Icc

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (InRange @ July 15 2002,16:33)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Personally, I think those 'peacekeeping missions' are a bit irresponsible. I mean, you send soldiers in between two hostile sides that want to have a go at each other. Then, the soldiers get little equipment to defend themselves with and they can't shoot first. Plus, they get nice blue helmets and flashy white apc's and trucks. Very dangerous and irresponsible on behalf of the UN.<span id='postcolor'>

Tell that to the people on Cyprus... or the ones along the DMZ in Korea.

Coming from a nation that believes Peace Keeping is a valid role for ones military, I have to say I am behind the idea. There are times where having an armed presence stabilizes more than it causes problems.

The problem is that the US Military mentality doesnt lend itself to peace keeping. They have an 'all or nothing' attitude that can only see black and white, and thus in a situation that is a giant shade of gray, all sorts of badness can happen.

This is not a knock on the US Armed Services. It's a knock at the leadership that doesnt believe that keeping the peace is more important than kicking ass. Sometimes it's knowing when NOT to shoot, and not doing it even when the pucker factor is very high, that is truly important. If you look at the 'Peace Keeping' missions that the US has been involved in in recent years, they have pretty much all degenerated into shooting 'wars'

And if a one year amnesty for US troops gets the US on board, it isnt neccesarily a bad thing. Only problem is they can do a lot of nasty stuff in Iraq in a year

[denoir 0]

Ok, this thread is over one year old, but I think it's very suitable to post it here as it is on the same subject and sharply contrasts to the situation last year:

US war crimes immunity bid fails [bBC]

Quote[/b] ]

The US has given up trying to win its soldiers immunity from prosecution at the new International Criminal Court.

United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan had warned the Security Council not to renew the measure, partly because of the prisoner abuse scandal.

Washington withdrew its resolution after it became clear it would not get the required support. For the last two years it had secured special status for US troops, arguing they could face malicious prosecutions.

"The United States has decided not to proceed further with consideration and action on the draft at this time in order to avoid a prolonged and divisive debate," said the US deputy ambassador to the UN James Cunningham.

"We are dropping action on this resolution."

In the past, the US has 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.

Mr Cunningham did not repeat the warning, but said the US would in future "need to take into account the risk of ICC review when determining contributions to UN authorised or established operations". The US offered a compromise to the Security Council on Tuesday, asking it to renew the existing immunity for just one more year.

But it was not enough to gain the necessary support of nine out of the 15 council members. Earlier this month Mr Annan said if the exemption - which expires on 30 June - were extended, it would discredit the UN's claim to represent the rule of law.

"For the past two years, I have spoken quite strongly against the exemption and I think it would be unfortunate for one to press for such an exemption, given the prisoner abuse in Iraq," he said.

"Blanket exemption is wrong. It is of dubious judicial value and I don't think it should be encouraged by the council."

Last resort

The BBC's Susannah Price at the United Nations says Washington has refused to ratify the 1998 Rome Treaty authorising the ICC, fearing that US soldiers could end up in show trials overseas. But she says the 94 signatory countries point out that the court is only meant to be a measure of last resort - and that US troops could only be prosecuted if allegations were made against them in a signatory country, and US courts failed to take action themselves.

Our correspondent adds that the impression that the US was trying to remove itself from international accountability was what upset some UN members.

Even though US troops abroad may now be subject to prosecution at the court in The Hague, Washington has already signed bilateral agreements with 89 countries to ensure they do not bring cases against its personnel.

I think this is great news and kudos to the US for dropping the resolution. I think this is a very important step in bringing back the US to the international community.

[ralphwiggum 6]

indeed. kinda surprising that this happened. guess the situation around the world finally gave enough pressure for this to happen?

two year old thread...

[DracoPaladore 0]

Ok, this thread is over one year old,

Almost nearing the 2 year old mark

[Monkey Lib Front 10]

so ehhh when u lot gonna sign up to Kyoto then :^/

[Balschoiw 0]

That´s good news. At least for the ones who believe that US judges judging under the eye of Ashcroft don´t reveal anything done wrong by US forces under the TBA command.

They dropped it because they knew they had no chance to get it through this time without a big media echo and public interest on torture scandals, wars without reasons and things like that. It´s election time and you can see that every day now. The whole TBA seems to be on elections only. Political concepts or ideas don´t matter much these days for the TBA. It´s just the elections and the intention to get a lot of things under the carpet before they start. I´m sure if Mr. supergenius Bush get´s reelected (god may prevent it with a real bright white flash of mercy for this planet and the USA) he´ll start the debate again and will be going for another ridiculous solo.

The ICC case itself is ridiculous. Educate your troops, keep them in a civilized manner, don´t order them to do things that are against international law and you´ll go fine. What´s the freakin deal ?

Bush concerned about administrative rules being handled at ICC ?

Well if it is that way the US has to rethink their leadership, not the ICC.

[Major Gripe 0]

so ehhh when u lot gonna sign up to Kyoto then :^/

When Hell freezes over thanks to all the pollution!

[killagee 0]

Hooray! About time i say. Now US G.I.'s are responsible for there actions like the rest of us!

Another story about US joining the ICC!

[IceFire 0]

Holy cow.

Judging from the thread and the first post in this thread, the ICC is called the "Inter County Connector". It is NOT a part of the "metro" as the thread started suggested in his first post.

It is a new highway that the Maryland Governor wants to build in a quiet community in Longmeade close to Aspen Hill.

I don't care really what they do to that area, but I know some people who live close by and MANY people are against this new highway idea since it will be going straight through that living community.

There has been alot of controversy about this for like 10 years now. They are finally making the final decision on whether to actually build this new highway this summer.

Many people are still protesting this new highway. Who knows what will happen. I don't think it will be built though. They have been discussing this for the past 10 years now but it would suck if it does get built.

[SpeedyDonkey 0]

IceFire, how about the International Criminal Court

Quote[/b] ]The International Criminal Court (ICC) was established by the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court on 17 July 1998, when 120 States participating in the "United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court" adopted the Statute. This is the first ever permanent, treaty based, international criminal court established to promote the rule of law and ensure that the gravest international crimes do not go unpunished.

The Statute sets out the Court's jurisdiction, structure and functions and it provides for its entry into force 60 days after 60 States have ratified or acceded to it. The 60th instrument of ratification was deposited with the Secretary General on 11 April 2002, when 10 countries simultaneously deposited their instruments of ratification. Accordingly, the Statute entered into force on 1 July 2002. Anyone who commits any of the crimes under the Statute after this date will be liable for prosecution by the Court.

[denoir 0]

Holy cow.

Judging from the thread and the first post in this thread, the ICC is called the "Inter County Connector".  It is NOT a part of the "metro" as the thread started suggested in his first post.

It is a new highway that the Maryland Governor wants to build in a quiet community in Longmeade close to Aspen Hill.

I don't care really what they do to that area, but I know some people who live close by and MANY people are against this new highway idea since it will be going straight through that living community.

There has been alot of controversy about this for like 10 years now.  They are finally making the final decision on whether to actually build this new highway this summer.

Many people are still protesting this new highway.  Who knows what will happen.  I don't think it will be built though.  They have been discussing this for the past 10 years now but it would suck if it does get built.

LMAO, IceFire

The ICC is as SpeedyDonkey pointed out the International Criminal Court, a UN war crimnial tribunal. The US has fiercly opposed that US soldiers should be accountable before it, but has now backed down.

"Metro" is a European newspaper that you get free in the subway.

[Balschoiw 0]

That´s really classy

Impact !