Justice for all - No thankyou, we're American

[pubmanager]

Mr V

I congratulate you on you floundering attempt to argue a senseless position.

However I must ask you once again to stop dodging this issue:

You have still not adressed the issue of why your countries leaders think it appropriate to inflict further sufferring on the innocents of countries like Niger to "protect" it's interests. Possibly because even you in support of the objection to the ICC in general see these methods as morally reprehensible?

[Mr.Vicchio]

Uhm, question, Niger, what has the International Community done about that? Since you're all about touting the IC as the solution to the worlds problems.


I think it's a terrible situation going on there, pray tell, how would a court fix that?

[pubmanager]

Uhm, question, Niger, what has the International Community done about that? Since you're all about touting the IC as the solution to the worlds problems.


I think it's a terrible situation going on there, pray tell, how would a court fix that?

That would be the answer....

No I prefer to dodge that issue as it may affect my blind notion that America is all good.

[Mr.Vicchio]

Thanks Pub, you're the second guy with "I make assumptions" issues. You know what they say about assumptions right.

Why do people like you assume that I think America is "perfect"?

Because I love my country? Believe it does the right thing more often then not? Hmm?

we haven't stepped in and fixed every human rights abuses, so you think America is bad? Right... I am at a loss for where you can get off with the high and mighty bit over this court then attack America for not signing on.

Again, what would an international criminal court do to stop such problems? Hmmm?

[pubmanager]

Thanks Pub, you're the second guy with "I make assumptions" issues. You know what they say about assumptions right.

Why do people like you assume that I think America is "perfect"?

Because I love my country? Believe it does the right thing more often then not? Hmm?

we haven't stepped in and fixed every human rights abuses, so you think America is bad? Right... I am at a loss for where you can get off with the high and mighty bit over this court then attack America for not signing on.

Again, what would an international criminal court do to stop such problems? Hmmm?

I appologise if I came across as presumptuous, I had no intention in that regard.

The issue in question here is Americas practice of withdrawing economic aid from the poorest nations in the world unless they agree to give their agreement that they will never charge a US citizen with crimes against hummanity in the ICC. This has happened in Niger (recognised by the UN as the least developed nation on earth) and Columbia (where the military aid that has been withdawn is in direct opposition to Americas self declared war on drugs) to name but two.

In the case of Niger it is nothing short of saying "bow to the will of the US or your children will die"

These are not the actions of a moral society.

Asking me what the ICC would do to stop these problems is simply dodging the issue, as you well know the ICC is a court with a narrow mandate that does not extend to this area.

[leftcider]

Pub, you can ridicule Vicchio and US foreign policy all you want, but the point on topic remains that the US cannot join the ICC because it would be a violation of the US Constitution.

[pubmanager]

Question, why then do you support the ICC when it breaks international law? I.E. it claims the authority to try people even if their country did sign the treaty. By international law, no treaty can be enforced on a country or it's citizens unless they have signed on, and agreed too, the treaty.
You support a court that breaks the law of the "international community"....

It's kind of a given that this law has to apply to those who don't subscribe to the treaty....

Think about it....

Pol Pot Jr (for example) gets elected democratically to the Presidency of never never land, doesn't like anybody that opposes him. Goes on a bit of a rampage, kills 50% of the population, has a bit of an ethnic cleanse to purify his country, hangs every 2nd child to sort out the population problem.

Those citizens of never never land left alive see nothing wrong with his actions and it's all good under the constitution of their land.

Needless to say, he doesn't recognise the authority of the ICC over his sovereignity as elected leader etc etc and hasn't signed the treaty of Rome.

By your argument that would be quite alright, you know the constitution and stuff and the ICC can't prosecute if the nation hasn't rattified the treaty.

YOUR ARGUMENT IS ABSURD!

[pubmanager]

Pub, you can ridicule Vicchio and US foreign policy all you want, but the point on topic remains that the US cannot join the ICC because it would be a violation of the US Constitution.

Please find the topic below, it is all about American foreign policy and how it is veiwed.

It is one of the best examples of American double-standards and also illustrates it's use of "schoolyard bully diplomacy" as accepted practice. (http://www.globalpolicy.org/intljus...6schoolyard.htm)


Americas policy on this issue is unique in the western world, a position that undermines it's credibility as a nation that values the rule of law and due process whilst leaving the rest of the world asking "what have you got to hide."

It's aggression in persuing it's own selfish agenda has only served to increase anti-american sentiment amongst it's former allies.

[SteveA]

It seems simple to me - people that want to be a part of it are free to join, those that don't shouldn't be forced. When a dispute results that involves a party outside the organization, that's something to be resolved on a case by case basis.

I know that doesn't directly address how to enforce things on people/organizations outside the ICC, but that's just life. A lot of people disagree about a lot of things and you just hope there's a peaceful compromise that can be reached. Personally I'd prefer to see things head in a less global direction. Simply because some people want to claim authority to represent and make decisions for others doesn't give any legitimacy to this without (individual) consent, from my view, and that even applies to national governments but, of course, that's idealistic and so people have to hammer out disputes sometimes but it seems much more peaceable to not approach things from a point of view of having some natural authority to represent others interests. (That's not targetted solely at the ICC. There are plenty of examples inside the U.S. and elsewhere where this same thought process causes a lot of grief).

[Osborn F Enready]

Vic said:
Uhm, Osborn, I merely used that as my "big issue", the one I think is likely to cause a large mass of people to get pissed.

It is by no means my only issue, but thank for proving the old saying about assumptions...

I say:
I have debated you on several issues, I in no way formed that opinion in this thread only.

That was why I chuckled.

Either way, off topic, I'll shut up.

[BobbyO]

You have still not adressed the issue of why your countries leaders think it appropriate to inflict further sufferring on the innocents of countries like Niger to "protect" it's interests. Possibly because even you in support of the objection to the ICC in general see these methods as morally reprehensible?[/QUOTE]

Are you suggesting that there is a "right" for Niger to portions of the USA treasury?

I don't think so.

[Rainbow]

The opposition of the United States to the International Criminal Court appears as either a puzzle or an embarrassment to many of the nation's traditional supporters. A puzzle, because it is not at all obvious why the United States should feel so threatened by this new court.

There is neither puzzle nor dillema.
U.S. business is to protect U.S. Citizens around the world.