US Withdraws UN Resolution Seeking Criminal Court Exemption

raid517

At last, although horrible, maybe some good can come out of recent events after all.

http://www.iwar.org.uk/news-archive/2004/06-23-4.htm

Now with the US signed up, all those little tin pot dictatorships will have to sign up too. And maybe at last we can get round to putting some bad guys away.

GJ

Spader

Yeah since they are starting to get reactions like the below which is a qoute from a reader of NewYork times they had to rethink.It wasn´t any longer politically possible to claim Americans stod higher than anyone else.

Spader







"President Bush now wants to distance himself from a 2002 Justice Department memo authorizing torture ("Author of '02 Memo on Torture: `Gentle' Soul for a Harsh Topic," front page, June 24). But what we would really like to know is why the president did not categorically reject the memo condoning torture on the basis of moral principle.

Was the apparent support of the administration for torture founded merely in specious legal arguments, now rejected; or was it wholly grounded in moral error?

raid517

Sigh... Is it just me, or do you always seem to just open your mouth and shout the first nonsense that comes into it for the sake of nothing more than making a noise?

People quoting from books they have never read, others citing memos that probably don't exist... Is this really what this forum is coming to?

You want to know what I think? Bring back bluelight is what I think. I didn't always agree with him either, but at least he was able to make some quality/tough to argue points...

I know you are going to be annoyed with this, so I'll quit while I'm ahead.

I guess you will want to shout at me too, since that is pretty much all you have done to everyone since you showed up here.

So whatever. Go on. Give it your best shot. I'm pretty much selectively deaf when I need to be.

If anybody has anything genuinely interesting to say about this topic, let me know

GJ

Spader

Nonsense?Well that is your definition.Not mine.


Excuse me...but in what way is this post "shouting"?

Im refering to a letter to the New York post from a reader.

The letter is about the EXISTING memo (why else would they even reply to questions about it?)

Ok? If (and future will tell) the Us government adapted what was suggested in the memo then they have per definition violated the Geneva convention.


Is this relevant to the toipic?

Yeah for me it is.

As a side note....in some of the papers released by washington it is proposed that prisoners shouldnt be forced to stand for more than 4 hours straight.

Rumsfeld has mad a notation on that documents with the question.Why not 8 hours or more?

I figure that says more than anything else what is true about this.

Bluelight?

He pointed me here.He was banned for having qouted someone else.

Somewhat weird if you ask me.

Anf yes...it is a good thing that Usa accepts the international court.It gives a signal to those that need it.

It also tells those that despise Usa that Usa plays according to the same rules as everyone else and does not stand above law which is what rejecting the court gives impression of.




Spader

The_Neon_Cowboy

The UN's busy with it's own internal problems....

It doesn't require any un aproval you should no that other wise the troops wouldn't be there to begin with.

Spader

Obviously existing memo



Memo

Spader

The UN must have a resolution made by one of the security council memebrs accepted by a majority of the others to use military force.

Spader

kp59583

Well the memo stated that Bush reserved the right to disregard the Geneva convention rules on treatment of terrorist in Iraq due to what the lawers said but he also stated that we will abide by the Geneva convention rules in Iraq. So whats your point!

Spader

Well we dont know yet what he said.What we do know is that they didnt abide to the Geneva convention.We know that Rumsfeld accepted this.If this was invented by interpretations of hired lawyers is not of interests.You dont need a lawyer to interpret a convention that you have already signed.You do need it though if yopur mission is to stretch the limits of interpretation of it which is exactly what they have done.

What remains is to see is what Bush did and said in reality.

There must be a reason as to why Democrats today accuse the Bush government of hiding things in the same manner as Nixon did in his heydays.

Spader

Jarka Ruus

As has been stated here before, the Geneva Conections do not protect terrorists in any way.

kp59583

Article 4 of the Geneva conventions state.

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

The_Neon_Cowboy

that didn't happen with iraq

I'll * the ones that don't apply

thier not prisionsers of war, they wear no state sactioned uniform, they do not fit into the agreement
read your own post lol....

kp59583

The_Neon_Cowboy. I agree 100%. I should have marked them myself.

raid517

@Spader, I think maybe I was a little harsh. However it would be nice if you would just step back a little, not go at everyone as if you were out to beat them up and think a little more carefully about what you say.

In any case while I agree that several common standards of human rights were overstepped - you claimed that this memo had been written by Bush personally. In actual fact the memo was written by the then-assistant attorney general Jay Bybee - who perhaps conveniently claims to have never spoken to Bush on these issues. The point is that your post was probably inaccurate since if it had been written by Bush - or could be shown to have been approved by him, then that would be some fairly major mud that would be bound to stick to him. The media would certainly have gone a lot more berserk than has so far been the case.

@Neon and the rest of you. Quit thinking every thread on the political forums is just about Iraq or Afghanistan.

This is about the US finally agreeing to submit itself (and it's forces) to the international criminal court - so that if the US (or anyone else for that matter) is shown to have been guilty of war crimes they (again like everyone else) can be called to account for it.

In any case Bush claimed that the Geneva convention was being followed in Iraq - so it would be nice if you would stop confusing what happened in Iraq with what happened in Afghanistan.

The irony from what I can see is that you appear to be discounting almost all of the tenets of the Geneva convention, as though somehow they were horrible nasty principals. However if you actually took the time to read them I think any sane and rational person would have to agree that they are in fact very fine and very noble ideals for any civilized country to aspire to. The only fault is that in some instances they may not go quite far enough.

Anyway just say for example we did just dispense with the Geneva convention completely (or sent a signal to the world that it was OK to pick and choose when the rules of the Geneva convention did or did not apply) then clearly this would mean that the Geneva convention should not apply to American troops either. Why should it if America sees fit to 'set it aside' whenever it sees fit? Unless that is you somehow imagine that the US should be afforded some form of special treatment? If you do believe this, then I'm sorry to say that this equates to nothing more than ignorance and arrogance. If the Geneva convention doesn't apply when the US feels like ignoring it, then it shouldn't apply to anyone ever. What a great idea that is...

GJ

Spader

The definition of what a terrorist is is neither something for the Us republican party to define.


Spader

Spader

No it didnt happen with Iraq.

When it comes to Iraq Usa ignored the UN and started a spectacle on their own and thus they violated the agreement not to attack another nation without first being attacked.

In oreder to do so they invented the WMD argument and claimed that Saddam was an immidiet threat through his WMD´s.

They then presented "proof" of WMD´s one week before the invasion.

Proof that Powell who was sent out to present them recently admitted was "nothing" and he also said the "proof" had been deliberatly tampered with but he didnt say by who.

Yeah ...the UN said no the escapades of the Bush government.

For one single reason...The issuee was already handled by the UN and it was as close as it could be to be finished.

It was a question of months before an invasion would have been a fact anyway...But Bush didnt have time to wait cause it didnt fit their agenda.

Too bad because if they had done so it is very likeley that he would have had an alliance lilke his father managed to build the first Gulf war.

Spader

raid517

Like I said guys, try to stay on topic.

GJ

Falstaff

The UN....what can be said, well intentioned but poorly managed. The UN is as reliable as they have always been. (and that isnt saying much)

lonewolf_omega

Something that no one seems to be acknowledging is that the United States has in past vetoed all UN peacekeeping missions if the US was denied immunity from the ICC. I personally do not like the idea of the ICC or the UN as I believe they impede on the sovereignty of the US. I believe that the ICC is becoming a platform for the crazed dictators to spout their nonsense (look at Milosevich) and the UN is too bureaucratic to get much accomplished (ie: the UN Oil for Food Program and its ensuing scandal). The US may also choose not to send any troops on any UN peacekeeping missions. Although a large number of our troops are currently deployed in Iraq, we still provide a great number of peacekeepers. Without US military support, the UN may find it difficult to successfully "peace" every nation that requests UN peacekeepers. And removing the resolution from the Security Council does not make us a "participator" in the ICC. It merely means that our troops can be prosecuted for war crimes if our government cannot or will not prosecute them. I seriously doubt the current president would let any of our troops be prosecuted in the ICC for whatever reason and would use whatever force necessary to protect those troops.

raid517

So if US troops were ever found to have committed what were clearly shown to be war crimes, you would advocate using 'force' to defend them?

Right.... Well that says a lot...

It also says a lot about your understanding of how the UN works.

Bah! I gone over this countless times already. I can't be asses repeating it all again...

GJ