I was watching the news one evening where they were talking about how the USA wants immunity from their soldiers being accused of war crimes. Then went on to how Britain dosn't like this etc...blah blah. It got me thinking, is it so bad?
Sure the USA have made some military mistakes but from all the peacekeeping the US Armed Forces do there's BOUND to be accidents like that. Maybe they even deserve the immunity. Think of it this way, if US pull out of peacekeeping, who else can do it, Britain certainly can't do it all. ie. Bosnia would likely go to pot if the USA left. So with all these UN members raving about it maybe they should look at what the USA does all over the world. I say give it to them, just don't overrule it if it's deliberate.

[This message has been edited by Z-Layrex (edited July 03, 2002).]

No one should get immunity from crime, no matter their nationality. No matter what their country do. What the US want is to let its soldiers rape and use prostitutes in the countries they are 'helping' the immunity is in many ways wanted because alot of the UN soldiers have been acting like occupying forces in the nations they have been stationed treating local people like **** and taking advantage of them. Quite a few british soldiers are at a risk for getting prosecuted for crimes they have done in Bosnia. This is what the US dont want to happen to their soldiers. Mistakes are mistakes and should and will be viewed as such but crimes are still crimes and demanding immunity is freakish in my eyes.

Is that really what the US wants? Really?

The US has not said they should not be held accountable for war crimes. The issue is that the US does not want to join the world court. If it joins the world court, it would want immunity. What does this mean? That we would try our own soldiers and diplomats in the case where they commited a crime.
Considering the ridiculous amount of anti-American rhetoric spouted here from the citizens of other nations, it is not surprising that the US doesn't want to join.

Know that when i say 'war crimes' i don't mean the Evil rape, murderer, torture ones (I doubt any civilised trained soldier would do that these days) i meant accidents like when missles hit villages or civilians are neutralised because they were thought to be enemy.

Know that when i say 'war crimes' i don't mean the Evil rape, murderer, torture ones (I doubt any civilised trained soldier would do that these days)

Civilised trained soldier?
When your family, your loved ones, your friends, your mates are killed by the enemy, you're in the middle of a foreign land with bullets flying over your head, NOTHING counts for anything anymore. Rape, murder, torture, NOTHING.
Spare me this we are all civilised people bull.

I don't believe that our soldiers should get immunity from the UN war crimes.

But...
Why is it that the US is expected to supply the vast majority of the troops sent to problem areas? Why are our soldiers expected to be sent to dangerous areas when we could simply keep them for homeland defence?

Think about it. Of coarse we are going to have more crimes than any other countries because we keep the majority of the garrisons.

(I doubt any civilised trained soldier would do that these days)

I know about some Belgian soldiers on an UN mission who roasted a Somalian kid because they thought that the kid had stolen something from their base and they wanted hime to confess. Seems a hell of a lot like torture to me. They also locked another kid up in a container without water or food to find him dead, after 2 days. They never got convicted.

ps this happened in 1995

I do agree with you, Z-Layrex about the 'missile hit village' accident. It's impossible to prevent all accidents from happening.

It's interesting how many americans bring up this argument, that each country should settle their own problems, and that a world court is not needed... Does that mean you oppose the trial of Milosevic and other war criminals in Haag? Because essentially we're talking the same thing, and in that case, the US in fact shut down all their foreign aid to the serbs, essentially forcing them to give up milosevic.

If you read up on international politics, you find that it's a dirty, dirty game. There are no rules, the strongest survive, and may then even choose to prosecute the loser to justify their victory. Of course, in Milosevic's case, it was probably a good call to prosecute him, since he does seem to be involved in war crimes, but what if an american general commited a similar crime? Would he be trialed? Obviously not, because noone in the world can force the US to do anything. The strongest survive, and make the rules.

So, it's pretty clear that a good thing to have would be an international set of laws apart from the Geneva convention, who is largely ignored by for example Israelian forces as we speak. And in order for a court to be effective, it needs to have the right to punish those who it finds guilty. It's pretty basic. And of course, that means intruding on each country's own agendas. Essentially everyone would need to sign a contract and agree to give some of the power over to this court. That's sort of the reason why such a court hasn't been installed yet, even though the idea has existed since WW1.

In a court, everyone is equal. That's exactly what the US and the UK are trying to barter with, they want special rights for the citizens of their country. It doesn't matter if they have done the world great services or not, everyone has to be equal in the eyes of the law. Anything else would be like not prosecuting a police who beats up his wife, because he's out in the streets all day, fighting crime. Noone can ever earn to be excepted from the legal system. If this court is based on such a weak compromise as the one that the UK and US now propose, it will soon be as weak and useless as the UN has become.

Just think about it, will Syria and Iran feel like signing up for this court, knowing that the US and UK can do things like this? No they won't. This court would have to be based on a wide agreement between as many nations as possible, and that means that the US and the UK will have to adjust to the majority, perhaps for the first time ever.

Considering the ridiculous amount of anti-American rhetoric spouted here from the citizens of other nations, it is not surprising that the US doesn't want to join.


Maybe its for a reason?


When your family, your loved ones, your friends, your mates are killed by the enemy, you're in the middle of a foreign land with bullets flying over your head, NOTHING counts for anything anymore. Rape, murder, torture, NOTHING.


Ok so you in the middle of nowhere, bullets flying about your head, your alowed to beat a defensless woman, (yes most people are defensless against 3 or 4 trained soliders) then gang rape her till she dies? nothing is an escuse for that. Or are we saying Hitler had a hard life and it was war so nothing counts for anything?


Why is it that the US is expected to supply the vast majority of the troops sent to problem areas? Why are our soldiers expected to be sent to dangerous areas when we could simply keep them for homeland defence?


Because the USA has already tried doing that, remember in the 1930's after the depresion, and what happened oh yes WW2 and the cold war, and seeing as President Bush doesnt seem the brightest blub in the box I honestly fear somthing similar will happen again, I mean he goes around ripping up nuclear arms treatys like he was elected by a landside and is totaly immune to all sorts of attack.

And I do agree with idoru you have got it right, who ever has the largest military might makes the rules, the only reason the USA havent made every contry on earth basically work for them is the fact we could still give them a bloody nose. The UK might not have the Man power or the Armed forces of the USA but we have enough weapons of mass destruction to cause major damage so the USA ummm staying in its place and slowly pushing.

[/rant]

[This message has been edited by Mr Writer (edited July 04, 2002).]

The UK, in fact, has no problem with the international criminal court, so the only (major) player who is against the court is the US.
The problem appears to be that the US does not want to surrender any control over their soldiers in any way, rather than a particular fear of politically motivated prosecutions; the US currently has 35 troops serving in UN missions (almost all of its troops in peacekeeping/peace-enforcing missions are serving in US- or NATO-led missions).
America has not said that the court is a bad idea, merely that its troops should not be subject to it; but why should there be one law for America and one for everyone else?

Hmmm reminds me of some footage I saw not long ago, policeman kicking a man whos leg was borken and threatening to run him over...

were they proceuted, was there a huge public inquirey? no the news story just faded away.

I get a real kick out of the fact that people who don't live there or have never been seem to think of the U.S.A. as a single person...a big bully who only speaks English and chews with his mouth open.

The fact of the matter is that the U.S. consists of ~270 million individual souls. They go shopping. They watch movies. And, just like everywhere else, their politics are local. I think it perfectly legitimate to withhold aid money to get what you want, just like Mom used to cut off my allowance if I acted up. It was her money. And if I complained? "Get a job."

Every time something like Kyoto or the World Court pops up, everbody gets their knickers in a twist if the U.S. doesn't want to "sign on." The problem isn't, however, that the U.S. won't "sign on." "Signing on" is a thinly veiled euphemism for "Please pay for it, America."

I am not American, as it happens, and I wince every time I hear someone refer to the president of that nation-state as "the leader of the free world." I also think it inexcusable that at least two weddings in Afghanistan have been bombed out over a misunderstanding. (If you're going to bomb a village, you'd better make damn sure there are only bad guys there, IMO.)

But I don't recall the U.S. ever telling the world that they weren't allowed to implement Kyoto or the WC. They just said they wouldn't participate. And why not? Kyoto is a nice idea, but the treaty is irreparably flawed. And with all the anti-American venom coming from every corner of the globe, you can bet your bottom dollar that it would be used by weaker nation-states for political ends.

Not that it matters, really. A WC without the US would have no teeth, and no one would take it seriously.

I just wish everybody would quit regurgitating the propaganda from their local papers, go to the U.S. and sit next to an old guy in a diner and join him for flapjacks and coffee. The U.S. might surprise you.

I have been to America many times and loved in Gonzago. The people were mostly all nice. Lot's of large, well built buildings. Alot of policemen, one unit let me sit in the car when i was 6. I love it and hope to go again soon. My whle point was to let US soldiers have immunity from the UN from accidents. If some American soldiers commit a crime, the USA WILL deal with them, they're hardly gonna say fine go take a shower. That's what my point was, with American soldiers doing so much peace keeping then they DESERVE immunity. And i think the UK is wrong to get all skirty with the government for it too.

Gonzago and Z-Layrex, this topic isnt at all about USA bashing. It is about a nation wanting to stand above the law. A law that everyone else agrees to, so that all the soldiers that have been on a mission gets the same treatment. The reason I feel a bit of a resentment against the US *goverment* in this question is the sheer arrogance to demand that your own citizens doesnt have to abide by the same laws that they expect others to do. Idoru's post is very accurate. All to often USA gets mentioned in the same sentence as China, Iraque, Iran etc as a nation that refuse to international treatys that all democracies in the world agrees on except them. Is that really a company that the US wants to associated with? The comment about paying is just so silly that I wont even deign to comment on it.

Oh I would like to add that in this topic it is the 'pro' US people that have turned this into an 'anti' vs 'pro' US topic. It had nothing to do with that.

Before this discussion quickly degrades into another "us versus them" debacle, some distinctions need to be made. (Disclaimer: I *am* a citizen of the United States. I also have the uncommon distinction to hold both US and Canadian citizenship by birth and have lived and travelled throughout the US and Canada).

First off, the United Nations and NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization, for those who may not know) are two entirely different organisations, with different mandates and membership. That being said, there is a very big difference between a UN peacekeeping force and NATO armed forces. Whereas a UN peacekeeping force is made up of troops from *voluntary* countries, NATO armed forces are designated troops assigned directly to NATO by *obligation* of the member countries.

In addition, UN peacekeepers are typically sent into a an area *after* a conflict has occured (rarely during) in order to help keep the peace, to police the opposing sides during a cease-fire or truce situation, or to uphold some form of order where there is no recongnisable governing body. NATO forces enter into an existing or ongoing conflict, usually in support of (or at least against) one of the opposing sides. This is usually the case, but by no means always the case. The main difference here is that NATO's number one priority is always the defense of it's member countries through military means. In contrast, UN peacekeeping missions are based on 'humanitarian' priorities, and once assigned, are answerable to the UN governing body (mostly the UN Security Council).

In recent years, there has been a growing coordination of efforts between NATO and the UN. For the most part, this has meant NATO troops entering into a conflict to forcefully bring about a resolution. Once the conflict has subsided (through treaty, truce, cease-fire or NATO control of occupied territory), there is usually a transition from NATO forces to UN peacekeepers.

Finally, whereas NATO forces are predominantly made up of US troops, UN peacekeepers are predominantly *not*. Most peacekeepers come from Britain, France, Belgium, Canada, Australia and other UN member countries. (The composition of most UN peacekeeping forces is quite striking when you look at the relative numbers from smaller countries such as Canada, Belgium and Australia.) Therefore, the US is generally not considered a 'peacekeeper', something which the US government (at least in past) has adhered to and in fact avoids becoming involved in. That is a *very* important distinction to make in this discussion. One of the primary reasons for this is that UN peacekeepers are answerable to the UN governing body, not to NATO, and the US does not like the idea of handing over control of even small portions of its military to members that are decidedly anti-US.

(whew! /me stops to take a breath....)

Secondly, there is a major difference between War Crimes and 'accidents' that occur in the field (including friendly-fire incidents, or bombing of civilians). No war-time 'accident' has ever been considered a War Crime, nor should it. War Crimes are intentional (key word) and blatant (another key word) acts commited by a party during a time of war or conflict that are in contravention to the laws of war (i.e., the Geneva Convention), or considered to be 'inhumane'. The most obvious and famous examples are the Nuremberg Trials, during which the Allies (the US, France, Great Britain, and the USSR) agreed to try Axis (German, Italian and Japanese) war criminals, both civilian and criminal. Another less well-known example is the trial and conviction of Lt. William Calley for ordering and carrying out the slaughter of 347 Vietnamese civilians (men, women and children) during the Vietnam War. In this case, Lt. Calley was tried and convicted solely by the US military. And of course, there is now the case of Melosovic et al.

Now with all that being said, no country's troops (regardless of their involvement in international events, however distinctive or dubious) should be considered 'immune' from War Crimes. There simply is no acceptable reason or justification for it. I especially think this is true of the US *because* of their extensive military involvement throughout the world.

However, I think it would also be unacceptable to have a War Crimes Tribunial that is answerable to all, or even most, of the UN member countries. Most of the countries that belong to the UN use their membership as a shield for themselves, arguing against the 'attrocities' and 'injustices' of other countries while commiting the same or similar acts.

The most reasonable and effective method would be to use only un-biased, third parties for a war crimes tribunial. An impartial arbitrator should be assigned, which does not have any interest in the outcome of the trial other than to see justice carried out. Prior to the attrocities of the second world war, few would have believed that such events could have occured. Most military powers saw fit to allow each other power to be answerable to itself, and that they would all abide by the rules of war and act accordingly. We all know how that changed afterwards. Just because you don't believe that a given power would act in the same, or a similar manner, whether it's your own country or not, at this point in time, the future is *never* certain. The only effective and justifiable recourse is to involve outside, unbiased arbitrators, *and* to grant them the power to enforce the law.

(My apologies for the extreme length of this post - trying to be as clear and unhostile as possible :) )

[This message has been edited by Gnolyn Lochbreaker (edited July 04, 2002).]

I would just like to add that it is very interesting to read this thread, every poster had made a different addition to the puzzle, pointing out different facts and making the image clearer and clearer. This is a damned good thread if we can keep it at this level.


Gnolyn, where you would you find objective arbitraries? Will be hard.

Actually, I don't believe it's hard to find objective arbitrators. I think the hard part is getting agreement on them. And by objective, I don't necessarily mean from a neutral country. Individuals are known for their objectivity more so than countries are, but both would have to be considered. The Nuremberg trials, for example, used judges from the various Allied countries, all of whom were apparently quite distinquished and accomplished judges in their own right.

I am from Sweden and Sweden and swedes have a long history and a good reputation as arbitrary diplomats and negotiators, perhaps more so than any other nation in the world but I still think that Sweden wouldnt be a good choice for arbitrary judgment. My vote would go for normal lawyers and prosecutors that gets an assignment with a rolling schedule. Perhaps a bit like american jury duty, they get called up for international duty.

"And I do agree with idoru you have got it right, who ever has the largest military might makes the rules, the only reason the USA havent made every contry on earth basically work for them is the fact we could still give them a bloody nose. The UK might not have the Man power or the Armed forces of the USA but we have enough weapons of mass destruction to cause major damage so the USA ummm staying in its place and slowly pushing."

see joaquin, there was an America bashing post in this thread. Granted, it's the only one I saw, but still. You're right though, other than that it is all fairly high-level.

Mr Writer, what Arkados meant was that people fighting a war typically feel less inhibition towards murder, rape, et al, and are capable of doing things most people consider horrible. Living with the knowledge that there are hundreds of thousands of people out there doing their best to kill you every day probably has a pretty detrimental effect on most people's minds.

Once again we see people falling into the "US wants to be above The Law" trap.

The World Court is not "The Law." The U.S, for example, already has laws of military and war conduct.

The World Court is a farcical concept that would create the ridiculous idea of government-appointed officials from, for example, Libya in the position of judging British soldiers. Considering the radically different concepts of justice in the two countries, I find it surprising that anyone is willing to join the WC.

Oh, and modern, civilized soldiers have and do rape and murder civilians in lands they occupy. The U.S. already prosecutes them under military law, which is far more strict than our civilian code (although civilian code also applies to the military).

To cast this as an attempt by the U.S. to let our soldiers rape and murder wantonly is simply childish emotionalism, joacqin. You should be above that.

And how exactly would we be able to fight the war on terrorism, i.e. defending our country, if the WC existed? Considering how quick everyone here is to believe that we bombed a wedding party, it's hard to believe that we'd be able to do ANYTHING without some twit in western Europe starting an inquiry and forcing us to document to the UN things that we already know. Much better to tell the UN to go screw and then go about the business of defending our country. Otherwise the Frenchmen are going to sue under WC auspices every time a Muslim catches a cold. If you think this is an unreasonable statement, then you haven't been paying attention to French foreign policy.

[Edited to add: Oh, and as for the U.S. bombing weddings, they just found active anti-aircraft guns in the town. So much for "wedding traditions."]

[This message has been edited by Shralp (edited July 05, 2002).]

Fireworks Shralp! I promise! You cant have a wedding without fireworks ;)

I didnt mean it like they wanted their soldiers to go on a rampage, I just meant that it is easily viewed like that and that different rules apply to different nations. How come that all other nations except the US wants to put the ICC in action Shralp? Dont you think that there is a difference between the view of justice in the UK and Libya too? Not to mention the radical view between the US and the scandinavian nations. I dont know the details but I dont think it is planned that a libyan ismalistic fanatic is going to preside over US soldiers that have beaten up some thieving kid somewhere.

joacqin, you said:

What the US want is to let its soldiers rape and use prostitutes in the countries they are 'helping'

Bad, bad joacqin.

And, yes, the WC (or ICC) would be made up of an international group, and there can be no rationale for not letting backwards countries like Syria make up the court because they have already been voted into the Human Rights Commission! That fact alone makes the UN a laughable organization. How supremely absurd. And that idiotic commission (committee?) has already wasted resource looking into the application of the U.S. death penalty instead of, oh, I don't know... how about female genital mutilation in east Africa? How about the continuing practice of government-sponsored torture in the Middle East? How about NGO's bribing men and women into sterilizing themselves (often withour the full knowledge that it is an irreversible procedure) in India? Noooooo. That vaunted protector of human rights has instead decided to investigate the U.S. Good thinking there. Really inspires confidence.

So Shralp you put the US on the same level as nations that condone genital mutilation, middle eastern nations that torture their prisoners? Isnt the US a democracy? A country on which we can have a bit higher demands than tribal societies in eastern Africa? The deathpenalty is wrong, there are NO, none at all justification of it. All other western democracies has abolished it. Why do the US still practice it? IMO we can have higher demands on the US than on less developed nations. Dont you think so Shralp?

Never thought I'd live to see the day Shralp had nothing funny to say. ;)

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I understand the WC's jurisdiction will *only* apply to signatories, of which at present there are about 70. I don't recall Iraq being included among them. What this means is that a host of countries will be "above the law," at any rate *that* law. As usual, of course, as was the case in Nuremburg and the Milosevic trial, any truly useful WC will be created on an ad hoc basis, backed by the military powers that be. I can't see even the French letting Hussein off the hook just because the WC has no jurisdiction over him.

And you've only got to put the question to a handful of Okinawans if you want to know if American soldiers rape and kill. They do. And then they're severely punished for it by, as Shralp noted, military justice.

Obviously, some of you guys are anti-america in this thread... Of that there is no doubt, and are putting irrational situations in circulation. (such as that our military would let our own war crimes criminals go without a trial or justice at all.)

Further more, I seriously doubt that the WC would be working correctly next year if it were to be put into comission right this moment. (A guy called Sadam Husein(spelling?) comes to mind) If there were to be treaties between two (or more) governments, do you think that those governments would seriously allow for thier reps. to acuse the other of a crime for fear of retribution? (espesially if the treaty were to a world power or a known terrorist funding nation) No, of course not.

If you ask me, human nature would take control of nearly every trial brought to the court.(the instinct to protect your own hide)

There are simply to many weak points in this court, IMHO.

The death penalty is wrong? So it's great that a serial murderer is fed, clothed, entertained, educated on the finer arts of killing from the other murderers, is given weight training facilities to make him more brutal and gets conjugal visits from his girlfriend all on my dime. Yep, sounds great to me.

Come on BTA, it's not really a new story but I will cheerfully tell it again: All the privileges for criminals - like fair trial, food and jail instead of death penalty are there just in case that someone was accidentally innocent. So simple. And I heared that isn't at all so rare - telling tales about quality of law enforcement and fairness of a jury trial (when a poor black convict can't aford a proper attorney).

However, that is not the point of this thread. The point is the relationship US-international law, and the Hague the tribunal and war crimes.

I think some of the posters are missing the point.
<LI>First of all, there is a law every country has to obey to: international law. Per se international law is of superior rank than national law - even though Shralp might not like to hear so. Some people in germany also don't like european law to be of higher rank than german constitutional law - however, that does not change the fact it is. And this rule also applies for an international court. But as usual with international law, the US are only in the club when they sign the treaty. As long as they don't they are fine on their own.

<LI>Second, I think the point is also not that the world has to fear US soldiers roam the world to rape and exercise war crimes in general. They don't. As some of the posters above said, the major point would be tht some of the accidents like missing the target or maybe the use of particular weapons (like maybe cluster munitions) would be the subject of a trial at the international court. The fear that good glorious and innocent US boys would be judged by sinister judges from "rogue states" is, in a word, moronic. At the court will rather be judges from "neutral" countries such as switzerland, sweden, canada and other troubled regions known for their deep hatred for the western world in general and the US especially :rolleyes:

IMO the major problem for the US is the way they do their politics. The US regularly use military force as a tool of their external politics. To deal with some problems the US are focussed on expeditionary warefare, which (unfortunately) sometimes seems to be the only way to deal with countries persistently ignoring international law. It may also be needed to enforce prosecution of dangerous folk in "failed states" without a functioning government at all - like afganistan or maybe somalia.

The US need public support to undertake such operations. I think the major concern of the US is not so much the fear to be accused of war crimes by some retard country. Accuses of US soldiers eating babies would be easily dealt with. Looking back to the vietnam war it maybe becomes clearer what the US troble with the court is about. Though military defeated the north vietnamese made it a political victory - only possible after the loss of public support in the US. This reliance on public support is the reason of the general attempt to achieve media control in the recent wars.

So I think what the US really fear is the possibility that beeing accused at the international warcrimes tribunal would result in them loosing a political-military option, the use of force in general. Maybe coupled with a fear that a less resolute (maybe smarter) and liberal US president might be afraid of the consequences of beeing accused at that court - and maybe favouring not-acting to a risky active policy.
The risk of the court for the US is not so much the actual practice of use of military force by US forces. The US fear to loose the public support for their way of crisis management as a result of a judgement or even just a trial at the Hague tribunal.

I personally think the US are bound to international law - as any other country is. Yes, of course there are rogues who don't do that but that has never been a reason not to obey to the law (I like to imagine a thief in trial claiming for his defence that plenty of other people steal too - uncaught! :rolleyes: ). The major problem of the US ignoring international law is that: How can they honestly claim that Iraq violates international law (which is a fact) while (which is another fact) ignoring the same principles of international law- such as the monopoly of force of the UN?
Given US soldiers would commit a war-crime (**** happens) they are better accused at an international court than at an internal US court. Especially since then no one would have a reason to accuse the US to hush up anything.

[This message has been edited by Ragusa (edited July 06, 2002).]

that is a very interesting post, and a good premise that International Law supercedes other laws. However, I don't believe that is the case concerning the US Constitution. The preseident is not allowed to make treaties that supercede the constitution, and that would include any court that did not permit a US citizen to make full use of his constitutionally guaranteed rights(though I suspect such rights are different for military personnel, but I don't have the details).

Need an example? At the war crimes tribunal in the Hague, the European judges attempted to subpeona a US journalist regarding his conversations with Milosovic, forcing him to incriminate the despot. While the motives are good, this is a violation of the first amendment's freedom for the press, who are not required to disclose sources in the US. The reporter refused to appear, and the US government won't make him do it either.

The point about a president signing treaties and the senate not agreeing with it is so: irrelevant for international law. When a president has obliged to do something by signing a treaty, it is a countries problem when it is unable to ratify it. However, it is mildened for the US since they are not affected by a treaty as long as it's not ratified. But the US diplomats will have a hard time to pick up the pieces of broken porcellaine.
That was the point with the Kyoto-protocol: You make a bad, unreliable partner out of your country when you ignore obligations made by the last government - for what ever reasons, in this particular case iirc the american way of life with the inherent right to waste nature for jobs. Mind, trees don't vote :rolleyes:

But this was most certainly :yot:

[This message has been edited by Ragusa (edited July 06, 2002).]

I believe that the rules for which soldiers may be called up in front of the ICC are:

- Any country may submit that a soldier from a signatory country should be called up

- A signatory country may submit that any soldier fighting on that country's territory should be called up.

So it would therefore be possible, if the ICC was established, for a US soldier to be indicted without the US having signed the treaty to establish the court.

Wow, Ragusa. I think this is a new record for you. Every single point in your last two posts was wrong.

First of all, there is a law every country has to obey to: international law.

Why do you say that? Who says that international law has any force whatsoever? And even if you can magically whip up some rationale for it, who is to say that the U.N. is the proper authority for international law? You Europeans might like to be sheep that bow to every international organization that comes along, but we don't.

The fear that good glorious and innocent US boys would be judged by sinister judges from "rogue states" is, in a word, moronic. At the court will rather be judges from "neutral" countries such as switzerland, sweden, canada and other

Really? Please provide some citations for your wild claims about the make-up of the ICC. The fact remains that the representatives on the ICC would be voted on by the ambassadors to the U.N. The same people, as I remind you again and again, who put Syria on the Human Rights Commission.

Oh, and your point about Iraq is ridiculous. We complain about them because they signed a treaty agreeing to allow U.N. weapons inspectors in. They have since violated that treaty. The U.S. has never signed a treaty agreeing to let the U.N. over-rule our national law. Nor will we, despite the best efforts of Euro-whiners who want some forum to control the U.S. under the guise of "holding American accountable."

The point about a president signing treaties and the senate not agreeing with it is so: irrelevant for international law. When a president has obliged to do something by signing a treaty, it is a countries problem when it is unable to ratify it.

Absolutely not. You might live in a monarchy in which a single individual has the power to create an obligation for the entire nation on a whim (FYI, you do not), but the U.S. not such a nation. We do not give the President authority to commit us to international treaties without the consent of Congress.

That was the point with the Kyoto-protocol: You make a bad, unreliable partner out of your country when you ignore obligations made by the last government

Heh. Again, we were never obliged to the Kyoto treaty. Actually, neither were you. Nor were tons of other states who refused to sign off on it. One person signed it: Bill Clinton. No Senator ever voted for it.

ok, i know that usa have done MANY really stupid things, but this could be the worst (almost), imunity for the soldiers, are ye they totaly ****ed up? I would never alow it.

Are ye totally clueless? Apparently. Read about it in the news, ignore the rhetoric hear.
The USA is NOT demanding immunity for war crimes. The USA is reserving the right to try our own soldiers for war crimes.

Jack Funk, as usual the news reporting is very different in different parts of the world. All we hear here in Sweden is about the US refusing to sign a treaty that everyone else signs, media gives the impression that the US wants to be above a law that they themselves support for others.
Apparantly the news in the US are very different, I would think that the truth is somewhere in between.

Though America is not obliged to wear this particular leash -- and there are good reasons why we should not -- I wonder if the one and only reason to do so does not trump all.

Is it really in our national interest to be seen as holding ourselves apart from the community of nations? We are large, we are strong, ripples from Wall Street are felt in the furthest corners of the world, and if we do not hold the moral high ground, there are few with the right to cast stones. No one can make us do anything. But by participating, could we not help to form a world consensus on acceptable conduct during war, and larger issues of human rights, much more effectively than our current method of diplomacy by fiat? Real dialogue can only occur where participants agree to be bound by the same rules. By agreeing to be part of the ICC, we would be in a much better position to ask for changes in other nations couched in the terms to which we have all agreed -- like treatment of political prisoners, like female genital mutilation. It seems like a small thing to do for world citizenship -- when one considers that neither the U.S. nor anyone else has held itself bound by a treaty that turned out to be unfairly applied.

Your post was great, I think that you have struck the head on the spike Methylviolet. The US are the boss, they should set good examples.

Thanks, joacquin -- apparently I was so unanswerably brilliant that I get the last word.

Infidels fall before my mighty rhetoric.

As for the ICC I can only fully and whole-heartedly agree with Methylviolet.

Some points seemed to need some further explanation: The point is that some people, like Shralp, don't understand that international law is not there to boss-around the USA :nono: - the mentioning of higher rank of international law may trouble up your belly but there is no reason for foam at the mouth or fear of foreign domination.

A little example:
The fictive banana republic Moronia signs a treaty with the USA, with the USA agreeing to give a credit of $ 50.000.000 to Moronia. After the treaty is signed and the USA have sent over the money, the moronian parliament decides that it doesn't like the treaty and doesn't ratify it. More, the mornonians make a national law that the money does not only not have to be paid back, more, it allows to confiscate american property in Moronia ...

Or how about a human rights treaty between Moronia and the USA? After the treaty declaring Moronia fully agrees that they respect human rights and grant them to every Moronian they make a law saying that a moronian in the sense of the treaty earns more than $ 500.000 a year.

Where do you end up with a higher or just equal rank of national law? It just doesn't work. There wouldn't really be a point in making treaties if international law would step back before national law.

When you accept the thought of a higher rank of international law you can perhaps understand how an international court works.

It gives an alternative other than war when negotiations fail. Given there is a border conflict between Moronia and the USA. There are two choices for both countries:
<LI>war with the effect that the stronger country gets what it wants, maybe more or
<LI>both parties agree to go to the UN international court ( which is not the ICC btw, it's one of the proven institutions of the UN no one in the USA have ever seems to have heared of) to get the dispute settled. This has prevented a couple of wars because of border conflucts in the last 50 years. Because of another rule (as I'll point out later) both parties have to agree the court is responsible.

One of the fundamental general principles of international law is the equality of nations: That means that the USA and Switzerland, and Iraq and Lybia meet each other on the same level. Or are the USA *more equal* ?

And this shows what international law is about: Cooperation and not domination. It's there to avoid war and the rule of stronger countries over smaller, less potent countries. When the USA see a problem with other countries restricting their overall possibilities by treaties they overlooking that the other countries meet the same restrictions.

These restrictions are for example another basic principle of international law that permits agression. When Iraq invaded Kuwait it violated that rule, just as NATO (including germany) and the US violated that rule when bombing Serbia during operation Allied Force - since that happened without mandate of the UN it was an agression (agression = no self-defence, no prevention of an attack, and there is no international rule that allows to bomb other countries because they slaughter their minorities. Unsatisfying, but that's internal stuff, irrelevant to international law - until the UN security council decides different).
Shralp, that was what I meant with USA and Iraq violating the same prinicples of international law like Iraq.

And if anyone has wondered why it isn't so easy to throw over countries with inhuman/ criminal governments like Iraq or North Korea, the reason is that you just don't throw over foreign governments - even if you dislike them with good reasons. Eventually they are equals. And that's why both parties have to agree to the jurisdiction of the court - they are equals.
Maybe that's why the US dislike the UN: The other 5 permanent members have the same de-facto veto right than the US. A pity that other countries have national interests too.

And wonder why the US hesitate or are even unwilling to sign the ICC charta Shralp?

Would the US national law be of higher rank they wouldn't need to worry about anything, right? Or should there really be an obligation when you sign an international treaty and ratify it?

Now back to the ICC and to my country Moronia:
The moronians don't agree to the ICC statute claiming that their national courts and laws are more that sufficient to deal with warcrimes commited by their military. And then the moronian parliament makes a law that gives an amnesty for slaughtering dissidents (doesn't that smell a little chilean?).
And when international protest comes up the moronians just refer to their national law and that everything has been strictly legal.

Not that the USA are like Moronia, however IMO the jurisdiction for such crimes is much better placed in the hands of the ICC.

To exaggerate it: International law is there to boss around everyone - consensually - for the sake of peace, and in case of the ICC, for the sake of human rights.

[This message has been edited by Ragusa (edited July 09, 2002).]

The answer to your rhetorical power ( :1eye: ) is that the important goal of setting a good example is insufficient for the amount of national sovereignty we would give up, Violet.

Now back to Ragusa:

Some points seemed to need some further explanation: The point is that some people, like Shralp, don't understand that international law is not there to boss-around the USA

LOL. Riiiight. Then why do you care so much about the US signing on? Isn't it more important to get habitual defenders?

After the treaty is signed and the USA have sent over the money, the moronian parliament decides that it doesn't like the treaty and doesn't ratify it.

Again you have difficulty understanding the division of power in a government. We no send money before treaty legal. Treaty no legal until ratified. If treaty ratified and no honored, USA have other options than UN kangaroo court. Bork bork bork.

There wouldn't really be a point in making treaties if international law would step back before national law.

Treaties cover things that national law does not. The ICC wants to take over that and a whole lot more. In the founding documents they even go so far as to insert "forced pregnancy" as a war crime. This doesn't refer to rape. This refers to refusing to provide abortion. Does this strike you as an appropriate use of your noble ICC?

I'm glad you understand that the UN organizations are not the same as the ICC. And since it seems to do its job fairly well in the case of border disputes, let's just keep it operating and drop the silly ICC idea.

And this shows what international law is about: Cooperation and not domination.

That's very idealistic of you. If, in fact, the UN helped bring people together in some sort of agreement -- as it sometimes does -- then great. But the reality of the situation is that you invariably get a few nations -- often including the US -- trying to impose their will on the others. The UN conference on women was a typical example, as the western countries tried to force a redefinition of gender as male, female, male living as female, female living as male, and transgendered.

When Iraq invaded Kuwait it violated that rule, just as NATO (including germany) and the US violated that rule when bombing Serbia during operation Allied Force

What rule? The "no fighting unless the UN says it's ok" rule? That's silly. We can't wait for the UN to say everything is ok, because the reality of the situation is that a LOT of the UN member nations will vote against any act of aggression. And it only takes one of the permanent members of the security council to use its veto priveleges.

Or should there really be an obligation when you sign an international treaty and ratify it?

Uh, duh. According to our legal system, once ratified a treaty has the same legal force as our Constitution.

And as for your example of Moronians killing their own citizens: the solution is for NATO, a group like it, or any single country or combination of countries to take action. The solution is not to wait for a beauracracy to get off its butt and pass a nice little resolution saying that suddenly now it's ok to defend the innocents.

You would have had NATO sit on its hands while people were being slaughtered -- all in the name of your precious international law. Screw that. That's not just logically wrong; it's immoral.

Nontheless your course of actionism is illegal. Without the conditions I named in my post it remains an agression to bomb other countries without UN mandate. That's a fact and the sad truth. You may like it or not.

As for the ICC, there is no doubt about the fact the US are about the most powerful country today ... without them signing the ICC treaty this new court will have an inherent weakness. That's what doomed the post WW-I League of Nations. Btw, an idea of another president whose call asn't understood in the US, Woodrow Wilson.

Besides, the example about the credit for Moronia was more about the impossibility to override an international treaty with a national law. The procedures of the US giving money are kinda irrelevant for the example, but alas, I should have guessed that :rolleyes: The next time the treaty is ratified, the money is sent over already and the the Moronians make their funny law, oh what a difference :rolleyes: Bork, bork ?!

To clear a few things up about the UN and illegal agression here. Every nation that has joined the UN has agreed on not to attack another memberstate unless they attack first or general consensus can be achieved within the UN. They have also sworn to protect eachother from the agression of other nations. Iraq attacks Kuwait, bam! Everyone gangs up on Iraq. The idea with the UN worked. This is the general idea with the UN, I dont know the exact wordings of the treaties but this is what the UN is basicly about. Nations joining together promising not to take military action against eachother. If this had been followed with the case of Serbia/Kosovo all non-NATO nations that are part of the UN should have attacked the NATO nations or atleast protected Serbia, of course that would never happen as the UN is mostly a tool of the western world and it wouldnt have been very logical. But it was still against the UN charter, no matter how right or nescessary it might have been.
I cant understand what it is that many americans have against the UN, it is a great thought and even though it has alot of faults atleast it makes the nations of the world to talk to eachother and try to work out their differences. We humans have a tendency to go to war for the silliest reasons, if the UN can help in any way at all to stop that they have justified their existance.

Admittedly, this is somewhat of a knee-jerk reaction here, Joacqin, but let me put forth an example for you:

Here's your house in the middle of the street. A few doors down is another house with neighbors you don't really get along with, but, by and large, nothing major happens. Right next door to you is my house. I also happen to be the richest person in the neighborhood (ok...I'm dreaming - sue me :) ), who also has access to a personal security force (prior military folks...well-versed in the use of various weaponry). I also happen to throw great parties that everyone is invited to, usually paying out of my own pocket, because, for the most part, I'm a good-natured guy who likes most people. Hell, when you needed that new hot-water heater, I even gave one to you. And Jones, down the street, well, his old Plymouth Horizon was acting up, so I gave him an interest-free loan that he only made a few payments on. Oh, well...no big deal...I'll just take it out of my own kids' allowance.

Now just a few blocks away is the police department (their people are volunteers from around the neighborhood, usually not much military training), but they need verification and the agreement of all neighbors to act on any alleged crime occurring in our neighborhood.

As stated above, everyone on the street more or less gets along...a few minor squabbles about balls in other people's yards, my dog chews up your rosebushes, whatever. Then one day, that neighbor down the street whom you don't really like decides to break into your house and steal something, only there's really nothing there that they want to steal, but your wife and kids are there. "Well," they think, "Since there's nothing to steal, let's just rape the wife, torture the kids, then burn the house."

I see this happening, and so do all the other neighbors, except a couple who are not quite as rich or powerful as me, and are on friendly terms with the ones tearing your family and home to shreds. So, I first do my neighborly duty and call the police. The police then proceed to call every single house in the neighborhood to verify and confirm that there is indeed a crime occurring. Everbody looks out their windows and says "Yep....sure is. (insert rather graphic descriptions of torture and rape)."

All except one neighbor.

Well...the cops can't come out because the entire neighborhood is not unanimous in their view of a crime being committed. So a neighborhood meeting is scheduled for a few days hence (the cops are busy after all), where everyone can sit down and discuss whether a crime is being committed or not.

Meanwhile, the screams from next door are keeping me awake at night, and I've got to get up early for work in the morning. Finally, one particularly terrible scream pierces everything, and I decide enough is enough. Screw the cops, screw the neighbors - I'm gonna do something about this.

So, I send over my security force (who have more than enough firepower to take care of anyone (and I do mean ANYONE) on the street, and they take care of the problem. No more torturers, rapists, or arsonists. The members of your family that are still alive are now safe, because I leave a few security personnel to make sure they stay that way. Everything is just fine and dandy in the world, right?

Wrong. Now I'm getting all kinds of flak from everyone else because I didn't wait for the neighborhood, or the cops, to give me permission to go in and "clean house". Never mind that I kept things from getting worse, or possibly spreading. Never mind that I was trying to be a good neighbor. Never mind that I DIDN'T ASK FOR A REWARD IN RETURN. No, I'm getting bashed for going in without permission.

Okay, before anyone says that the above means I'm all for the U.S. doing whatever it pleases, that's not true. In this case, it was a blatant crime being committed in the open for all to see. Had it been a crime that no one saw occur (mine own eyes are pretty convincing evidence to me), then the above scenario would have turned out much differently, and I would not have involved myself, except (maybe) after fully examining the available evidence.

Also, if the scenario above had been perpetrated by my own children, you'd better damn well believe that my punishment would be infinitely harsher than any the neighborhood would have come up with, especially since the neighborhood doesn't support the death penalty (and I do).

Frankly, half (I'm probably exaggerating, but I'm trying to make a point here) the countries in the world owe something to the U.S., and for the most part, we've let it slide. I'm sick and tired of all these countries *****ing at us for one thing or another, when most of the time we're trying to help out. Should we have stayed out of Kosovo? Technically yes. Morally...NO WAY IN HELL! America (collectively, not necessarily individually) believes in basic human rights - not basic American rights - but HUMAN rights. This applies to every human on the planet. We are shocked, saddened, and outraged at some of the things that go on in the world, and for the most part, we keep out of it, unless we are asked for help. Occasionally, we feel some atrocity is simply too much to just sit and endure, so we take action. Usually we mention something to whoever we're supposed to mention it to, that we would like to take some action on a matter, but we feel that there is only so much debating and discussion that can go on before something needs to be done. That is when we thumb our noses at whatever body we're supposed to report to and say "Screw it, we're going in."

And if you think for a minute that we're going to attack any country that disagrees with this, then you need to think again. There have been many countries that disagreed with our policies, and yet, they're still around. Sure, we're strong, and we flaunt it more than Muhammed Ali flaunted himself, but we really don't DO much with it. America could have turned Germany into the 51st (49th?) state at the end of WWII, but instead we left them to govern themselves. We've done the same many times now. We go in, we get the job done, we help out with reconstruction, we leave. No conditions - well except Japan and that "No Standing Army" rule, but I think that is an exception that, AT THE TIME, was warranted.

America isn't perfect...I'll be the first to admit that. We are a long way from perfect. But for me, it's the best place in the world to live (of course, I only have England to compare with, having spent three years there while in the Air Force).

The thing is, right now, Americe IS the most powerful nation in the world, and the most powerful are the ones who always get *****ed at. England in it's heyday was the same way. So was Rome, Egypt, and all the other empires and great civilizations throughout history.

Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose.

(My fingers hurt now)

Your post made me smile, MaxxQ -- I like your optimism, and your idealism. But if you can look at our great big diverse country, full of people with all different views on every conceivable subject, corrupt people, liars, saints, everyone ... and believe that we yet speak as one voice and do right as a nation -- WHY cannot you extend that faith to the larger community of nations? Could not all humanity maybe-just-maybe reach consensus?

And do you forget, neighbor, your other, less-than-neighborly actions in past? Actions that might make our other neighbors suspicious about what you *say* you saw next door?

Violet...you know what? I completely forgot about the main point of this thread....whether we should join the world court. I was so ticked about the America bashing and people saying we should do this or that, I forgot to put in my take on the matter. Well, I kind of alluded to it in the "my kids" paragraph. (read "my kids" as the citizens and military personnel of the U.S.).

But anyway, I agree with the idea of a world court, but I have problems with the implementation of it. It seems everyone wants the U.S. to be in it, with no special dispensations, which is fine. But that begs the question: if WE have to follow the rules, then shouldn't they? This "world court" seems to me to be nothing more than a glorified judicial arm of the UN, and we all know how effective the UN has been at enforcing it's own rulings. :rolleyes:

And no...I haven't forgotten our mistakes in the past. We've paid for them, although maybe not in tangible form. Countries hostile to us continually point them out, those who may have been neutral to us in the past may have slipped a bit over to the other side when we made those mistakes, thereby depriving us of some trade or other benefits. It happens...although that's really no excuse. You may say I'm idealistic and optomistic, but I'm also enough of a realist to know that what we do gets watched very closely by others looking for an opportunity to exploit a mistake or perceived weakness.

We're still a young country, and we're still experiencing growing pains. The sixties were our "terrible two's" (and with seven kids, I DEFINITELY know what I'm talking about here :eek: :shake: ), or maybe even the civil war. Would you allow your neighbors to punish your kids for a mistake they made, or do you think that should be up to you? I would have no problem with letting the various signatories punish their own people, provided a - forum is the word I'll use - of observers, observe the proceedings to insure that proceedures are being followed.

I DO think all humanity can eventually agree, on world matters, but there are many countries - the U.S. included - who are either too stubborn or too stupid to know when to give in. This planet is too small as it is, and getting smaller all the time, and soon there won't be any room for all the petty squabbles and such going on nowadays. If something isn't done to make the world more friendly, there ain't gonna be no world to get friendly in.

Unfortunately, I don't have a solution, I don't even have a glimpse of a glimmer of a solution. It will never happen in our lifetimes - unless a 250km asteroid going at 60,000kph decides it wants to get up close and personal with us - which to me is sad, because despite all the problems, this planet is a pretty decent place.

God....now I sound like a peacenik hippie from the sixties. Not bloody likely...after all, I volunteered for the Air Force - I was a bomb loader BTW (I didn't volunteer for that, but it was the job I was assigned, and I did it as best I could). However, I do believe that peaceful coexistence is better than violence, but violence is, regrettably, necessary in some cases.

I don't know if I answered your questions to your satisfaction, Violet. I hope I did, but I accept that maybe I didn't. I'll never make the claim of being the smartest nut in the tree, but I'd like to think my opinions are just as valid as anyone else's.

Short true story: While in England, the son of a full colonel at my base raped a British girl with a baseball bat and a spray can. When caught, he was tried and convicted in a military court martial (according to the UCMJ - Uniform Code of Military Justice), after which, he was turned over to the English authorities for his trial under THEIR laws.

So I know for a fact that the U.S. will hand over someone if they believe it's justified.

Another true story: My direct supervisor (in England) killed the driver of another car while driving under the influence. He also stood trial in the British courts - before going up against the military courts. If you ask me, he got off light at both trials. Lost his licence to drive in the UK for 6 months, and a few months pay. Granted, the driver he killed was more drunk than he was (this was attested to by the passengers in the other car, as well as a blood alcohol test), so that may be why he got off light. As far as I know, he's still in the AF.

(my fingers still hurt...)

Your post was very interesting and well written, but totally irreleveant to what I wrote MaxxQ. Your neighbourly help was illegal, no matter how right it was. No one attacked NATO after their Kosovo bombings were there? Of course not. But they did break the charter, I am not saying if it was right or wrong of them to do so. I am just pointing out that they did.

Oh well back to topic.
Again you miss the point MaxxQ, I do not believe that the US lets its criminials go without punishing them, there are nations that do though. That have neither the possibility nor the inclination to take them to justice it is for therse the ICC is created mainly. But, if we want to stand trial over serbian and iraqian war criminials and the like we have let our own people have the same treatment. Can we say that well, you you and you are subject to this court but we arent? Either everyone are the subject of the same laws and the same court or no one is, which leads as you can see to that alot of naughty soldiers and the like from less organised/developed/perhaps even axis of eeeeeeeevil never have to live by comman human laws and never to fear punishment.

I love how you Europeans are so eager to yell "illegal! illegal!" when something violates a U.N. mandate.

Do any of you have any education at all concerning the foundations of international law? What makes you think the U.N. has ANY authority at all over you? Just because it's an international organization? Do you just like bowing down before every group that comes across your path? What's the deal?

Maybe if you all took some pride in your countries you'd be less quick to give up national sovereignty. Although, considering some of the countries you're in, maybe it's understandable.

XOXO,

Ugly American

Shralp I hope that post was meant to be taken as irony and/or bad humour.

Yes, the hugs and kisses were fraudulent.

Okay, joacqin...remind me to protest any help we may send your way if your country is ever in need of it. And yes, you did say it was wrong of the U.S. to break the charter, in your second sentence.

As for the world court stuff, you're right, everyone should abide by it or no one. Are you going to convince all those who aren't signing to agree to it? The U.S. isn't the only country to not want to sign it, but the U.S. is sure taking all the heat for it. If you're gonna ***** and gripe about it, you'd damn well better add those other nations into your whining session, otherwise your opinion means squat to me. I certainly hope you're not representative of the general consensus over there, because I always thought Sweden seemed to be a pretty decent place.

Maybe you'd prefer the U.S. just kept to itself and stayed out of other people's business. If so, then by god, if I had the power to do that, I'd do it in a heartbeat. You know...we're damned if we do and damned if we don't - if we help someone out, someone else complains....if we don't help anyone out, we still get run through the wringer.

Hey Violet...you wonder why I don't have much faith in humanity getting together peacefully? There's your reason right there.

Again you misunderstand me Max. Firstly it wasnt the US the went against the UN charter,it was the NATO, sure alot of people views them as one and the same and in many ways it might be sure but it isnt. The NATO consist of most countries around the north atlantic and in western Europe. I would hope that we would never use the US' help, and if we did I would think more than once before asking it.

About swedes being decent people well we are and about anti US sentiments that you seem to bring up I am in the middle lane, there are ALOT of people that critize the US more than I do, I am pretty restrictive due to that one should never condemn anything. But I am not one of those people that views everything from the US and everything their goverment do as the best thing in the world. It seems that you have to agree on every part of the US foreign policy or be viewed as a non decent person not to say a terrorist.

MaxxQ, you sum it up well when you say "We're damned if we do and damned if we don't".
Many of the people who bashed the US (in previous topics) for acting like the leader of the world now complain that we're not acting like the leader of the world. It is insane.

"It seems that you have to agree on every part of the US foreign policy or be viewed as a non decent person not to say a terrorist."

No, no -- that's *Israel's* foreign policy. Common mistake.

I don't think anyone smart really wants us to lead the free world -- nor do we want the job. We don't want to be the great Daddy, whose job it is to fix all problems with American money and American lives! Holding ourselves apart, as we do, only contributes to this perception that everything wrong with the world is due to something the United States did or didn't do.

For example, who created Israel? A consortium of states led by us and the UK. Whose hassle is it now? Ours, and only ours. If we are too proud to delegate, and too proud to discuss, people have to draw their own conclusions about the United States' motives in the world. And we have to act, largely, alone.

I think as always this perception can only be overcome by dialogue. I don't understand how, strong as we are, this participation in dialogue could be perceived as striking our colors. After all, *no one* can make us do anything! Why should we not meet as equals to talk it out?

And yes, MaxxQ -- this very conversation between intelligent people of goodwill who yet disagree strongly should demonstrate for you how humanity is universal and consensus is... at least possible.

You REALLY need to go back and re-read your earlier posts.

1st post -No one should get immunity from crime, no matter their nationality. No matter what their country do. What the US want is to let its soldiers rape and use prostitutes in the countries they are 'helping' the immunity is in many ways wanted because alot of the UN soldiers have been acting like occupying forces in the nations they have been stationed treating local people like **** and taking advantage of them.

Right here you accuse the U.S. of wanting to let their troops get away with rape and whatnot. You don't say "Others think this", you single out the U.S. specifically, although you attempted to qualify it later with the part about "alot of UN soldiers...", but that doesn't help the fact that you purposefully singled out the U.S.

2nd post - Gonzago and Z-Layrex, this topic isnt at all about USA bashing.

Your first post, The second post in this thread, quoted above, was the first post I saw that singled out the U.S. as wanting it's troops immune from raping, etc. If that's not a bash at the U.S., then I'm a Swede.

It is about a nation wanting to stand above the law.

No, we don't want to stand above the law. We just fail to see how any American troop accused of a war crime could possibly get a fair trial in an international court, especially one with many people presiding over it that would love to see us kicked in the you-know-whats.

A law that everyone else agrees to, so that all the soldiers that have been on a mission gets the same treatment.

"Everyone" agrees to this "law"? There's a post in here that states about 70 nations have agreed to this. There are over 150 nations in the world. I fail to see where 150 - 70 = everyone.

The reason I feel a bit of a resentment against the US *goverment* in this question is the sheer arrogance to demand that your own citizens doesnt have to abide by the same laws that they expect others to do.

We only expect others to abide by our laws while they are in our country. We also expect our people to abide by the laws of other countries while we are visiting them. No one is above any law set forth by a government, I agree. But I'd like to know where you got the idea that our gov't won't allow our people to stand trial in another nation for breaking their laws. I've already given two examples that shoot holes in your theory. Here's another: I spent three weeks in Turkey on a temporary duty assignment. Before we left, we were told at a briefing that we WILL follow the laws of Turkey TO THE LETTER, because if we broke one and were caught, the U.S. would not, repeat NOT, lift a finger to help.

Oh I would like to add that in this topic it is the 'pro' US people that have turned this into an 'anti' vs 'pro' US topic. It had nothing to do with that.

Excuse me? YOU were the first person to specifically mention the U.S. in an inflammatory manner. Are we Americans just supposed to sit back and take that crap from you? We have pride in our country, and we have reason to be proud. We've accomplished a lot in our 200+ years of existence, and all you can say is that we want our troops immune to prosecution for war crimes. You are not in our gov't, or even a visitor in my country, and yet you think you know what we think, or how our gov't works? If you were here, you could say all that you've said above and still walk around a free man. However, don't get your hackles up when someone takes exception to your statements. As I'm doing. You have a right to your opinion, and I respect that right, even though you're not an American. Hell, if you were here, I'd probably buy you a beer so we could continue this in person. But I digress...

3rd post - I would just like to add that it is very interesting to read this thread, every poster had made a different addition to the puzzle, pointing out different facts and making the image clearer and clearer. This is a damned good thread if we can keep it at this level.

Well, let's start by not singling out the U.S. by implying that we are the only country that objects to this "World Court".

Gnolyn, where you would you find objective arbitraries? Will be hard.

It would be impossible. Humans are incapable of being completely objective (no I'm not suggesting that computers take over...they're even more fallible than humans).

4th post - I am from Sweden and Sweden and swedes have a long history and a good reputation as arbitrary diplomats and negotiators, perhaps more so than any other nation in the world but I still think that Sweden wouldnt be a good choice for arbitrary judgment. My vote would go for normal lawyers and prosecutors that gets an assignment with a rolling schedule. Perhaps a bit like american jury duty, they get called up for international duty.

This is the first sensible thing you've written so far. I actually like the idea, although I would add that their indentities should be secret to help prevent possible blackmailing, bribery, etc.

5th post - I didnt mean it like they wanted their soldiers to go on a rampage, I just meant that it is easily viewed like that and that different rules apply to different nations.

Of course it could be easily viewed like that. Suppose Sweden refused to sign? Maybe, I would view it as your gov't wanting it's troops to rape and pillage with impunity.

How come that all other nations except the US wants to put the ICC in action Shralp?

Again, please try to explain your math to me; how does 150 minus 70 equal "all nations except the US"?

Dont you think that there is a difference between the view of justice in the UK and Libya too?

Of course there is. But tell me how you would bring about a meeting of minds on this. The U.S. literally has tens of thousands of laws on it's books - local, state, and federal. Now, multiply that by however many nations agree to this world court, and then attempt to condense it all down into something that everyone can agree on. I wish you luck. Every single nation will have an objection to something, and eventually, the "laws" will be so watered-down, and the means of enforcing those "laws", will be so toothless, that it would be less than pathetic.

Not to mention the radical view between the US and the scandinavian nations. I dont know the details but I dont think it is planned that a libyan ismalistic fanatic is going to preside over US soldiers that have beaten up some thieving kid somewhere.

Can you guarantee that? I didn't think so.

6th post - So Shralp you put the US on the same level as nations that condone genital mutilation, middle eastern nations that torture their prisoners?

No...he's saying that as punishment for a capital crime, that the UN may want to look at genital mutilation, torture, etc, as a replacement to the death penalty. It was also a very subtle form of sarcasm. Which you obviously didn't catch.

Isnt the US a democracy?

We like to think so, but actually, we're more of a republic, with democratic overtones.

A country on which we can have a bit higher demands than tribal societies in eastern Africa?

Why? Why should the world demand more from America than from any other nation? Where is it written that we HAVE to answer to the world? Especially when it seems much of the world wants nothing better than to put us down, to lower us to THEIR standards. Why can't they work to RAISE THEIR OWN standards? I'll answer that - because it's easier to destroy than to build. I'll now follow with a quote from John F. Kennedy (this was said during his speech about "...landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the Earth...): "We do these things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard." Apply that to America as a whole, rather than just the space program, and you will realize that America has worked very hard in it's 200+ years to become the nation it is today. Other nations are much, much older, and have accomplished not one-tenth of what we have. Granted, some have poor resources and must spend most of their GNP just to stay alive, but there are many who just seem to lazy to better themselves.

The deathpenalty is wrong, there are NO, none at all justification of it. All other western democracies has abolished it. Why do the US still practice it? IMO we can have higher demands on the US than on less developed nations. Dont you think so Shralp?

This is your opinion, and therefore, you are free to express it. America still has the death penalty, IN SOME STATES, because the people of those states want it. Our gov't follows (for the most part) what it's people want. Some states do not have the death penalty. Why accuse the entire U.S. when it's only some of us that want it? I guess you don't really know as much about us as you'd like to think.

7th post - Jack Funk, as usual the news reporting is very different in different parts of the world. All we hear here in Sweden is about the US refusing to sign a treaty that everyone else signs, media gives the impression that the US wants to be above a law that they themselves support for others.
Apparantly the news in the US are very different, I would think that the truth is somewhere in between.

Ahhh...and now we come to the crux of the matter. Relying on a single news source is BAD. Even if it's several different networks and newspapers in your country, they most likely will have a very biased opinion about certain things. No matter how much the media likes to say they're objective, it just ain't so. I have never seen an honestly unbiased report on anything, including here in the U.S. Every media organization in the world puts its own slant on things, some more obviously than others.

So, in essense, you've just told us that you have let Sweden's media dictate your thoughts to you. Well, that happens here in the States as well, so I can't fault you entirely. There are many news services freely available on the internet, from many different countries. Why not investigate a few of them, and see what they have to say on the matter (and please, don't just pick ones that already have an anti-U.S. sentiment). Even reporters, loathe as I am to admit it, are usually required to confirm a story through several sources.

You're not even giving us a chance. You're taking what your media are saying at face value and not even questioning it. And you want to talk fairness with "laws"?

8th post - Your post was great, I think that you have struck the head on the spike Methylviolet. The US are the boss, they should set good examples.

I agree with the second half of the second sentence, but that first half just irks me no end. Who says we are the boss? "Boss" implies giving orders to others and expecting those orders to be followed without question. That is NOT what the U.S. is about. We do NOT boss around other nations. We may use our influence in the way of trade agreements or such, but that's realpolitik. Every country in the world does that to a greater or lesser extent. The UAE does it all the time with oil...it's a way of doing business. Not necessarily the right way, but that's how it is. The only time that we start "bossing" folks around, is when there has been an actual threat to our nation. For example, Afghanistan, or, more specifically, the Taliban. We first asked nicely that they turn over whatzisface...they refused. We then asked a bit more forcefully....again, they refused. We then gave them a final request. They again refused.

Strike three, you're out.

America has always attempted diplomacy first and foremost. Sometimes it works, other times...well...it doesn't.

9th post - To clear a few things up about the UN and illegal agression here. Every nation that has joined the UN has agreed on not to attack another memberstate unless they attack first or general consensus can be achieved within the UN. They have also sworn to protect eachother from the agression of other nations. Iraq attacks Kuwait, bam! Everyone gangs up on Iraq. The idea with the UN worked. This is the general idea with the UN, I dont know the exact wordings of the treaties but this is what the UN is basicly about. Nations joining together promising not to take military action against eachother. If this had been followed with the case of Serbia/Kosovo all non-NATO nations that are part of the UN should have attacked the NATO nations or atleast protected Serbia, of course that would never happen as the UN is mostly a tool of the western world and it wouldnt have been very logical. But it was still against the UN charter, no matter how right or nescessary it might have been.

In theory, I agree with all that you have said above. The UN IS a great idea, it LOOKS great on paper, but in practice, it sucks. There is too much beuracracy, and red tape floating around there to effectively work in a timely manner. In my first post above, I agreed that technically we were wrong. (That should have been NATO, but as you or someone else has said, most people think NATO=U.S., so I'm not going to worry about semantics). So, okay....we stay out of Kosovo, and the UN, months later decides to get off its collective ass and do something about it. Except by that time, there's no reason to go because they're done with whatever atrocities were brought up to begin with. [ sarcasm ]Yep, we did the right thing, but boy, it's too bad all those people are dead. Hmmmm....they got the death penalty for a crime of being against the gov't mandates. I guess the U.S. ISN'T the only nation that supports it.[/ sarcasm ]

I cant understand what it is that many americans have against the UN, it is a great thought and even though it has alot of faults atleast it makes the nations of the world to talk to eachother and try to work out their differences. We humans have a tendency to go to war for the silliest reasons, if the UN can help in any way at all to stop that they have justified their existance.

The key words above are "...try to work out their differences." That doesn't always work - you know that and I know that. What Americans have against the UN is that it is too large and ponderous to get anything done, and done well. It also hasn't got the teeth to enforce it's own rules or laws, except when they call on...Guess who?...the Americans.

10th post - Your post was very interesting and well written, but totally irreleveant to what I wrote MaxxQ. Your neighbourly help was illegal, no matter how right it was. No one attacked NATO after their Kosovo bombings were there? Of course not. But they did break the charter, I am not saying if it was right or wrong of them to do so. I am just pointing out that they did.

Ummm....yes you did. In the same paragraph. Illegal means wrong.

You obviously didn't read far enough down in my post because I stated that technically it was wrong to break the charter, but morally right. However you have, like you have blamed others, equated the U.S. with NATO. You have specifically singled out the U.S. when there are several other nations in the NATO alliance that also went into Kosovo. Why do you not blame them specifically as well?

Oh well back to topic.
Again you miss the point MaxxQ, I do not believe that the US lets its criminials go without punishing them, there are nations that do though. That have neither the possibility nor the inclination to take them to justice it is for therse the ICC is created mainly. But, if we want to stand trial over serbian and iraqian war criminials and the like we have let our own people have the same treatment. Can we say that well, you you and you are subject to this court but we arent? Either everyone are the subject of the same laws and the same court or no one is, which leads as you can see to that alot of naughty soldiers and the like from less organised/developed/perhaps even axis of eeeeeeeevil never have to live by comman human laws and never to fear punishment.


Yes, actually we can say that certain countries are subject to the WC and we aren't...IF those countries sign the agreement and we don't. Why should we sign up for this thing? We are free to choose one way or the other. You can't put a gun to our heads and say sign or else. But that's exactly what you're trying to do.

11th post - Again you misunderstand me Max. Firstly it wasnt the US the went against the UN charter,it was the NATO, sure alot of people views them as one and the same and in many ways it might be sure but it isnt. The NATO consist of most countries around the north atlantic and in western Europe. I would hope that we would never use the US' help, and if we did I would think more than once before asking it.

You apparently view them as one and the same as well. You still haven't mentioned, or condemned any nation other than the U.S. Equal treatment for equal partners, eh?

About swedes being decent people well we are and about anti US sentiments that you seem to bring up I am in the middle lane, there are ALOT of people that critize the US more than I do, I am pretty restrictive due to that one should never condemn anything. But I am not one of those people that views everything from the US and everything their goverment do as the best thing in the world. It seems that you have to agree on every part of the US foreign policy or be viewed as a non decent person not to say a terrorist.


Okay....I probably went a bit too far with my generalization of Sweden, but I DID say that I hope the rest of your country doesn't share your views. I apologize anyway.

No, I don't view everyone with a dissenting opinion of the U.S. as a terrorist or non-decent person. I do, however view you as a hypocrite when you say that all nations should be equal under the world court, but then single out only the U.S. as a non-participant in said court, as well as breaking a UN charter. It's not like we were ever the first ( no comments about that....yes I am aware that "just because they did it, we can too" is no excuse), we certainly won't be the last.

Now, to total things up (for the sake of argument, we'll all agree that NATO=U.S.).

4.5 posts that are directly bashing the U.S., including your vey first post, and the second post of the thread. Roughly 30% of your total posts.

1.5 posts that are irrelevant to the discussion (the one where you comment on how great this thread is...the half-post is the one to Methylviolet, the other half is up there^).

The rest are posts that don't obviously bash the U.S. (although they could be read that way...I won't count them though)

So...11 posts total, minus 1.5 for irrelevancy, equals 9.5 posts. 4.5 of those remaining posts bash the U.S. in one form or another. That's just under 50% from you alone that can be taken as anti-American.

And you said this thread wasn't about bashing The U.S....

Tsk, tsk...

(my fingers are bleeding now... :heh: )

Edit: P.S. - I'll still welcome you to my country and buy you your beverage of choice. I may get mad at things people say, but I rarely do anything about it.



[This message has been edited by MaxxQ (edited July 11, 2002).]

Oh my gosh MaxxQ that was the longest post ever. I think you guys are talking past each other -- you are closer to agreement than you might allow. Beer would be handy here, wouldn't it?

I bet the world court has beer -- oops, except for the Muslim members.

ROFL Violet.

Sorry about that. I get on a roll and just don't realize how much I'm saying.

BTW...in answer to your previous post:

Yeah....I know. I was being a jerk there. I've got to stop putting my foot in my mouth, especially with the hot weather...my feet are NASTY. :shake: