Does the US try to blackmail the UN?

[Klaus]

The UN security council refused to continue the practice of one country (US) being more equal than others.
The US soldiers had imunity at the ICC for one year which was extended for one year. Now the US tried to extend it again which is obviousely verry controversial because of Guantamo Bay and the Iraq war.
Other nations try to remember the US that the lack of imunity is only symbolic because there is only international prosecution if there is no prosecution inside the US (Which might be valid for mercenaries who are not under military courts or US courts)

Now the US stops its efforts and emediately announces to rethink the support of international UN commitments.

"(the US) need to take into account the risk of ICC review when determining contributions to UN authorised or established operations"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3835193.stm

The US has previously threatened to veto UN peacekeeping operations if its demands for exemption from prosecution by the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague were not met.

edited to add:

The job of the ICC isg
to justice those responsible for:
- genocide
-crimes against humanity
-and war crimes
committed anywhere in the world.



It is a court of last resort, intervening only when national authorities cannot or will not prosecute.

 

[DrTeeth]

If they?re trying to blackmail the UN, it doesn?t seem to be working. The US didn't even put their resolution up for a vote because it was obvious it wasn't going to make it thanks to Gitmo and Abu Graib.

 

[verte76]

There's a headline in today's paper about the U.S. not putting up its resolution. I was never in favor of U.S. immunity from war crimes prosecution. Sure, politics happens, but it was absolutely out of the question after the prison abuse scandal. If you commit a crime, you should have to pay, I don't care who it is.

 

[nbcrusader]

How do you distinguish in principle between "blackmail" and political negotiations that otherwise take place at the UN?

 

[U2Kitten]

Give it up NBC you know we are evil and everything that goes wrong is our fault.

 

[Klaus]

nbcrusader:
Well the topic was simply to catch your attention

U2Kitten: No it's not allways the fault of the US but if you look at the icc (which was also supported by the US some years ago) i can't see ANY good reason why the current administration does everything they can to reduce the influense and the power of the ICC

 

[U2Kitten]

If a democrat you guys liked were in office and all this happened would you still be bringing up 'the administration?' I'm sure shady stuff went on under Clinton too, under all presidents. But somehow if he is a liberal everyone lets it all go. That is unless he gets a BJ from an intern then it's big news.

 

[ThatGuy]

If a democrat you guys liked were in office and all this happened would you still be bringing up 'the administration?' I'm sure shady stuff went on under Clinton too, under all presidents. But somehow if he is a liberal everyone lets it all go. That is unless he gets a BJ from an intern then it's big news.

That's simply not true. Look at the Nader thread. Deomcrats and Nader, topics don't come more liberal than that. But is it being ignored, or condemned?

 

[Klaus]

U2Kitten:
sure, i don't care how a president looks like or on which side he claims to stand.
I care about honesty - the difference of what they say and what they do.

I really appreciate it that Mr. Bush promised more for AIDS victims i think he's absolutely right that Terrorism is a the danger of todays society but i don't close my eyes when he's obviousely wrong and sometimes i have a verry bad feeling about the motivations behind his actions.
Can you tell me a good reason why the US does everything they can to stop the ICC from working? The ICC could be the best weapon against international terrorism.

 

[DrTeeth]

The ICC could be the best weapon against international terrorism.

The United States have always had a history of distrusting other countries, even their allies. Not automatically a bad thing, but sometimes it just borderlines paranoia and stands in the way of an effective co-operation. I hope it's worth it.

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

Why does every thread at the moment seem to descend into "you just think all Americans are evil" or "you just hate Bush" after about five posts?

 

[Dreadsox]

Bring some balance to it Fizz...LOL

Klaus, I admit I read the title and did not want to even read the content. It did not make me want to read it.



I believe our soldiers should be subject to our laws....since they do not take an oath to honor the worlds laws, but the constitution of the US.

My 2 cents.

 

[U2Kitten]

Why does every thread at the moment seem to descend into "you just think all Americans are evil" or "you just hate Bush" after about five posts?

Because that's the way a lot of posts come off around here, and someone notices it. No matter what happens, it all comes back to, 'this adiminstration' did or didn't do this, must be doing that, can't blame the Iraqis for that when the Americans did this and it's very tiring. No America is not perfect yes it makes mistakes. But it's hardly to blame for every evil and wrong in the world, directly or indirectly, as it looks like here. So yeah I've gotten all cynical over it. So yeah I'm gonna try to avoid this forum.

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

Bring some balance to it Fizz...LOL

But...it doesn't bring balance to the discussion, does it? Your post does - you stated that you don't think US soldiers should be subject to the ICC and you briefly explained why. Admittedly I disagree with you, but I do think your post is adding something to the discussion. I don't understand how merely responding to any criticism of the Bush administration's policies with some variation on the "you just hate Bush" argument is adding balance or anything else to the debate. Perhaps that's just me.

 

[nbcrusader]

Perhaps a member got tired of the anti-GWB snipes that don't add anything to the discussion?

Either way, we've got to deal with a broad base of opinions and levels of engagement.

Overall, it is still a good place.

 

[Klaus]

Dreadsox:
as i mentioned in my 1st posting

It is a court of last resort, intervening only when national authorities cannot or will not prosecute

So as long as there are laws in the US and the US justice system is doing its job like now noone has to be affraid of the ICC.
It's only "bad" for people who think that they are above all laws or people who found holes in the justice system (mercenaries for example)

all:
i encurage everyone not to defend or be upset about someone because of the person or his party but because of the actions.

 

[BVS]

If a democrat you guys liked were in office and all this happened would you still be bringing up 'the administration?' I'm sure shady stuff went on under Clinton too, under all presidents. But somehow if he is a liberal everyone lets it all go. That is unless he gets a BJ from an intern then it's big news.

Wow you just don't get it do you? How are you comparing sex with a nation trying to avoid liability for its actions?

No matter what happens, it all comes back to, 'this adiminstration' did or didn't do this, must be doing that, can't blame the Iraqis for that when the Americans did this and it's very tiring.

And why would we blame Iraq for our actions? I'm very curious...why are we once again comparing ourselves to Iraq, or terrorist, or whatever. The U.S. claims moral superiority and acts as the world police so they better sure as hell take liabilty when they screw up. It's pretty simple.

 

[TheFirstBigW]

Why does every thread at the moment seem to descend into "you just think all Americans are evil" or "you just hate Bush" after about five posts?

People aren't objecting when someone disagrees with America and/or Bush, people are objecting when someone chooses to assume the worst about the intentions/motives/heart of America and/or Bush.

For example, this thread begins with a very unflattering allegation towards the U.S. of blackmail in its title, and even your own post signature (the Mark Twain quote) seems to be a personal attack on the character of President Bush ("...will invent cheap lies...", etc...) rather than a respectful disagreement of his policy decisions.

In other words, if we stick to the issues, we'll minimize that kind of reaction, but when we make things personal, people are going to assume that we have a prejudicial axe to grind.

 

[Klaus]

TheFirstBigW:
It would be wonderful if we could talk about the politics of the US instead of playing the "you love/you hate bush" game.

 

[Salome]

How do you distinguish in principle between "blackmail" and political negotiations that otherwise take place at the UN?

there is a grey area indeed

Klaus
Now the US stops its efforts

it doesn't seem like there is much room for negotiations though

 

[Angela Harlem]

 

[TheFirstBigW]

TheFirstBigW:
It would be wonderful if we could talk about the politics of the US instead of playing the "you love/you hate bush" game.

I appreciate your sentiment.

I also saw your previous post in which you acknowledge that you wrote the title of this thread mainly for the purpose of catching people's attention, and while I have no doubt it worked, the downside is that its incindiary nature stirs up a lot of strife in people before they even begin to read what you have to say, so I guess its benefits are a bit of a trade-off.

But I can appreciate the fact that you care so much about these issues that you're willing to carry on these debates.

 

[U2Kitten]

Wow you just don't get it do you? How are you comparing sex with a nation trying to avoid liability for its actions?

I wasn't! I was only saying that nobody noticed or cared about anything while Clinton was in because he was on 'their side' so he was okay and no one picked at him.

The BJ thing was just a joke! I'm not saying it was the worst thing he did in office, I'm saying he surely did quite a bit he'd have been bashed for had he been a republican.

 

[Popmartijn]

The BJ thing was just a joke! I'm not saying it was the worst thing he did in office, I'm saying he surely did quite a bit he'd have been bashed for had he been a republican.

But would he have feared impeachment then?

 

[U2Kitten]

Of course not! That was the joke, that getting a hummer was the most terrible thing a president could do. I'm sure he did worse.

Did you ever hear the rumor that every President gets 3 'hits?' Somebody told me that and that his hits were McDowell, ('heart problem' which could be brought on my certain medicines) Foster (suicide, or was it? ) and Ron Brown (plane crash, but some say he was shot in the back before the plane crashed and because his body did not burn, this was discovered) Who are Bush's alleged 'hits?" I've heard that congressman from Minnesota who died in the private plane crash, and the British guy who gave Iraq-WMD info that turned out to be false, found with his wrists slit. Do you all believe all these things are conspiracy theories? Any chance there's something to it?

But again, if Bill really did have 3 hits, why is Hillary still alive?

 

[A_Wanderer]

Ah U2Kitten you have forgotten the number 1 rule - in politics you have to make compromises.

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

your own post signature (the Mark Twain quote) seems to be a personal attack on the character of President Bush ("...will invent cheap lies...", etc...) rather than a respectful disagreement of his policy decisions.

I think you're giving Bush too much credit: I would never describe him as a statesman.

Actually I chose my signature because I find it intriguing that a comment written by Mark Twain nearly a century ago is so relevant today. Although, had I been thinking of a particular politician when I chose the quote, it was more likely to have been Tony Blair and not, as you assume, George Bush.

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

I wasn't! I was only saying that nobody noticed or cared about anything while Clinton was in because he was on 'their side' so he was okay and no one picked at him.

You can't be serious! Clinton was hounded by the conservatives and the press from the second he announced his candidacy to the second he left office. If it wasn't some supposed sex scandal, it was Whitewater. If it wasn't some conspiracy theory about a man who committed suicide, it was moaning that his staff were all Hollywood liberal elitist types. Have you forgotten the week after week after week of headlines about Whitewater, and the way that when Clinton was found to have done nothing wrong, the media printed it as a sentence or two on page 37. Have you forgotten the way the mainstream media picked up ridiculous stories being run by tabloids with no credibility whatsoever?

Sure Bush gets his share of criticism in the press, but to pretend that the media gave Clinton an easy time is just ignoring the facts.

 

[Popmartijn]

Actually I chose my signature because I find it intriguing that a comment written by Mark Twain nearly a century ago is so relevant today.

What is it with these oldies? We have Mark Twain here, some Orwell there, etc. And all those quotes seem so relevant today.



Marty (and now back to our regularly scheduled discussion)

 

[A_Wanderer]

I think that its rather more humorous when people will quote Orwell out of context proving that they are the utter baffons that he was describing with the original quote.