US cuts aid over ICC immunity refusals

[ZeeGerman]

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

That must be it

Zee

 

[ZeeGerman]

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

A very good source. What I find interesting is this

With signature,
however, we will be in a position to influence the evolution of the Court.
Without signature, we will not.

Signature will enhance our ability to further protect U.S. officials
from unfounded charges and to achieve the human rights and accountability
objectives of the ICC. In fact, in negotiations following the Rome
Conference, we have worked effectively to develop procedures that limit
the likelihood of politicized prosecutions. For example, U.S. civilian and
military negotiators helped to ensure greater precision in the definitions
of crimes within the Court's jurisdiction.

So was it smart that Bush actually withdraw the signature?

Zee

 

[Landis]

GW and the US are threatening to withhold military assistance to nations who sign the treaty. One of those nations is Columbia and we are currently providing approx. $1 billion per year plus a hundred or so of our finest Navy Seals to fight terrorism, communist insurgents and the drug lords. I guess if Colombia doesn't bow to our blackmail tactic, then we will cut them off. Who wins - the terrorist, communist insurgents and drug lords!

 

[aerocontrols]

A very good source. What I find interesting is this


So was it smart that Bush actually withdraw the signature?

Zee

Yes, it was. Clinton was wrong. We were not able to influence the formation as he claimed we would be, the treaty was not changed, and Bush withdrew at basically the last possible moment (shortly before the 60th nation signed it) before it was too late and we would be locked into a treaty that had not yet been altered as Clinton said it should be.

Clinton said signing would leave us in a position to get our concerns addressed. They were not so addressed. Thus, it was a mistake for Clinton to sign it in the first place.

MattJ

 

[peptoabysmal]

Proposal submitted by Bahrain, Iraq, Lebanon, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Oman, the Sudan, the Syrian Arab Republic and Yemen on the crime of aggression

From documents on the ICC website.

This is laughable, countries like Libya and the Sudan filing documents outlining the crime of aggression. These countries are still paying bounties for Christian heads. Story