| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
US Bully: Sign war crime immunity agreement, or lose veterinary program aid
Wednesday, July 2, 2003 11:32:0 p.m
Kenneth Roth, executive director of the HRW, has written to US State Secretary Colin Powell urging him to stop all US ambassadors from “bullying” small and poor countries into signing ICC immunity agreement with the US. Roth disclosed that an assistant state secretary informed foreign ministers of Caribbean states that they would lose the benefits for veterinary programs if their governments did not sign the immunity pact. “Because most ICC-member states are democracies with a relatively strong commitment to the rule of law, the threatened aid cutoffs represent a sanction primarily targeting states that abide by democratic values,” Roth said. “US officials are engaged in a worldwide campaign pressing small, vulnerable and often fragile democratic governments to sign bilateral agreements with Washington. As you know, these agreements will exempt 270 million Americans and foreign nationals working under contract with the US government from the authority of the court. While we believe the agreements the United States is proposing violate the ICC treaty by going beyond the letter and spirit of Article 98, I am not writing to argue the unlawfulness of these instruments,” said Roth in his letter to Powell dated June 30, a copy of which was posted on the ICC website. “Whatever the administration thinks of the International Criminal Court, its tactics in pursuing these bilateral agreements are unconscionable. Other governments can plainly see that punitive measures are being used primarily against poor and relatively weak states with few options other than to give in to the United States. Signing an agreement will put an ICC state party in breach of its legal obligations and at odds with other important national interests. This raw misuse of US power makes the policy all the more objectionable,” Roth wrote. “We urge you to bring an end to the vendetta against the ICC that US diplomats around the world have been compelled to carry out. This is an initiative that is likely to do far more harm to the United States than it could ever do to the court. This campaign is creating a legacy that will tar the Bush administration for years to come. With everything else taking place in the world today, the United States ought to adopt a wiser approach to the ICC,” Roth wrote. |
US Bully: Sign war crime immunity agreement, or lose veterinary program aid
On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 23:53:23 +0200, Torsten Brinch
wrote: “Whatever the administration thinks of the International Criminal Court, its tactics in pursuing these bilateral agreements are unconscionable. Other governments can plainly see that punitive measures are being used primarily against poor and relatively weak states with few options other than to give in to the United States. Signing an agreement will put an ICC state party in breach of its legal obligations and at odds with other important national interests. This raw misuse of US power makes the policy all the more objectionable,” Roth wrote. Your logic seems to be that other countries have an inalienable right to US financial aid, regardless of their positions on issues of interest to the US. I do not see anything wrong with providing aid only to countries that act in our interest. The ICC is noble in principle but unworkable in practice. The guilty can easily evade justice by having sham trials in their own countries, while well-meaning peacekeepers will be subject to an endless annoyance of frivolous prosecutions. -- I don't know why you people seem to think this is magic, it's just this little chromium switch here... Ah you people are SO superstitious... |
US Bully: Sign war crime immunity agreement, or lose veterinary program aid
|
US Bully: Sign war crime immunity agreement, or lose veterinary program aid
"Charles Hawtrey" wrote in message ... On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 23:53:23 +0200, Torsten Brinch wrote: "Whatever the administration thinks of the International Criminal Court, its tactics in pursuing these bilateral agreements are unconscionable. Other governments can plainly see that punitive measures are being used primarily against poor and relatively weak states with few options other than to give in to the United States. Signing an agreement will put an ICC state party in breach of its legal obligations and at odds with other important national interests. This raw misuse of US power makes the policy all the more objectionable," Roth wrote. Your logic seems to be that other countries have an inalienable right to US financial aid, regardless of their positions on issues of interest to the US. I do not see anything wrong with providing aid only to countries that act in our interest. The ICC is noble in principle but unworkable in practice. The guilty can easily evade justice by having sham trials in their own countries, while well-meaning peacekeepers will be subject to an endless annoyance of frivolous prosecutions. -- I don't know why you people seem to think this is magic, it's just this little chromium switch here... Ah you people are SO superstitious... Charles, Your reply was somewhat refreshing. A large portion of the world have lived on American gratuities for so long they have come to demand it. It is soon becoming apparent to many that the current man occupying the presidential office is not nearly the uneducated bloke they thought. Shock that it may be to their narrow little mental processes many of them may have to start supporting their own careless habits. The two faced actions of many countries and exemplified by our good friend, France, will become more in line and forced to developed a more valid standard of integrity and credibility if they wish to remain at the free feed trough. Thanks for putting it pretty clearly Right now I must join some folks in a very pleasant afternoon of remembrance and celebration. Take care James Curts |
US Bully: Sign war crime immunity agreement, or lose veterinary program aid
|
US Bully: Sign war crime immunity agreement, or lose veterinary program aid
On Fri, 04 Jul 2003 21:22:58 GMT, "James Curts"
wrote: The Americans are doing quite fine, thank you. The U. S. National Debt Clock: http://www.toptips.com/debtclock.html |
US Bully: Sign war crime immunity agreement, or lose veterinary program aid
"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message ... On Fri, 04 Jul 2003 21:22:58 GMT, "James Curts" wrote: The Americans are doing quite fine, thank you. The U. S. National Debt Clock: http://www.toptips.com/debtclock.html Divide it by the GNP and it look better than it has most of my life. Gordon |
US Bully: Sign war crime immunity agreement, or lose veterinary program aid
On Sat, 5 Jul 2003 02:33:24 -0500, "Gordon Couger"
wrote: "Torsten Brinch" wrote in message .. . On Fri, 04 Jul 2003 21:22:58 GMT, "James Curts" wrote: The Americans are doing quite fine, thank you. The U. S. National Debt Clock: http://www.toptips.com/debtclock.html Divide it by the GNP and it look better than it has most of my life. Been there, done that. Data does not show what you say they do. What now, Gordon? |
US Bully: Sign war crime immunity agreement, or lose veterinary program aid
As good as the American policy is, it does not go far enough. We ought
to announce in advance that if any American citizen is bound over for trial to the ICC, that the American military will invade Holland, rescue the prisoner, and burn the ICC buildings to the ground with the kangaroo judges in them. If the prisoner has been harmed or spirited away, Holland should have all its dikes destroyed, locks and dams blown to bits, and left to drown in its perverted, drug-hazed, hellbound misery. The same for those presumptuous *******s in Belgium and their arrogant claim of jurisdiction over the whole world.-Jitney |
US Bully: Sign war crime immunity agreement, or lose veterinary program aid
"jitney" wrote in message om... As good as the American policy is, it does not go far enough. We ought to announce in advance that if any American citizen is bound over for trial to the ICC, that the American military will invade Holland, rescue the prisoner, and burn the ICC buildings to the ground with the kangaroo judges in them. If the prisoner has been harmed or spirited away, Holland should have all its dikes destroyed, locks and dams blown to bits, and left to drown in its perverted, drug-hazed, hellbound misery. The same for those presumptuous *******s in Belgium and their arrogant claim of jurisdiction over the whole world.-Jitney Well, perhaps moderated a bit but, yes, and include some other cull nations as well James Curts |
US Bully: Sign war crime immunity agreement, or lose veterinary program aid
On Sat, 05 Jul 2003 18:05:10 GMT, "James Curts"
wrote: "jitney" wrote in message . com... As good as the American policy is, it does not go far enough. We ought to announce in advance that if any American citizen is bound over for trial to the ICC, that the American military will invade Holland, rescue the prisoner, and burn the ICC buildings to the ground with the kangaroo judges in them. If the prisoner has been harmed or spirited away, Holland should have all its dikes destroyed, locks and dams blown to bits, and left to drown in its perverted, drug-hazed, hellbound misery. The same for those presumptuous *******s in Belgium and their arrogant claim of jurisdiction over the whole world.-Jitney Well, perhaps moderated a bit but, yes, and include some other cull nations as well --Rire d'un Américain! s'écria J.-T. Maston, mais voilà un casus belli!... (De la terre à la lune, par Jules Verne) |
US Bully: Sign war crime immunity agreement, or lose veterinary program aid
On Fri, 04 Jul 2003 23:00:53 +0200, Torsten Brinch
wrote: On Fri, 04 Jul 2003 17:11:32 GMT, (Charles Hawtrey) wrote: The ICC is noble in principle but unworkable in practice. The guilty can easily evade justice by having sham trials in their own countries, while well-meaning peacekeepers will be subject to an endless annoyance of frivolous prosecutions. No, that's a misunderstanding. The ICC was set up exactly to avoid that kind of impunity, by giving the ICC the ultimate jurisdiction. Have you actually read the relevant part of the Rome Statute? The bar for "ultimate jurisdiction" as you call it is set so high that it is effectively useful only when the case of a state with no central government. A state that wishes to shield violators can easily do so by setting up a sham trial that follows the formalities of its legal system. Theoretically the trial could be declared a sham, but in practice the shielding state can easily avoid this by making a good show. Few would be so naive as to conduct a transparently obvious sham trial. I think that many supporters of the ICC are so taken with the nobility of the idea that they have not bothered to find out what the Rome Statute actually says. For example we often hear that the ICC will have jurisdiction over only the worst crimes. Yet the Rome Statute says that even attacks against _vehicles_ can fall within the jurisdiction of the ICC! It is not even specified that the vehicle need be occupied at the time. -- I don't know why you people seem to think this is magic, it's just this little chromium switch here... Ah you people are SO superstitious... |
US Bully: Sign war crime immunity agreement, or lose veterinary program aid
On Sun, 06 Jul 2003 05:53:15 GMT, (Charles Hawtrey)
wrote: On Fri, 04 Jul 2003 23:00:53 +0200, Torsten Brinch wrote: On Fri, 04 Jul 2003 17:11:32 GMT, (Charles Hawtrey) wrote: The ICC is noble in principle but unworkable in practice. The guilty can easily evade justice by having sham trials in their own countries, while well-meaning peacekeepers will be subject to an endless annoyance of frivolous prosecutions. No, that's a misunderstanding. The ICC was set up exactly to avoid that kind of impunity, by giving the ICC the ultimate jurisdiction. Have you actually read the relevant part of the Rome Statute? Yes of course. The bar for "ultimate jurisdiction" as you call it is set so high that it is effectively useful only when the case of a state with no central government. You write this as if anyone bothering to read the statute will realise that in cases of states with a central government, the ICC has effectively no ways of exercising its ultimate jurisdiction. I can't read it that way. A state that wishes to shield violators can easily do so by setting up a sham trial that follows the formalities of its legal system. Theoretically the trial could be declared a sham, but in practice the shielding state can easily avoid this by making a good show. And it is easy to set up a good show, you would say, eh? :-) Few would be so naive as to conduct a transparently obvious sham trial. True. There would need to be put a whole lot more hard effort into it. |
US Bully: Sign war crime immunity agreement, or lose veterinary program aid
In essence, US reaction to the establishment of an International
Criminal Court has been to try to force through the establishment of international law as one for American citizens -- and another for the rest of the world. It is a classic case of American double standards, easy to see for the rest of us, but strangely invisible to Americans. (snip) Oh, quit bleating and whining, you tortured bitch. Nobody but a fellow Euroweenie wants to listen to your pseudomoral bellyaching. Just shut your dirty mouth and do something useful for once.-Jitney |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:44 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
GardenBanter