EU as joke (modified)

"Bjørnar" wrote:

(BUFDRVR) wrote in

Great, he was not indicted, but the problem remains the same.
The US is the universal target for anyones ill feelings,

I'm supprised you admit to that. Perhaps the US should start
to address that and ask themselves "why".

The ICC issue is a good representation. 120 nations agree
on a permanent court that will prosecute war crimes and
secure international justice, but the US, apparently, feels
it shouldn't have to be held responsible for its own breaches
of international human rights and justice.

That may be the ideal but I don't think it would be the practice.

Just look at what a Presidential visit does. It becomes the
focal point for all the lefties/fascists/anarchists/greens to
strut their stuff in front of a TV camera. Same with IMF/World
Bank meetings, or G7 meetings, etc.

I assure you, if the ICC came about, US military and political
persons would be spending all their time defending themselves
in "court".

Even with no chance of actual indictment, it would give value
just providing images of American Presidents or generals being
hauled into "World Court" to explain their actions.

It was for good reason that the founding fathers of the US
thought it prudent that the President should not be personally
liable for his official actions in a court of law.

He'd spend all his time there if this were not so.


SMH

Stephen Harding wrote in
:

I assure you, if the ICC came about, US military and political
persons would be spending all their time defending themselves
in "court".

Even with no chance of actual indictment, it would give value
just providing images of American Presidents or generals being
hauled into "World Court" to explain their actions.

It was for good reason that the founding fathers of the US
thought it prudent that the President should not be personally
liable for his official actions in a court of law.

He'd spend all his time there if this were not so.

There is another, IMO more important, side to this. This treaty
will prosecute and punish the ones who rightfully deserve it.
It's for the benefit of human rights all accross the world.
It's something the entire civilized world has signed, 139
nations all in all. Even Israel and Iran followed in the wake
of Clinton, echoing the significance of this treaty and that
the world stands by it and what it represents.

The US is a big player in international affairs, it probably
wants to keep it like that, but how can it expect gain support
and respect in the minds of people if it only wants to play
by its own rules? Openly displaying a mistrust in rest of the
world?

Was Clinton wrong when he acted "to reaffirm our strong
support for international accountability and for bringing
to justice perpetrators of genocide, war crimes and crimes
against humanity"?

Didn't Bush, bombing into Afghanistan, fanfare that the war
on terrorism was a "war to save civilization itself"? Where
is the US in this, apart from swinging swords that is.


ICC is important. By not endorcing the treaty the US is showing
a dibelief for international cooperation on such a funtamental
issue as human rigths. You say that people look to the US for
all kinds of "wrongs", well it probalby mans people look to
the US for all kinds of "goods" as well -- not accepting the
treaty is sending the wrong kind of signals to the world while
a US commitment would instead act as a deterrent of human
rights abuse. Simply put, if growing up has taught me one thing
it's that we all need role models, good role models.

Everything we humans do between eachother is ultimately built
on trust. It's my oppinon that you have to take risk to
make progress, in particular when the rest of the players
is openly signalling its will to share the risk as well.
That's part of how we build confidence and trust.

It's strange, almost suspicious, that the US seems more than
willing to take considerable risk in armed aggression against
other nations, against world oppinion, risking lives of thousends
of US servicemen and civilians, but backs out of something as
potentially good, "civilized", nonagressive and relation forming
as a world unified treaty on international justice.



Regards...

"Bjørnar" wrote:

It's strange, almost suspicious, that the US seems more than
willing to take considerable risk in armed aggression against
other nations, against world oppinion, risking lives of thousends
of US servicemen and civilians, but backs out of something as
potentially good, "civilized", nonagressive and relation forming
as a world unified treaty on international justice.

Sounds like a good reason for sending President Bush to prison for
20 years, no?

Surely *someone* with a law degree *somewhere* would think so. And
the ICC is just the ticket to accomplish that!


SMH

In article ,
"Bjørnar" wrote:

Stephen Harding wrote in
:

I assure you, if the ICC came about, US military and political
persons would be spending all their time defending themselves
in "court".

There is another, IMO more important, side to this. This treaty
will prosecute and punish the ones who rightfully deserve it.

Like the Belgian Foreign Minister?

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

In article ,
Stephen Harding wrote:

"Bjørnar" wrote:

The ICC issue is a good representation. 120 nations agree
on a permanent court that will prosecute war crimes and
secure international justice, but the US, apparently, feels
it shouldn't have to be held responsible for its own breaches
of international human rights and justice.

That may be the ideal but I don't think it would be the practice.

....and it wasn't.

The ICC was supposed to be such a great idea, and people in Europe
cheered it because it was supposed to "get" folks like American
Presidents, but the moment someone filed charges against the Belgian
Foreign Minister , it was suddenly a Bad Idea...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.