![]() |
| If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|||||||
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#11
|
|||
|
|||
|
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". Because the US, as the "lone superpower" is both envied and feared throughout the world. The "big guy" on the block will always be a target no matter his politics or actions. The US is condemned when it doesn't act (Rwanda, Cambodia) and condemned when it does (Iraq, Afghanistan). but the US, apparently, feels it shouldn't have to be held responsible for its own breaches of international human rights and justice. Wrong, the US believes the court will allow any nation with a grudge against the US to force us into legally defending ourselves continuously. The suit against Franks was dropped. That it was even brought in the first place is proof enough of what the ICC would look like. Why would the US sign up for a "justice" system that had the power to idicted, charge etc. our serving generals for doing their job, *legally*. The US would spend millions of US dollars every year defending ourselves in this international "kangaroo court". Comming from a nation where people have a spectacular tradition for sueing one another for nothing, your statement is more than amusing. As such, we know exactly what frivolous lawsuits can do to the people being sued. MYTH: The Court will take on politically motivated cases against U.S. citizens or soldiers. FACT: Numerous safeguards in the ICC treaty will prevent frivolous or politically motivated cases. Excuse me, if I believe the US State Departments team of international law specialists that told the Clinton administration differently. It will have no jurisdiction over crimes committed on U.S. soil unless the United States ratifies its treaty. We're not concerned with crimes committed on US soil, we're more than capable of dealing with those. Its the BS lawsuit filed by a Saudi family against the US in the death of their Taliban son, killed in a fire fight with US forces that concern us. Clinton signed the treaty on December 31, 2000. On his way out of office Billy did a lot of things including some politically motivated pardons that *did not* represent the will of the US people, many in the US government or even people in his own political party. On May 6, 2002. Then the Bush Administration announced its intention to withdraw the US signature. If you want to talk about kangoroo politics, nothing like that has ever been done to my knowledge. Well, we've never had a President as low as Billy Clinton before (including Taft and Nixon). Bush was simply doing his job as President and obiding by the will of those in the other branches of government, who represent the people of the US. BUFDRVR "Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips everyone on Bear Creek" |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| The joke called TSA | Spockstuto | Instrument Flight Rules | 58 | December 27th 04 01:54 PM |
| Sick Boeing Joke. | plasticguy | Home Built | 0 | April 1st 04 04:16 PM |
| On Topic Joke | Eric Miller | Home Built | 8 | March 6th 04 04:01 AM |
| Europe as joke | Cub Driver | Military Aviation | 165 | November 8th 03 11:45 PM |
| American joke on the Brits | ArtKramr | Military Aviation | 50 | September 30th 03 11:52 PM |