US cuts aid over ICC immunity refusals

[Tony]

http://www.abc.net.au/ra/newstories/RANewsStories_892816.htm ...full article

The United States has cut military aid to 35 countries over their refusal to exempt US troops from prosecution by the new International Criminal Court (ICC).

The US, which is not a signatory to the ICC, has asked nations that recognise the court to exempt Americans from its provisions over fears they could be subject to politically-motivated prosecution by the court.

US officials says the suspension affects US allies like Brazil, Colombia and South Africa, the Baltic states as well as NATO hopefuls such as Bulgaria, Croatia, Slovakia and Slovenia.

White House spokesman Ari Fleischer says the US government will never accept the court.

"It's important to protect American service men and women and others in government," Mr Fleischer said.

A good step in the right direction.

 

[BobK]

I agree.

Political shenanigans are likely to run rampant in that court.

 

[BillyTK]

And irony of ironies, there's a link in the menu bar to a story headlined George W. Bush says world peace depends on America's actions.

Anyway, US forces performing UN duties have been granted immunity for another year, safeguards were introduced to prevent members making frivolous or politically motivated charges, and the US can negotiate immunity treaties on an individual basis. Now this; what has the US done, or what is it intending to do to make it act so shadily?

 

[crackmonkey]

It's negotiating immunity treaties individually, of course, just as you wrote.

 

[Tony]

IMO if any country(s) denies the requested immunity from this kangaroo court, that country(s) should be considered hostile.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

Anyway, US forces performing UN duties have been granted immunity for another year[/url], safeguards were introduced to prevent members making frivolous or politically motivated charges, and the US can negotiate immunity treaties on an individual basis. Now this; what has the US done, or what is it intending to do to make it act so shadily?

I agree. And all those people using their so-called "right against self-incrimination" or refusing to consent to police searches. If they weren't guilty as sin, they'd have nothing to hide. Only shady people would insist on those so-called "protections."

 

[Tony]

I agree. And all those people using their so-called "right against self-incrimination" or refusing to consent to police searches. If they weren't guilty as sin, they'd have nothing to hide. Only shady people would insist on those so-called "protections."

Do you reject the right against self-incrimination? Or as we say in american, the 5th amendment.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

Do you reject the right against self-incrimination? Or as we say in american, the 5th amendment.

Nope -- I just couldn't find a sarcasm smiley. Sorry for any confusion.

 

[BillyTK]

I agree. And all those people using their so-called "right against self-incrimination" or refusing to consent to police searches. If they weren't guilty as sin, they'd have nothing to hide. Only shady people would insist on those so-called "protections."

"right against self-incrimination" is kinda different to "right of immunity to prosecution in perpetuity".

 

[Jedi Knight]

"right against self-incrimination" is kinda different to "right of immunity to prosecution in perpetuity".

Yeah, right.

Look, anyone with political sophistication and a touch of savvy knows that the international criminal court will be used specifically as a tool against the State of Israel. That is what that court was designed for--as an antisemitic tool.

It will also naturally be used against the United States as well because we support Israel.

And Europeans wonder why Israel has nuclear weapons pointed at your cities. lol

JK

 

[BillyTK]

It's negotiating immunity treaties individually, of course, just as you wrote.

So why use threats to "negotiate" treaties? And bear in mind that the court will only convene if an accused state refuses to try the case itself, and actions can only be brought about where alleged crimes have been committed on member states' territory and/or by member states' citizens. China, Russia, India, Pakistan, Indonesia, Turkey, Israel and most Arab states (excluding Jordan) have either refused to sign the treaty or refused to ratify, and so would be unable to bring prosecutions against the US, so it's not like the "Axis of Evil" are going to conspire to bring the US to court. Who are they worried about? The Axis of ex-Evil? The Axis of Not Evil But Actually Quite Strong Coffee Producers?

 

[ZeeGerman]

IMO if any country(s) denies the requested immunity from this kangaroo court, that country(s) should be considered hostile.

So you consider the EU hostile now? You guys are really funny. The US (under Clinton that is) had a big part in defining the ICC's function. Clinten signed the treaty. Now Bush comes along, actually un-signs the treaty (for completely bogus reasons) and suddenly all the supporters of the ICC are hostile to the US?

Really

Zee

 

[BillyTK]

Yeah, right.

Look, anyone with political sophistication and a touch of savvy knows that the international criminal court will be used specifically as a tool against the State of Israel. That is what that court was designed for--as an antisemitic tool.

It will also naturally be used against the United States as well because we support Israel.

And Europeans wonder why Israel has nuclear weapons pointed at your cities. lol

JK

Anyone with political sophistication and a touch of savvy would also know that Israel hasn't ratified the treaty, so they carnt be touched, unless they invade Brazil or something.

 

[Jedi Knight]

Anyone with political sophistication and a touch of savvy would also know that Israel hasn't ratified the treaty, so they carnt be touched, unless they invade Brazil or something.

That doesn't make any sense. Israel ratifying a treaty for a criminal court led by Europeans would be like ratifying the building of new concentration camps with European SS camp guards.

That is the whole point of why the US isn't getting involved in the so-called "global court" (antisemite court) and why we have dropped aid to countries trying to force us into it. The global criminal court is a perversion.

JK

 

[crackmonkey]

This issue is very straightforward, and the US's stance is logical. If countries will not waive the right to prosecute US military personnel, the US will not allow military personnel to go to that nation. WHat's the problem?

 

[Tony]

So you consider the EU hostile now? You guys are really funny. The US (under Clinton that is) had a big part in defining the ICC's function. Clinten signed the treaty. Now Bush comes along, actually un-signs the treaty (for completely bogus reasons) and suddenly all the supporters of the ICC are hostile to the US?

You highlight one of clinton's many mistakes, and I agree with you, it was the wrong move.


Now Bush comes along, actually un-signs the treaty (for completely bogus reasons) and suddenly all the supporters of the ICC are hostile to the US?


I like how you misrepresented my argument, good job. Only the countries that refuse to grant the requested immunity should be considered hostile, not supporters of the ICC.

 

[Leif Roar]

This issue is very straightforward, and the US's stance is logical. If countries will not waive the right to prosecute US military personnel, the US will not allow military personnel to go to that nation. WHat's the problem?

(tongue-in-cheek) So that's what Saddam should have done! (/tongue-in-cheek)

 

[ZeeGerman]

You highlight one of clinton's many mistakes, and I agree with you, it was the wrong move.


I like how you misrepresented my argument, good job. Only the countries that refuse to grant the requested immunity should be considered hostile, not supporters of the ICC.

I do what I can and obviously you do too, because you agree on something I didn't say

Now seriously, what exactly do you mean when you say that for example Germany should be considered as hostile to the US. Put them on the axis of evil? Prepare to invade? Cut all economic relationships or what?

Zee

 

[Earthborn]

Only the countries that refuse to grant the requested immunity should be considered hostile, not supporters of the ICC.

You mean a whole bunch of countries that helped you in one way or the other with the war against Iraq?

"Our friends today are our enemies tomorrow"

And I have pointed out in more than one of these anti-ICC threads... If you don't want anyone of your country to be convicted by the ICC (in the unlikely event that some US leader is suspected of warcrimes) than just don't extradite him! It's not like UN troops can ever catch him without the help of the US military.

Perhaps the Bush administration is afraid the American people will rise against their regime like what was done to Milosevic.

Or maybe they are afraid that the Dutch troops defending the ICC will be able to invade and 'liberate' the US.

 

[aerocontrols]

The US (under Clinton that is) had a big part in defining the ICC's function. Clinten signed the treaty. Now Bush comes along, actually un-signs the treaty (for completely bogus reasons) and suddenly all the supporters of the ICC are hostile to the US?

In signing, however, we are not abandoning our concerns about significant flaws in the Treaty. 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. With signature, however, we will be in a position to influence the evolution of the Court. Without signature, we will not.

...

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. Given these concerns, I will not, and do not recommend that my successor submit the Treaty to the Senate for advice and consent until our fundamental concerns are satisfied.

source

Unfortunately, the way the treaty is set up, jurisdiction is claimed over states that have not ratified it, among other unaddressed concerns that he expressed when signing it at the 11th hour of his presidency.

Given his concerns at the lack of ability to get them addressed in the formation of the Treaty, I believe that Pres. Clinton would consider his signing of the treaty to be a mistake. He clearly didn't want it ratified without making changes that others are unwilling to make.

MattJ