|
US threatens to boycott Belgium over war crimes law
EFL, and an answer for TGA belowThe bitter dispute between the US and Europe over Iraq burst into the open again yesterday when the US threatened Belgium with a boycott and Germany and France registered protests at the UN about Washington's continued opposition to the international criminal court. The US defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, warned Belgium at a Nato meeting to drop its controversial war crimes law or face a boycott of Nato's Brussels HQ. Belgium, a founder member of Nato, has a law "We might find it easier to put lots and lots of stuff elsewhere than in Belgium." He refused to say whether the US wanted to see the headquarters moved from Brussels, but added: "It's perfectly possible to meet elsewhere." Belgium's defence minister, André Flahaut, insisted that American officials could continue to enter the country without fear of harassment. Sure Andre, you always pass laws you have no intention of enforcing. The legacy of the Iraq war also surfaced in New York during a vote at the UN security council on a resolution extending for a year a US exemption from the international criminal court, which began work last year. Although it has the backing of 90 countries, including Britain and the rest of Europe, the court is shunned by the US because of fears that its servicemen could face trial. Explanation for TGA at the bottom.
Well they sure showed some spine, didn't they, waiting for the Germans. Britain, though a strong supporter of the court, voted to continue the US exemption. The British government regards the exemption as the least bad option, because it will avoid a repeat of the standoff last year in which the US threatened to block peace keeping operations unless it was given an opt-out. The British government says that it recognises American concerns, but adds that it does not regard the prospect of US soldiers being tried by the court as a realistic one. TGA asked yesterday what the problem was with the ICC for the US. The simple answer: such a court would violate our Constitution. Our Constitution requires that the US Supreme Court is the supreme law judging court of our country and for our citizens. Whatever legislation Congress passed to ratify and implement the ICC would usurp the role of the USSC (it's unavoidable, since one couldn't appeal a verdict of the ICC to the USSC), and that's a no-no -- Congress isn't allowed to diminish the constitutional power of the USSC. To make the ICC constitutional, we'd have to pass an amendment, and that requires 3/4 of the States to affirm. For the same reason our government won't sign certain arms control agreements that give inspectors powers to examine private property in the US unannounced -- that violates our Bill of Rights which protects citizens against unlawful searches. Congress can't ratify a treaty (or a law) that violates the rights of our citizens. Treaties have the same power as any other law Congress passes, and don't stand above or beside the Constitution. As you may gather from this, TGA, we Americans are rather fussy when it comes to our Constitution. It's regarded as one of the fundamental, defining characteristics of our country. We'll argue and fight over what each word means, but in the end virtually all of us stand by it. Posted by: Steve White 2003-06-13 |
|
| http://www.rantburg.com/poparticle.php?ID=15395 |