Article

2004-06-24 International-UN-NGOs

U.S. drops push to protect Americans from tribunal

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve White 2004-06-24 12:37:26 AM|| || Front Page|| [3 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 The 1/3 of the peacekeeping tab the US picks up? Nope sorry. Gotta use it to defend our own borders.

Posted by ed 2004-06-24 1:49:09 AM|| 2004-06-24 1:49:09 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 At the risk of having things thrown at me, this is what I believe the Leadership was thinking:

1. Thanks to the Six Morons at Abu Ghraib, the resolution had zero chance of passing.
2. There was also the same chance of us actually handing over anybody charged - after all, before that bloated bureaucratic bungle got its head out and actually charged somebody, we'd have them out of there and in our own jail.
3. The chances of anyone actually being charged before the ICC is +/-.000000001 %. After all, they just got around to filing their first charges....against somebody they don't have and are unlikely to ever get. The ICC is no more than an exercise in political masturbation so the EU can claim they are morally superior to us.
4. The Donks can scream all they want about us 'defying' the world...they ain't going to commit political suicide either by handing someone over.
5. ..And last - if they somehow got their hands on a US serviceman and tried him, that would do more to end the UN than all the scandals combined.
I really think this was a no harm-no foul.

Mike

Posted by Mike Kozlowski 2004-06-24 3:26:49 AM|| 2004-06-24 3:26:49 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 ..One other thing - in a Bush second term, start looking for the Administration to request Congressional approval for peacekeeping ops, be it money, logistical support, or men. Gonna be a lot tougher to do when you have to put your name on it, Congressman...

Mike

Posted by Mike Kozlowski 2004-06-24 3:29:17 AM|| 2004-06-24 3:29:17 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 You have more confidence in Bush to stand up to the UN to protect GI's rights than I do. The very fact that the US did not kick that jackass Kofi Annan out of Manhattan 3 years ago tells me that Bush is more of a Kumbaya guy than any of you want to admit. It kills me to hear Bush crowing about sending AIDS $ to Vietnam [ say what?] on the very same day that the jackals at the UN are yipping at the heels of our underpaid brave boys in uniform. His behavior today is disappointing to say the least. If I were in the military, I would submit my resignation immediately. Let's see how far the WH will go in democracizing the peace loving Muslim nations around the world if it has to rely on Kofi and the boys to do the grunt woork. George Bush, pay attention to who your friends are and treat them well. Who cares if the Vietnamese are dying of AIDS? It's their promiscuous life style that causes AIDS, it's not our problem.

Posted by rex 2004-06-24 3:44:18 AM|| 2004-06-24 3:44:18 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 I'm with Ed on the idea that the US will wisely remove itself from UN Peacekeeping missions. This is not to say that the US won't be sending troops here or there, hither and thro, but it will be under a US Mandate, with total US command. The only way our troops should go anywhere.

I will however disagree with Mike on Abu Ghraib. It was bad stuff and it extends far beyond the six soldiers so far charged. It was behavior unworthy of American Soldiers, and the people most dismayed by these revelations were the under appreciated troops in the field. They now had another problem, as if they already didn't have too many already. (I'm sorry, but Abu Ghraib is something we will probably never agree on. It has nothing to do with the press, and in the end, this will cause the death of more US soldiers. It was worse than stupid, it was unforgivable. Bush should of gathered the entire 507th (?) MP Company on the lawn of the White House and disbanded the unit forever, and then on nationwide TV shamed the perps publicly and had them marched off to the brig for trial).

In which case there is no need for an ICC. My only concern is the well being of US troops. I am much more fearful of Bush and the ICC than Kerry, (Kerry knows he would be toast), but Bush, like Nixon going to China, could acquiesce and get away with it.

Again, I must disagree with Mike. I think that the ICC for show would love to charge, even if they couldn't try, US soldiers. However, I am not anti-UN in general...but there must be clear and straight talk.

Regarding the ICC, the US needs to say...Never, Never, Never...and then withold all US funding to the UN. Very simple. Very clean. With apologizes, of course.

Best Wishes,

Posted by Traveller 2004-06-24 4:44:27 AM|| 2004-06-24 4:44:27 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 I will however disagree with Mike on Abu Ghraib. It was bad stuff and it extends far beyond the six soldiers so far charged. It was behavior unworthy of American Soldiers, and the people most dismayed by these revelations were the under appreciated troops in the field. They now had another problem, as if they already didn't have too many already. (I'm sorry, but Abu Ghraib is something we will probably never agree on. It has nothing to do with the press, and in the end, this will cause the death of more US soldiers. It was worse than stupid, it was unforgivable. Bush should of gathered the entire 507th (?) MP Company on the lawn of the White House and disbanded the unit forever, and then on nationwide TV shamed the perps publicly and had them marched off to the brig for trial).

Let me get this straight: we have been at war with folks who think nothing of launching suicide attacks on anyone and everyone, soldier or not, but you think Abu Ghraib will hand our enemies all the execuse they need to... kill people?

Sounds silly, doesn't it?

Abu Ghraib was far simpler an event than it is being made out to be. I have enunciated the simple facts on this board and elsewhere repeatedly. Tear away all the hand wringing and all the recriminations, that is all that it left.

You said It was bad stuff and it extends far beyond the six soldiers so far charged. It was behavior unworthy of American Soldiers, and the people most dismayed by these revelations were the under appreciated troops in the field.

So you would punished the other 120 in the MP company or so soldiers because of the six who were out of control?

Let us admit that those who did break rules are being appropriately dealt with. Abu Ghraib is handled. Once word of it got out, the entire matter was handled quickly, efficaciously and in a military manner. We can ask no more than that in a war zone.

The only reason any military unit is punitively disbanded in a time of war is because command of the unit lost their unit flag, or for cowardice. The MP company doesn't meet this standard.

And I disagree that Abu Ghraib was a stain on anyone. Only six soldiers participated in this for God's sakes. The only thing Abu Ghraib has done so far is to show our own press' loyalties lie: and it isn't with the troops.

Posted by badanov 2004-06-24 7:50:53 AM|| [http://www.rkka.org] 2004-06-24 7:50:53 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 The chances of anyone actually being charged before the ICC is +/-.000000001 %.

What planet you linin' on? Or did you divide wrong?

I'd estimate the odds of having at least one US soldier (probably a field-grade officer) charged with "war crimes" at the ICC at around 100%, within 2 years. The odds of having the lucky winner grabbed off the streets of Brussels: 50%.

Posted by mojo 2004-06-24 10:33:56 AM|| 2004-06-24 10:33:56 AM|| Front Page Top

#8 mojo - I'd estimate the odds of having at least one US soldier (probably a field-grade officer) charged with "war crimes" at the ICC at around 100%, within 2 years.

Remember : one Euro neo-Commie in Belgium tried to charge GWB with a war crime.

It had better be a verified Mai-Lai type incident that the soldier was involved in, because if it isn't . . .

It's gonna take the entire NY police force to guard UN HQ 'cause there's enough folks within commute distance to storm the place with thousands - - its gonna get ugly.

Another Howard Beale Moment!
I'M MAD AS HELL. . .

Posted by BigEd 2004-06-24 11:01:58 AM|| 2004-06-24 11:01:58 AM|| Front Page Top

#9 It against the law (as of 2002) to send US troops on any mission in which they could be ~~persecuted~~ prosecuted by the ICC.

"Nope. Sorry, guys. I don't want to get impeached. You'll have to handle it yourselves."

Posted by Jackal 2004-06-24 2:17:57 PM|| [http://home.earthlink.net/~sleepyjackal/index.html] 2004-06-24 2:17:57 PM|| Front Page Top

03:52 Thomose Unomose9553
20:08 Shipman
20:05 jjokocha
20:01 jjokocha
21:32 Rob Adcox
06:43 Shipman
04:09 Anonymous5333
02:50 Super Hose
02:20 Super Hose
01:40 Anonymous4617
01:29 .com
01:21 Capt America
01:14 Capt America
01:02 ex-lib
00:39 FED-UP
00:27 Super Hose
00:12 Rafael
00:04 Steve White
23:59 jawa
23:57 anymouse
23:56 jawa
23:56 jawa
23:54 jawa
23:51 OldSpook