| Submit your comments on this article |
| International-UN-NGOs |
| US Troops no longer immune from international war crimes commision |
| 2004-06-23 |
| Posted by:CCat |
| #36 rex, buy a vowel, would you? I listen to Savage pretty regularly myself and he's gonna vote for Bush. At least once a day, he'll bash Bush and say he's withholding his vote "as someone who cares" about this country. What's he gonna do? Vote for Kerry or Nader? Stay home? Get real. Savage's schtick is that he shocks and he mocks. He is one extreme Right Wing voice--he stimulates conversation, but in his case, much of it isn't thoughtful and getting the extreme views out there helps the rest of us land on more sensible and practical solutions. It's fun to hear him yell and abuse callers, but take him at his word?--No, thanks. |
| Posted by: Jen 2004-06-24 12:49:38 AM |
| #35 The Republican Party has conservative talk radio to thank for its majority win of Congress and the Senate. Like it or not that's a documented fact. When Savage, a pro-Bush talk radio host, comes out and says he will not vote for Bush because he is pissed with Bush's betrayal of the military, it would be unwise for the WH to ignore the message. You are right Savage has influence over 10 Million Americans and believe me, they are LOYAL listeners. So I think it would behoove the State Department-calling Colin Powell- to get in front of a microphone a.s.a.p. and put information out to the public about how the US government will support the military come hell or high water against any frivolous lawsuits promoted in a UN kanagroo court. That's my suggestion. Savage also recommended that GI's threaten not voting for Bush unless he does right by them about this issue. I support Savage on this point. State Department better get off its over paid a** and get agreement from every Third World hellhole that we give foreign aid to and get their signature on binding contracts that they will NEVER press charges against our GI's for perpetuity. |
| Posted by: rex 2004-06-24 12:43:21 AM |
| #34 What the hell are we supposed to do when this "loose Wing Nut" Michael Savage spews this disinformation and infuriates the uninformed? Something to note about Savage, very much ego driven. If it's not about him then he pisses all over it. I think he gets his info from the NY Times web site or CNN, the exact web sites he loathes and then he starts to spew uncontrollably. So what can you do when you give an idiot a mic and 10 million listeners? |
| Posted by: Long Hair Republican 2004-06-23 11:48:18 PM |
| #33 Given the so-called moral authority of international bodies, this is not a good sign. However, we were pretty much fighting an uphill battle, given the B.S. hurled by main stream media. We presently have bilaterial exemption agreements with 90 countries, and that effort will continue. As the de facto world's cop, we need to set preconditions for each future intervention. That being exemption from the ICC. |
| Posted by: Capt America 2004-06-23 11:36:37 PM |
| #32 'We could have told Kofi Annan that we will immediately pull out our troops from all regions that they are deployed along with other UN peacekeepers." rex, actually, that's exactly why we did do this! (The U.S. has been doing the lion's share of all the military work for the U.N., too.) To remove our forces from having to join any more peacekeeping missions is a feature not a bug--and we made it clear that should the ICJ try to grab our soldiers for "legal reasons," that we're prepared to use force to come and get them. (You might say that President Bush has rope-a-doped his enemies yet again by getting them to vote on counting us out!). As for the UN Oil-for-palaces scandal, hold on. That's coming. Paul Volcker and his committee are preparing an American criminal investigation as we type. Even though the UN used the French/Dutch bank ParisBas for the scam, I'm willing to bet that most of those billions are still in U.S. banks given the world financial markets. |
| Posted by: Jen 2004-06-23 11:20:40 PM |
| #31 American troops are protected by various means, not the least of which is their ability to defend themselves What "various means" are at the disposal of ordinary GI's to protect themselves from anti-American frivolous legal cases that will be trumped up against them? That you don't see this as a cave-in is strange. We could have told Kofi Annan that we will immediately pull out our troops from all regions that they are deployed along with other UN peacekeepers. We could have told Kofi that we will hold back all financial contributions to the UN, including the $15 Billion that we have promised to throw at Africa to fight AIDS. We could have told the Security Council that we have very sensitive information that incriminates many of them in the oil-for-food scandal and that we are prepared to release this information post-haste. Those are a dew things we could start with to "persuade" Kofi and our "allies" to see this issue our way. |
| Posted by: rex 2004-06-23 11:06:42 PM |
| #30 BAR, over my head. |
| Posted by: Mr. Davis 2004-06-23 10:36:53 PM |
| #29 "Savage was furious about this latest Bush "cave-in" and there is no better way to describe this action." If that's what Savage thinks, then Savage is an idiot. How is this a Bush cave-in? This is an annually renewed immunity, voted on by the Security Council. Over the last several weeks, it has become clear that the U.S. does not have the votes necessary to pass, same type of deal as the resolution we sought before the start of hostilities in Iraq. So now that we don't have the votes, the request has been withdrawn. American troops are protected by various means, not the least of which is their ability to defend themselves. Now, American businessmen who find themselves caught in some ICC prosecution are a different story. |
| Posted by: mva30 2004-06-23 10:16:17 PM |
| #28 I'm not a lawyer either, I just pay them or play them on the internet. Did you stay at a Holiday Inn Express? ;) |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2004-06-23 9:20:33 PM |
| #27 I have been listening to Michael Savage today. Say what you will about Savage, he enjoys considerable influence on conservative voters in America. Savage was furious about this latest Bush "cave-in" and there is no better way to describe this action. Savage's point was well taken ie. GI's are paid poorly to do a dangerous job in response to the direction of the Commander-in-Chief, and at the very least this Administration should give the military 150% support and protection from frivolous lawsuits, which will surely come up, you can bet the farm on that. Savage says this is the final straw that breaks the camel's back...he will not vote this November because both Bush and Kerry are inferior candidates. When right wing talk show hosts like Savage begin withdrawing support from Bush, this can decide the election. I think the WH should pay close attention. |
| Posted by: rex 2004-06-23 7:37:24 PM |
| #26 just kick the un out..let the EU pay the majority of the budget..it could become the league of nations for the 21st century.. |
| Posted by: Dan 2004-06-23 7:32:43 PM |
| #25 I stand corrected, the law was in fact enacted in the past 2 years : One month after the ICC obtained the needed number of signatures for its establishment in July 2002, Congress passed a law, the American Service Members Protection Act, prohibiting any American cooperation with the ICC, and authorizing the executive to order the use of force to "free" any American citizen or resident who might be taken into ICC custody. This law has been mocked by critics as the "Hague Invasion Act." Still it did enjoy significant bi-partisan support. |
| Posted by: Anonymous5348 2004-06-23 7:07:56 PM |
| #24 An important point about this nonsense is who *exactly* is given "standing" to sue for arrest. I recall that when Belgium briefly had a law like this, some Belgian lawyer immediately sued Bush on the grounds that he had done something somewhere. Noteworthy, this lawyer had never been there, and had not been retained by anyone there, but in Belgium, had "standing" to bring the case anyway. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2004-06-23 7:06:58 PM |
| #23 Actually, there is a formal law on the federal books that explictly orders the President to use any force necessary to rescue any military personnel taken captive and transported to the ICC. Bi-partisan effort back in Clinton's days. That force requirement is stated in such a way as to require military intervention if it should prove useful. |
| Posted by: Anonymous5348 2004-06-23 7:00:35 PM |
| #22 Jen, I'm not a lawyer either, I just pay them or play them on the internet. This topic is also on Page 2 with a thread you might enjoy. #19 in particular deals with Tony Blair's vacation hot spots. |
| Posted by: Mr. Davis 2004-06-23 6:29:31 PM |
| #21 So what happens our troops are turned over to the E.U. or U.N. if a 'crime' is commited? NOT kosher! It's bad enough U.S. troops are stuck in a hot, humid terrorist rat hole like Iraq and now this? What numb numb allowed this sellout of our nation's servicemen? |
| Posted by: Mark Espinola 2004-06-23 6:21:50 PM |
| #20 So...does this mean we can arrest the entire UN staff as corrupt? Or at least the ones in our country, which is like, all of them anyway. |
| Posted by: Silentbrick 2004-06-23 6:13:46 PM |
| #19 OK, thanks, Mr. Davis...but (I went to law school just long enough to be dangerous), there still is really no such animal as "international law" and what you seem to be telling me is that the ICC has to get jurisdiction over the wanted "criminals" like Kissinger and Ariel Sharon, so the trick is, "Don't ever go to the Hague on vacation." I noticed that Milosevich didn't overly suffer for his little trial in the ICJ dock, either. |
| Posted by: Jen 2004-06-23 6:10:01 PM |
| #18 Jen, The ICC is international law, now. My understanding is a suit could be brought against an American and if that American went to a signatory country could be apprehended by local authroities and conveyed for prosecution in the ICC sort of like what they tried to do to Pinochet in England. I believe Kissinger and McNamara have such warrants outstanding. |
| Posted by: Mr. Davis 2004-06-23 6:06:22 PM |
| #17 Someone throw me a clue, please! Why are we seeking immunity if we're not a signatory to the ICC? (Whose idea was this? I smell something bad and I think it's French, too!) |
| Posted by: Jen 2004-06-23 6:01:06 PM |
| #16 Troops currently on Peacekeeping missions are covered by prior resolutions. Such troops are in Bosnia, Kosovo, etc. As soon as the prior resolutions expire I expect we'll be withdrawing our troops, unlike Spain which couldn't even wait for June 30. Let's see how Jacquestrap and Gerd like them apples. |
| Posted by: Mr. Davis 2004-06-23 6:00:37 PM |
| #15 A wire service story on this says the US has signed bilaterals with 90 countries to avoid prosecution of US troops. That would only leave 4 signatory countries without bilaterals with us. Kind of a nice tactic -- just modify or gut a treaty by carving out our own arrangements directly with other states. If this serves to discourage US contributions to "peace-keeping" activities, and force others to start being adults (if only), then it will be a good thing. |
| Posted by: Verlaine 2004-06-23 6:00:12 PM |
| #14 Fortunately, the United States has no shortage of lawyers. I just hope that the losing party in any ensuing lawsuits must carry the burden of legal costs. Why bother with such a waste of money? Give them three choices: 1. Knock off this ICC bullshit now, period. 2. Immediate disengagment from UN missions by U.S. forces and a reduction in U.S. monetary contributions. 3. Get out of NY altogether and find a new home NOT on U.S. soil. |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2004-06-23 5:50:17 PM |
| #13 Not to worry, the UN only deploys peacekeepers once all the inhabitants are peaceful (cemetaries are very peaceful.) |
| Posted by: Super Hose 2004-06-23 5:45:07 PM |
| #12 The key phrase in this article is "new resolution." We currently don't allow our troops to be subjected to this kind of nonsense. As long as George Bush is in the White House, I don't believe that there is anyone with a high enough testosterone level to try and arrest any US troops or officials for war crimes. With Kerry, all bets are off. |
| Posted by: RWV 2004-06-23 5:34:31 PM |
| #11 eLarson, that's a brilliant, subversive idea of the type normally reserved for those on the left. If you know how to get your hands on about a mile of "crime scene" tape, we should give it a go. |
| Posted by: Tibor 2004-06-23 5:31:32 PM |
| #10 Hell, lets tape off the entire UN complex in NYC as a crime scene. |
| Posted by: eLarson 2004-06-23 5:27:15 PM |
| #9 After I have cooled off I realized that we don;t have any troops for UN ‘Peacekeeping’ missions so we won’t have to worry about this too much. |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge (VRWC CA Chapter) 2004-06-23 5:22:42 PM |
| #8 You're right, Ruprecht. Before we throw the bums out of NY, execute a "sieze & search" entry, looking for all documents pertaining to the UNSCAM mess. Just so nothing takes a walk, y'know. |
| Posted by: mojo 2004-06-23 5:16:14 PM |
| #7 Mojo, your plan is incomplete. If youre gonna play defense you must demand visa's from all visitors to the US and monitor those that do come in legally. Stop illegal immigration. |
| Posted by: Ruprecht 2004-06-23 5:09:15 PM |
| #6 UN BE GONE! |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge (VRWC CA Chapter) 2004-06-23 5:01:46 PM |
| #5 Looks like a high level game of chicken is about to begin. Hope Kofi doesn't have automatic door locks. |
| Posted by: Mr. Davis 2004-06-23 4:59:14 PM |
| #4 Throw the bums out of NY, bring home all troops engaged in peacekeeping duties. Wait. If needed: rinse, repeat... |
| Posted by: mojo 2004-06-23 4:56:56 PM |
| #3 I'd rather see us pull out of the UN, but that's the optimist in me... |
| Posted by: Raj 2004-06-23 4:25:54 PM |
| #2 In light of America's de facto role as Global Cop™ and the obstructive opposition we routinely face within the UN, this is very bad news. Fortunately, the United States has no shortage of lawyers. I just hope that the losing party in any ensuing lawsuits must carry the burden of legal costs. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2004-06-23 4:22:29 PM |
| #1 Meaning what, we accede to demands for war crimes trials against us? |
| Posted by: jules 187 2004-06-23 4:16:50 PM |