Quote:
U.S. rejects global pact on war-crimes tribunal
Neil A. Lewis The New York Times
Monday, May 6, 2002
Bush to 'unsign' Clinton-era agreement
WASHINGTON The Bush administration has decided to renounce formally any involvement in a treaty creating an international criminal court and is expected to declare that the signing of the document by the Clinton administration is no longer valid, according to government officials.
The "unsigning" of the treaty, which is expected to be announced Monday, will be a decisive rejection by the Bush White House of the concept of a permanent tribunal designed to prosecute individuals for genocide, crimes against humanity and other war crimes.
The administration has long maintained that the court has the potential to create havoc for the United States, exposing American soldiers involved overseas and U.S. officials to capricious and mischievous prosecutions.
http://www.iht.com/cgi-bin/generic.cgi?tem...ArticleId=56710 |
Well, my opinion has always been that the US should have ratified the treaty. History has it that while Clinton signed the treaty that it would not be ratified due to the US political right wing.
Of course, that Bush *unsigned* the treaty was quite an unusual event in itself. Now, every good conspiracy theorist can have some fun. The recent revelations concerning the abuse of prisoners by US troops and civilian employees certainly give them fuel to conclude that the Bush administration wanted a war and no accountability. And who knows, they could of course be right.
With the abuse coming to light however, the US should now show some honor and sign the treaty in good faith and open its prisoner handling processes up for inspection and also honor the Geneva Conventions, not simply in spirit, but to the letter. Otherwise, what will the world think of the US?
And of course, the people of the United States can thank Bush for this.