly agree on a definition.

The author also makes the erroneous assumption that when they are included, the ICC will be able to try anyone for crimes they commited before the crimes where included. It cannot.

You aren't arguing for limiting government power before it's too late, you're arguing for MORE government power before it's needed. And a government that isn't even answerable to the population it presides over at that. Sorry, but you've got it backwards from the founding fathers - they would stay the hell away from this kind of treaty.

This is totally irrelevant as the ICC depends totally on the power of local governments.

 

[Earthborn]

I would expect you to be able to find Bill Clinton's statement (made when he signed it) on your pro-ICC website. You mean they don't link to it, or discuss any of the objections he had when he signed it?

No, I can't find it on 'my' pro-ICC website. BUt I did find it on a US government site. To me, he doesn't sound so overly concerned about the ICC. That he has a few concerns over what he considers 'significant flaws' is fine by me. The US doesn't have to surrender to the international institutions, and critical views should always be appreciated. They can only make the institution better.

I think that's the point Clinton is trying to make, it is the point the USAforICC website is trying to make, and it is the point the international community is trying to make: "We celebrate the input and criticism by the United States. We want the United States to be in the treaty, because we believe if they are in, they can help us make it better. Please, please, please, honour us with your signature, and keep the constructive criticism coming."

And it doesn't explain why Bush 'unsigned it' at the time that he did?

Well, it does list a lot of reasons the Bush administration used to justify why he unsigned it. It refutes all those reasons as either irrelevant because of the way the ICC was built, or as being adequately adressed already.

Is there any reason the Bush administration has used that isn't mentioned in this list or the list of general myths? Or can you refute their refutations?

 

[DialecticMaterialist]

IMO, this is absurd. Anyone who knows me knows I have a special disliking for Bush, but charging him with war crimes is just way too extreme.

It's the equivalent imo, to wanting to impeach Clinton over a blow job, or accusations directed against Clinton of assasinating political opponents.

 

[Earthborn]

IMO, this is absurd. Anyone who knows me knows I have a special disliking for Bush, but charging him with war crimes is just way too extreme.

Yes, it is absurd. But who was it that accused Bush of war crimes again? Someone we know?

 

[aerocontrols]

No, I can't find it on 'my' pro-ICC website. BUt I did find it on a US government site. To me, he doesn't sound so overly concerned about the ICC. That he has a few concerns over what he considers 'significant flaws' is fine by me. The US doesn't have to surrender to the international institutions, and critical views should always be appreciated. They can only make the institution better.

I think that's the point Clinton is trying to make, it is the point the USAforICC website is trying to make, and it is the point the international community is trying to make: "We celebrate the input and criticism by the United States. We want the United States to be in the treaty, because we believe if they are in, they can help us make it better. Please, please, please, honour us with your signature, and keep the constructive criticism coming.

Actually, the point Clinton made is that the US should not ratify the treaty until the reservations he listed were settled. Those reservations were not (and are not) settled to even his satisfaction.

Clinton suggested that Bush not enter the treaty unless changes were made to it. The Treaty was not changed to address those concerns. Bush left the US signature on as long as possible (see below) to maintain our ability to affect the law and try to make those changes, and 'unsigns' it at the last minute.

When Bill Clinton says that an international agreement is too flawed to join, I pay attention. "Sort of" wasn't good enough for him, and it's not good enough for me.

"Well, it does list a lot of reasons the Bush administration used to justify why he unsigned it. It refutes all those reasons as either irrelevant because of the way the ICC was built, or as being adequately adressed already.

Is there any reason the Bush administration has used that isn't mentioned in this list or the list of general myths? Or can you refute their refutations?

He 'unsigned it' for the same reasons that Bill Clinton reccommended that it not be sent to the Senate for Advice and Consent. He 'unsigned it' when (this is the part I've been trying to hint at) he did because the treaty had just gained the necessary number of signatures to enter into force, after which all signatories become subject to its jurisdiction.


If you want to know why the US doesn't trust the ICC or the people behind it, perhaps this will help you a little:

1. On 6 November 1998, the Secretary-General received from the Government of the United States of America the following communication dated 5 November 1998, relating to the proposed corrections to the Statute circulated on 25 September 1998:

"[...] The United States wishes to note a number of concerns and objections regarding the procedure proposed for the correction of the six authentic texts and certified true copies:

"First, the United States wishes to draw attention to the fact that, in addition to the corrections which the Secretary-General now proposes, other changes had already been made to the text which was actually adopted by the Conference, without any notice or procedure. The text before the Conference was contained in A/CONF.183/C.1/L.76 and Adds. 1-13. The text which was issued as a final document, A/CONF.183/9, is not the same text. Apparently, it was this latter text which was presented for signature on July 18, even though it differed in a number of respects from the text that was adopted only hours before. At least three of these changes are arguably substantive, including the changes made to Article 12, paragraph 2(b), the change made to Article 93, paragraph 5, and the change made to Article 124. Of these three changes, the Secretary-General now proposes to "re-correct" only Article 124, so that it returns to the original text, but the other changes remain. The United States remains concerned, therefore, that the corrections process should have been based on the text that was actually adopted by the Conference. (aero note: duh)

"Second, the United States notes that the Secretary-General's communication suggests that it is "established depositary practice" that only signatory States or contracting States may object to a proposed correction. The United States does not seek to object to any of the proposed corrections, or to the additional corrections that were made earlier and without formal notice, although this should not be taken as an endorsement of the merits of any of the corrections proposed. The United States does note, however, that insofar as arguably substantive changes have been made to the original text without any notice or procedure, as noted above in relation to Articles 12 and 93, if any question of interpretation should subsequently arise it should be resolved consistent with A/CONF.183/C.1/L.76, the text that was actually adopted.

"More fundamentally, however, as a matter of general principle and for future reference, the United States objects to any correction procedure, immediately following a diplomatic conference, whereby the views of the vast majority of the Conference participants on the text which they have only just adopted would not be taken into account. The United States does not agree that the course followed by the Secretary-General in July represents "established depositary practice" for the type of circumstances presented here. To the extent that such a procedure has previously been established, it must necessarily rest on the assumption that the Conference itself had an adequate opportunity, in the first instance, to ensure the adoption of a technically correct text. Under the circumstances which have prevailed in some recent conferences, and which will likely recur, in which critical portions of the text are resolved at very late stages and there is no opportunity for the usual technical review by the Drafting Committee, the kind of corrections process which is contemplated here must be open to all.

" In accordance with Article 77, paragraph 1 (e) of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, the United States requests that this note be communicated to all States which are entitled to become parties to the Convention."

In short, if the international community can't have a transparent and honest procedure to write the treaty document, why should anyone think they can run the court honestly?

 

[demon]

Ziggurat:
"I think the Cambodia stuff has been dealt with enough, you seem to be a dedicated appologist for an appologist for genocide, I'm not going to bother dregging up more on that issue."

"Dealt with enough?" You haven`t dealt with anything.
"A dedicated apologist" for Chomsky? That I asked you to support your allegation makes me a dedicated apologist for Chomsky and genocide? Where does that perverted logic work? On Planet X?

As for "dregging" up more on the issue, I`ll remind you that you are the one who dredged up Chomsky`s name into this thread in the first place.
So as to my original question..."Can you give me a source for that allegation, preferably a quote or a reference from one of his books to justify your lazy smear?"...the real answer is no you can`t, not that you can`t be "bothered" to.
It`s noted that you can be "bothered" to repeat the smear though. What an idiot.

Ziggurat:
"I don't recall ever saying Saddam kicked out the weapons inspectors."

Yea right. Well, I do. For example:
"Just kick the inspectors out again sometime down the road. Nobody really did much in 98 when they kicked them out, wait a few years and Saddam would probably have done the same thing again."
http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/show...#post1870085352

"Kick the inspectors out again, and Saddam could do whatever the hell he pleased with it. That's what I mean by he had hundreds of tons of unenriched uranium."
http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/show...#post1870086314

You are a purveyor of smears and myths Ziggurat...how unpleasant and disgusting to watch someone brainwashing themselves in public.

 

[Ziggurat]

Ziggurat:
"I think the Cambodia stuff has been dealt with enough, you seem to be a dedicated appologist for an appologist for genocide, I'm not going to bother dregging up more on that issue."

"Dealt with enough?" You haven`t dealt with anything.

You're right, *I* didn't deal with the issue of Chomsky being an appologist for Pol Pot. But what other people posted was sufficient. Which is why I said that the topic had been dealt with enough, not that *I* had dealt with it enough. Learn to read.

Ziggurat:
"I don't recall ever saying Saddam kicked out the weapons inspectors."

Yea right. Well, I do. For example:

I congratulate you on your excellent memory, and for missing the point entirely. I clarified my stand on the issue (which you haven't claimed is anything other than correct now). And my main point in the quotes you list are speculation about what Saddam might do in the future, not what he did in '98. On that note, kicking inspectors out and halting cooperation have no substantive difference. Yes, I shouldn't have used the word "again", and I have since clarified this. Let's see Chomsky ever actually clarify the fact that he was completely wrong about Pol Pot, and never admitted how wrong he had been. Just don't hold your breath.

Edit: BTW, demon, learn how to actually post a link on this board: your links are broken, and don't go anywhere.

 

[demon]

Ziggurat, three questions.
1)Have you read the Chomsky on Cambodia? "After the Cataclysm" for instance where most of the "genocide apologist" smears seem to come from?
2)Did you read the DeLong smear on Chomsky concerning Cambodia?
3)Did you read Herman`s refutation of DeLong?

If you can answer two of the above in the positive and still insist that Chomsky is an apolgist for genocide/Pol Pot then you have some explaining to do.
Of course, if you can`t answer in the positive for two of the questions above then you are talking bollocks.

 

[Earthborn]

He 'unsigned it' when (this is the part I've been trying to hint at) he did because the treaty had just gained the necessary number of signatures to enter into force, after which all signatories become subject to its jurisdiction.

Of course he could also have chosen to keep the signature, and deny the ICC jurisdiction for the seven year period that is allowed under the Rome statute. During that time he could have lobbied to change the treaty in such a way that does satisfy any concerns, and if after that time the ICC has proven itself as a 'kangaroo court', the US could withdraw from the treaty, or as the most powerful nation on Earth could probably demand that its immunity must be extended a bit.

Now the US has even increased the risk that US citizens will be tried by the ICC. Since it doesn't help shape it, it can't help defining what the 'new crimes' such as the crime of agression is going to mean. If the ICC members were to define it in such a way that an american citizen might be guilty of it, and that american citizen ends up in a member state somehow with a government willing to arrest him then he could very well end up standing trial before the ICC. However: if the US was a member state itself, it could exempt its citizens for any crime that is defined in a way the government would consider unacceptable.

If you want to know why the US doesn't trust the ICC or the people behind it, perhaps this will help you a little

I agree that changing the text of treaties after the negotiations and just before the signing is a very serious problem that needs to be adressed.

I am going to use the 'don't attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity' thumbrule here and assume, for now, that the substantial changes in the text are not due to illwill, but caused by differences in interpretation of what the text meant. A problem that is exaggerated by the fact that in international negotiations texts must be translated back and forth continuesly and must also often be rewritten to maintain clarity.

This is certainly not the first or the last time such errors are made, and are also not limited to the UN or the ICC. Such problems have also arisen between Cameroon and the EU and between the US and Panama, for example.

Such problems are inevitable whenever people with different viewpoints, political goals, languages, ways in which they interprete things work on a common project. I don't see how you can claim that this is a weakness of the ICC and not at the same time denounce all forms of human negotiation.

In short, if the international community can't have a transparent and honest procedure to write the treaty document, why should anyone think they can run the court honestly?

I do not see the fact that it does not have a transparent and honest procedure as evidence that it cannot create such a procedure in the future, with the help of critical friends such as the US.

If there is doubt that the court will be run honestly (which is a possibility since it is run by people) then the solution is not to run away from it, but to demand that procedures are put in place that exclude dishonesty. From Randi, or from System Approach in risk management, we should have learned that it is possible to prevent fraud or random mistakes. Although not perfectly.

 

[Ziggurat]

What did the UN ever do to you? Step on your toe?

The UN has sat by and permitted genocide to occur time and time again. The UN has never stepped in to prevent genocide, or even stop genocide as it is occuring. What has the UN ever done to me? That's the wrong question. What has the UN done for humanity? It has failed humanity on far too many occasions, with alarming regularity. And yes, I take that personally, and if you don't, perhaps you should ask yourself why.

 

[Ziggurat]

DeLong comments: "Reflect that it was published three full years after the Cambodian Holocaust of the Year Zero. Ask yourself whether this is an uncovering or a covering of the crimes of an abominable regime." The answer is that a single stripped-down quote taken out of context and that speculates about what may come from a future study tells nothing to an honest person.

In what context does this NOT sound like apologism? And BTW, space limitations my ass, what a sorry excuse for not listing sources thoroughly for such an important claim.

DeLong naturally fails to acknowledge that our stated aim in the book was not to uncover crimes

No, of course not. Why would Chomsky want to do that?

but to see how the "facts have been interpreted, filtered, distorted or modified by the ideological institutions of the West" (ATC, vii). For DeLong, as for the mainstream, this was an illegitimate objective.

When it leads to appologism for genocide, damned straight.

First of all, we did not attribute the "at most in the thousands" statement to Chanda, but to Sampson. Second, we ourselves quoted Chanda's statement that "the numbers killed are impossible to calculate," that DeLong implies we neglected (ATC, 229). Third, we quote Chanda saying that the testimony from refugees and others "leaves no doubt: the number of deaths has been terribly high" (229), so the statement that Chomsky denied "the possibility that killings were vastly higher" is another lie.

What a complete non-disclaimer. First they repeat the statement that the death tole is at most in the thousands, then claim that "the number of deaths has been terribly high" somehow is adequate coverage for the case where it's orders of magnitude larger? Sorry, but that simply does not wash.

DeLong ends on Cambodia asserting that "Chomsky not only said that there wasn't conclusive evidence that the Khmer Rouge were genocidal butchers, he wrote-falsely-that there was reliable evidence that they weren't genocidal butchers." This is one more flat, outright lie. We never said, or hinted, anything like this.

Sure they did. They pretty much flat-out said it with the quote about an upper limit of thousands of deaths. And they can't provide a counter-quote where THEY state that the figure may be MUCH higher - the reference to higher totals is completely ambiguous as to the context in which it was listed, whether or not they gave it any credence.

On DeLong principles, the State Department analysts and Holbrooke are liars and apologists for Pol Pot, downplaying the "conclusive evidence" that he was a genocidal butcher.

Ah, blame someone else. Except that I may think the same thing of those people as well.

DeLong never mentions that our book was explicitly aimed at countering the huge and lie-rich propaganda barrage on Cambodia that began upon the KR entry into Phnom Penh in April 1975, a barrage and lies which only served a political and ideological purpose and did not help the Cambodians in any way whatsoever.

Lies like what? That the KR was commiting genocide? Here's the sort of lie that Chomsky likes to make you think he's really arguing against:

"Questions that are obviously crucial even apart from the legacy of the war--for example, the sources of the policies of the postwar Cambodian regime in historical experience, traditional culture, Khmer nationalism, or internal social conflict--have been passed by in silence as the propaganda machine gravitates to the evils of a competitive socioeconomic system so as to establish its basic principle: that "liberation" by "Marxists" is the worst fate that can befall any people under Western dominance."
--Chomsky and Herman, 1979

Does the fact that they were countering what he sees as lies somehow make their appologism more palitable? Not to me it doesn't. I frankly couldn't give a crap about supposed andi-marxist bias, but I care a lot about the fact that Chomsky is an appologist for genocide, that he simply discounted witness testimony about attrocities by saying that refugees were unreliable. Does Chomsky actually have a defense against the claim that he initially supported the KR? Haven't ever heard it, only waffling about the accuracy of sources, or an attempt to change the subject by claiming that he wasn't supporting the KR, just opposing media bias. Not good enough.

DeLong never mentions that estimates of the numbers killed by the U.S. Air Force in its bombing of Cambodia from 1969 to 1975 run into the hundreds of thousands, which on his terms should make Nixon and Kissinger into "genocidal butchers."

Back to the blame someone else game. I'm not DeLong, so I can't state how he views Kissenger and Nixon. I do happen to think Kissenger and Nixon are butchers. And Chomsky is still an appologist for butchers, but only for left-wing butchers, apparently.

What you posted amounts to an attack on DeLong for not attacking targets Chomsky thinks were more deserving. It is not a defense against the body of the accusations.

Here's a more in-depth criticism of KR appologism, not just from Chmosky:

http://www-mcnair.berkeley.edu/uga/osl/mcnair/Sophal_Ear_canon.html

 

[demon]

LIAR

 

[Earthborn]

The UN has sat by and permitted genocide to occur time and time again. The UN has never stepped in to prevent genocide, or even stop genocide as it is occuring.

I guess I understand now. The anti-UN people are anti-UN because it isn't powerful enough to stop the most horrible crimes against humanity. But when the UN tries to become even the slightest bit more powerful, they protest against it because 'it is against our constitution!', 'it violates the principle of sovereignty!', 'we don't want a one world government!'.

What will it be: a UN that can intervene in other countries to stop war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide, or a UN that declares the sovereignty of nations holy and untouchable?*

* Actually, this is a false dichotomy: there is also the possibility of a UN that obeys the USA's every command, can intervene in every country in the world except the USA, and only the sovereignty of countries the US likes is respected. But if avoiding double standards is more important, the UN should be able to stop genocide in the US as well as elsewhere. All the US has to do then to avoid being hassled by the UN is to avoid genocide in its own country. Is that so hard to do?

 

[Ziggurat]

I guess I understand now. The anti-UN people are anti-UN because it isn't powerful enough to stop the most horrible crimes against humanity. But when the UN tries to become even the slightest bit more powerful, they protest against it because 'it is against our constitution!', 'it violates the principle of sovereignty!', 'we don't want a one world government!'.

No, actually you still don't get it. I'm not against the UN because it's not powerful enough to stop genocide, I'm against it because it doesn't try to stop genocide. I see no reason to think that giving it more power will change that.

And let's keep a few things straight: the UN is not the ICC. I would have thought you'd be adamant about keeping the distinction, because bluring it just makes the ICC look bad.

What will it be: a UN that can intervene in other countries to stop war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide, or a UN that declares the sovereignty of nations holy and untouchable?

Are you trying to use this as an argument FOR the ICC? Because if you are, it doesn't make sense. The ICC isn't charged with stopping genocide, only prosecuting those responsible. It's supposed to act against individuals with the cooperation of states, not against states. Stopping genocide as it's occuring (or better, about to occur) requires acting against states. It's the UN's habitual unwillingness to do the latter that's my biggest problem with the UN.

 

[Earthborn]

No, actually you still don't get it. I'm not against the UN because it's not powerful enough to stop genocide, I'm against it because it doesn't try to stop genocide.

Ah, yes. And whose fault is that? Let's read about about the history of the Rwanda conflict for example:

the Security Council failed to intervene in Rwanda because Washington opposed any such intervention.

From here, emphasis mine.

In addition, the US government in particular frustrated efforts by African governments to assemble an African intervention force with Western logistical backing.

From here, emphasis mine.

Apperently it sometimes happens that several UN members are willing to end genocide, but they are sometimes frustrated by one particular superpower. This is not to say that that particular superpower is solely to blame for the inadequacy of the UN, but you can't solely blame the UN for it either.

Also interesting is what George W. Bush said during his campaign about how he would handle a situation like Rwanda if he were faced with it:

"We should not send our troops to stop ethnic cleansing and genocide outside our strategic interests. . . . I would not send the United States troops into Rwanda."

Makes one wonder what his strategic interests are in Iraq...

And let's keep a few things straight: the UN is not the ICC. I would have thought you'd be adamant about keeping the distinction, because bluring it just makes the ICC look bad.

The ICC is not the UN, but its goals are in line with the UN and the ICC and UN work closely together.

Are you trying to use this as an argument FOR the ICC? Because if you are, it doesn't make sense. The ICC isn't charged with stopping genocide, only prosecuting those responsible.

Apperently prosecuting those responsible is the only thing that is achieveable right now, assuming the US doesn't hinder it too much.

It's supposed to act against individuals with the cooperation of states, not against states.

I think you are starting to understand now. So what is your problem with the ICC being able to act against individuals with the cooperation of, for example the United States?

It's the UN's habitual unwillingness to do the latter that's my biggest problem with the UN.

Why don't you lobby against the US's veto power then?