RoadBikeReview.com's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions


Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )


Bush admin. caves to international pressure on ICC issue.(29 posts)

Bush admin. caves to international pressure on ICC issue.Sintesi
Jul 12, 2002 11:54 AM
weiwentg cries, "In your face Georgie boy!"

What happened to all that Singapore support?

We are going to be a member of the world court folks. Personally I think this is a good thing.
Judges say no. Must be in the form of a question. Please.128
Jul 12, 2002 12:03 PM
I can't even FIND my political mind today.
But, yeah, it seemed only a matter of time...
I suspect there'll be a few more 'caves' before 'it's' done.
Judges say no. Must be in the form of a question. Please.Sintesi
Jul 12, 2002 12:24 PM
When your closest friends like Britain and Canada are going "what are you thinking?" It's time to sober up and get with the program.

Personally, I think we have nothing to be afraid of since there are checks and balances in the system to prevent frivolous accusations from rising to a level that would be burdensome. We're not war criminals anyway, are we? (don't answer that weiwentg)

My other feeling on this is that a conservative administration is always going to fight against any outside authority having a say over out boys and girls at war. Basically knee-jerk anti-globalism; it leaves a bad taste in their mouths. I understand where their coming from, but this issue is just too important to the rest of the world for us to stand above it. We need friends these days.
Judges say no. Must be in the form of a question. Please.BikeViking at home
Jul 14, 2002 5:22 AM
You mean friens that tell us "Cede your sovereignty to the UN! It's OK, we did it!"

No thanks
In your face, Georgie Boy!weiwentg
Jul 13, 2002 4:56 AM
well, Singapore's just one small nation, and we were 'sympathetic to US concerns'; I don't know if that qualifies as support. my nation does have strong security ties with the US, and we are generally not confrontational.
it's good, though, to hear that you think it's a good thing.
while it seems that the administration caved in, this might not quite be the case. there is a psychological tactic known as the 'door in the face' technique. an outrageous request - which is rebuffed - is followed up by a modest request, which is then more likely to be accepted than if the modest request were made on its own. so, it is quite possible that someone in the administration was quite smart. I'm not saying, though, that this definitely happened.
in the end, the one year delay will make little difference; it'll take some time to get the ICC organized, and (in my understanding) they will only act if the host nation does not prosecute the criminals. and in the case of the US, the probably result will be obfuscation and perhaps a slap on the wrist, as happened to Lt William Calley.

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=13540

the massacre in Mazar may or may not have happened as theorized by the authors. but I would bet good money that nothing will ever come of this, not even an investigation.
Sintesi, I never said that all of your troops are war criminals. only some are (and some are unproven).
in the end, though, any attempt at justice on an international scale is a step forward.
re: Possible negotiation......jrm
Jul 13, 2002 7:08 AM
This decision could be a way to show that the US is willing to check its self and be governed by international policing force. And in return, the US might expect a supportive reception from the Un and EC when talk turns to a US lead attack on Iraq.

huuummmm do you think?
re: Bush admin. caves to international pressure on ICC issue.BikeViking at home
Jul 14, 2002 5:12 AM
This surrendering of sovereignty is insane. By accepting the need for "international enforcement" of "war crime" law, it infers that a problem exists with existing methods of war crime prosecution. The US has no problems with taking care of our own "war criminals", thanks. Weiwenteg can keep bringing up Lt Calley, but it is one incident and statistically insignificant. The UN has created this "problem" and wants the world to cede sovereignty to them so "Big Brother" can take care of us. There are plenty of despots who do need prosection, but to lump democratically elected gov'ts under the same guidelines is crazy. We can clean up our own problems without the help of the UN.
re: Bush admin. caves to international pressure on ICC issue.Jon Billheimer
Jul 14, 2002 6:02 AM
Dear BV,

For your information democratically elected governments do also occasionally violate international law and trample on human rights. The rule of law internationally, at least in principle, makes as much sense as the rule of law in civil society, and the U.S. government generally promotes the rule of law through the U.N., except when it potentially infringes on its own self-interests. America, being by far the most powerful nation in the world, consequently gets away with this. However, even America in all its power cannot police the world forever all by itself. It needs friends and allies. So to maintain its allies it occasionally has to go along with the rest of the civilized world.
re: Yeah..so what if ...jrm
Jul 14, 2002 8:13 AM
We kill some of our own troops, civilians or allie troops in the process. Sure we can clean up our own problems..NOT
other examplesweiwentg
Jul 14, 2002 5:39 PM
aside from Lt Calley, and the other example I posted, there's Bob Kerrey, who needs to be investigated for his actions in the Vietnam war.

http://www.zmag.org/ratnerkerrey.htm

there have been others. you are incorrect in that Lt Calley's was an isolated incident; there were other war crimes committed during the Vietnam war, and other wars.

http://www.deoxy.org/wc/warcrime.htm (bombing of an Iraqi military convoy, post-surrender)

http://www.mediamonitors.net/gowans22.html (destruction of drinking water and sanitation facilities in Iraq, destruction of civilian infrastructure in Yugoslavia)

http://www.iacenter.org/warcrime/wct2000.htm (various crimes in Serbia)

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Chomsky/ChomOdon_Panama.html (Panama; it is worth noting that human rights groups estimate 2500-4000 civilian deaths during the US invasion, as opposed to the Pentagon's official count of ~250)

http://www.iacenter.org/warcrime/wct2000.htm
http://www.iacenter.org/warcrime/wct_talks.htm (various related to Yugoslavia)

the conception that US soldiers have their hands clean is not fully accurate, although for the most part, recently, individual soldiers would seem to have refrained from crimes against humanity. their leaders are another story.
other examplesBikeViking at home
Jul 15, 2002 2:04 AM
I think you and MJ are competing for the "Bash US" King of the Board jersey! LoL

Even if I grant that the above articles MAY be true in their insinuation, where is your criticism of nations who do FAR worse things that we are alleged to do? China and their political/religious prison camps? North Korea and how they are starving their people to feed the army? The rape of babies in South Africa to "cure" AIDS?

THe articles about Allied Force (Serbia) are ridiculous! Had we doen nothing, we would have been "responsible" for the deaths of Kosavars by our inaction. We did something about it and now we are vilified because of the methods we used. THis is a lose/lose deal. War is horrible...people die...It's been three years and no reasonable person has actually gone forward with the insane idea to prosecute the US for "war crimes" there.

I guess the bulldozing of sand over Iraqi soldiers in their trenches is a war crime too, right?
other examplesweiwentg
Jul 15, 2002 4:11 AM
> I think you and MJ are competing for the "Bash US" King of the Board jersey! LoL

well, personally, I don't see it as bashing. I see it as exposing the truth. but yes, I know I come across to most people as bashing. if you've studied my country's foreign and domestic policies thoroughly, I certainly wouldn't complain that loudly if you criticised my country (heaven knows, William Safire bashed Singapore enough WITHOUT studying us at one point).

> THe articles about Allied Force (Serbia) are ridiculous! ...

oh, well ... look, you can dismiss anything that contradicts your worldview as ridiculous. Sintesi does that. or you can analyze it and come to your own conclusions. I try to do that.

> Had we doen nothing, we would have been "responsible" for the deaths of Kosavars by our inaction

personally, I don't think it was wrong to act. but the solution is simple: use better methods than the ones you were criticised for. there wasn't really a need to take out most of Yugoslavia's civilian infrastructure. it would seem that DU munitions are contaminated with plutonium, from the extraction process ... and plutonium is (I think) the most deadly substance known to man, in terms of chemical toxicity and radioactivity. the use of DU munitions should have been foresworn. and if you talk to a Muslim, you would probably get all sorts of flak about how the US was tardy in aiding the Bosnians. if you compare the Bosnians to the Kuwaitis, you will see that there's a point there.
of course, you could take the libertarian tack and stay out of foreign engagments ... personally I don't quite agree with them, but it would be a damn sight better than the present.

> I guess the bulldozing of sand over Iraqi soldiers in their trenches is a war crime too, right?

I hadn't heard about that one... article?

> Even if I grant that the above articles MAY be true in their insinuation, where is your criticism of nations who do FAR worse things that we are alleged to do? China and their political/religious prison camps? North Korea and how they are starving their people to feed the army? The rape of babies in South Africa to "cure" AIDS?

I always get this one. it seems as if anyone who criticises the US is accused of sanctioning the brutality of other countries. nothing could be further from the truth. as I said earlier, I am willing to criticise anyone who acts unjustly. however, we all do know about China, North Korea, the Taliban, et al. we all know that what they do is wrong, but there are some wrongs that not everyone knows about. me slamming, say, Saddam or bin Laden would be water over the dam.
come now. we have, shall we say, discussed things so much and so often in the past ... I must have said that to you already, surely? it's practically a canned response by now...
You're just sore because you lost the argument.Sintesi
Jul 15, 2002 8:51 AM
Are you sure your not talking about yourself?

"oh, well ... look, you can dismiss anything that contradicts your worldview as ridiculous. Sintesi does that. or you can analyze it and come to your own conclusions"

As I stated before, it's easier for you to dismiss me personally, by simplistic characterizations, than the facts.
Sintesiweiwentg
Jul 15, 2002 7:06 PM
I stated this quite early on, but you are too idiotic to understand English, obviously.
do not patronize me. ever. give you a chance to 'work on me'? won't happen.
SintesiSintesi
Jul 16, 2002 5:17 AM
"stated this?" What are you talking about? What do you mean.

Please refrain from calling me an "idiot" and then in the very next sentence accuse me of "patronizing" you.

I mean really, you're just getting your panties in knot.
other examplesBikeViking
Jul 15, 2002 12:11 PM
The Serbia articles are allegations, no commonly accepted evidence has come to the forefront regarding any "war crimes". Having been indirectly involved in OAF, I can assure you our target selection process was very discriminating. Attacking a countries infrastructure is a good way of getting the people to turn on the gov't that is causing the problems. This doesn't cause inordinate casualties. They were hit at times of minimal manning to lessen casualties. Civilians will die in war an there has been to real evidence brought forth to show the US was anything less than scrupulous in the way the campaigns were waged. Ramsay Clark has always had an ax to grind against ANY US military action, so to take his word on this matter is accepting his bias. I owuld like to hear from the commanders in the areas in question about what was ACTUALLY going on, not from some rear-echelon armchair quarterback.
other examplesweiwentg
Jul 15, 2002 7:20 PM
> I can assure you our target selection process was very discriminating.

>Attacking a countries infrastructure is a good way of getting the people to turn on the gov't that is causing the problems

while attacking a country's infrastructure is indeed a good way of getting them to turn on the government (except perhaps in Iraq's case), consider if it's morally worth it in terms of the hardship the Serbians went through. take attacks on power stations. what hardship would they go through during winter? bridges? this would inhibit movement of military convoys ... but it would also inhibit movement of civilians and emergency vehicles.
see this URL. http://www.iacenter.org/warcrime/ssloan.htm Sarah Sloan, the author, is an IAC Commission of Inquiry researcher. I suppose your assurance that the targeting process was discriminating is true as far as it goes...
you should also consider the other allegations. Iraq? the invasion of Panama? and others, like chemical warfare on Vietnam, a consistent policy of meddling in Latin America, acquesience to the invasion of East Timor...

you can of course allege that so and so has an axe to grind, or that so and so is a communist, anti-American, left-wing maniac, etc. that makes these allegations no less damning - just reading all that would give me an axe to grind. Ramsey Clark is a former US Attorney General. instead of dismissing him as some idiot, corrupted by leftist propoganda, with an axe to grind, ask yourself this. why is he, a presumably intelligent person, directing an investigation on US actions? what made him do this? you can say that he's biased ... but what makes you sure that what you believe is the truth?

I have to give you credit, though. never in our discussions have you come across as smug or arrogant, unlike some people. this is good.
other examplesBikeViking
Jul 16, 2002 9:58 AM
Thanks and the same right back at you. While we may be diamterically opposed in our views on many things, we should always be polite and respectful. I REALLY hate it when people go "personal" It's a cycling discussion board! It's not THAT important to "win the argument" where you must be rude or condescending to someone. The Internet is no excuse to be impolite. It's just easy becasue no one has to face the person to whom they are being rude.

It seems that there must be a point where to people can simply agree to disagree and leave it at that.
no - just bash the dumb arguments - LOLMJ
Jul 15, 2002 4:43 AM
er, your 'examples' of China, North Korea, and South Africa don't have anything to do with the ICC or their military/governmental decisions - there's lots of bad things that happen all over the place - but the ICC's scope is pretty limited - it's not gonna deal with domestic crimes

it is a double edged sword and you're right it is lose lose - the French are still pissed at the US because the US didn't send in troops in Rwanda -in 1994 - they conveniently forget that their military were actively supporting (in combat!!) the same army who was perpetrating genocide - and that a son of (Chirac/Mitterand - I forget which one) was doing arms deals with the same people

but them's the stakes when you're the biggest guy on the block - you have to do it right, at the right time, for the right people, in the right way, exactly as everyone wants you to or you'll get criticised - and no one will remember any of the altruistic things (Somalia, Bosnia (it's in Europe...) Haiti and significant aid programmes) - they'll just call you out on things where you messed up...
Black HelicoptersMJ
Jul 15, 2002 12:48 AM
yeah - join us in reality again BV - just grab hold of those reigns and pull tight

BTW I hear that under the auspices of the ICC an international military battalion is being formed by the UN to collect all firearms in the hands of US citizens and force (white American!) schoolchildren to recite Hindu prayers - it's just like it's written in Revelations(!) - but I hear if you play with poisonous snakes everything will be alright

as far as ceding sovereignty goes - can you please explain how the ICC is any different than any of the other (literally) thousands of international treaties that the US is signatory to and consequently cedes legal, economic and political sovereignty?

I didn't think so

can you name any problems the UN has created? (keep your eye on the ball when you think about the word created')

I didn't think so

are you seriously saying that democratically elected governments don't/have never commit(ed) crimes against humanity?

I didn't think so

get a grip on your fascile arguments and start dealing with reality - all that right wing talk radio is starting to damage your reasoning skills...

next you'll be telling us that there's no such thing as global warming because some scientist (funded by the oil industry) somewhere says different though you're unable to produce any report that can reasonably take issue with the overwhelming evidence to the contrary of reasonable, main stream, objective, Bush-funded(!) scientists... your boys are probably the same ones who said smoking was healthy in the 1950's...

and as for Big Brother and your other stunning literary references - absolute power corrupts absolutely
Black HelicoptersBikeViking
Jul 15, 2002 12:31 PM
as far as ceding sovereignty goes - can you please explain how the ICC is any different than any of the other (literally) thousands of international treaties that the US is signatory to and consequently cedes legal, economic and political sovereignty?

None of them put US citizens in danger of prosecution by courts outside the US without specific reasons outlined in a SOFA agreement. The ICC does that.

BTW I hear that under the auspices of the ICC an international military battalion is being formed by the UN to collect all firearms in the hands of US citizens and force (white American!) schoolchildren to recite Hindu prayers - it's just like it's written in Revelations(!) - but I hear if you play with poisonous snakes everything will be alright

I am an agnostic, but it's evident you have an ax to grind with religion. Your disdain of others religion is rather "intolerant" wouldn't you say?

can you name any problems the UN has created? (keep your eye on the ball when you think about the word created')

Are you willing to guarantee that the UN will NEVER try to increase it power at the expense of our COnstitutional rights? I don't think so. It's the slow creep that steals freedom, not violent overthrow. The UN has its place (not courts) and it needs to stay there.

are you seriously saying that democratically elected governments don't/have never commit(ed) crimes against humanity?

Yes they do and they generally prosecute the offenders THEMSELVES! What is broken with the current system that requires UN "help"? If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

next you'll be telling us that there's no such thing as global warming because some scientist (funded by the oil industry) somewhere says different though you're unable to produce any report that can reasonably take issue with the overwhelming evidence to the contrary of reasonable, main stream, objective, Bush-funded(!) scientists... your boys are probably the same ones who said smoking was healthy in the 1950's...

Let the Global Warming go!!! I have given many facts to the contrary and its' getting old. We disagree and there is nothing that will change each others minds.

and as for Big Brother and your other stunning literary references - absolute power corrupts absolutely

WOuld you be so condescending if we were having a beer and talkin about these things? I think not. Manners to extend even to the Internet.

Also, no TKO, just disagreement...I said it first!!!...I win, I win, I win...(Sounds silly, doesn't it)
funnyMJ
Jul 16, 2002 12:35 AM
you're wrong - most international treaties do in fact put Americans (and all other signatories) under the governance of a foreign/international body and judicial process

no axe with religion - just with extreme view points - usually extreme politics and religion go together (two birds with one stone)

the UN creating problems? no I though not - and any more power given the UN is at the discretion of its members...

I think you'll find the problem about any government (democratic or not) is that they often don't prosecute themselves - it is broke - it is being fixed...

global warming - on the basis of your facts (which I've never seen you put forward here) you should take up smoking - after all a scientist said it's safe - you can believe whatever you want - and we can agree to disagree - but I'm telling you jumping off a cliff will kill you - and global warming is a fact (read last week's special report in the Economist)

I probably would be as condescending with a beer but undoubtedly a hearty laugh would follow each point where I'm being an ass - so pretend that's what you get when you read those points

and no you don't win - your down on international treaties amounting to the cessation of sovereignty, governments prosecuting themselves (honestly BV - you should know better than to trust the governemnt!), the UN creating problems and, still, global warming (I'll leave the black helicopters aside - but they're coming for your guns!!!!)
funnyBikeViking
Jul 16, 2002 10:15 AM
Fair enough...it's hard to tell in this forum if someone is is just doing the friendly jibing vice the standard "flaming" that goes on here.

My caution about government is EXACTLY why I want to see the UN as an assisting world organization, not one looking for war crimes by duly elected countries. The UN is a bureacracy on a grand scale and I don't care much for the bureacracy at our national level, much magnified to an international level. I am a firm believer in our Constitution and am wary of anything that MAY (not saying it has yet)grow to infringe on our rights.

I am not in worry for any UN "invasions". I just believe their power should extend no further (perhaps less?) than it is at this time. If I TRULY believed in the "Black Helicopters", I would include STinger missiles in my 2nd Amendment discussions! LoL

I posted a link regarding the statistical fallacies of global warming. Can't find it at the moment, but it also offers a reasoned theory that the UN IPCC(?) was based on poor science.
The ICC is not needed for USA.USAF Sergeant in Germany
Jul 14, 2002 12:37 PM
I really don't understand why any American would support the idea of the ICC. In my opinion this does nothing but put our forces at danger for prosecution by a country that has an axe to grind with the USA. The UCMJ always has, does, and will in the future handle any problem such as war crimes. I was hopeful that this would drive us to pull out of the peacekeeping missions we are currently maintaining.
of course it's notweiwentg
Jul 14, 2002 5:40 PM
America uses one standard of justice, the rest of the world uses another.
you and your vaunted UCMJ. tell me of the soldiers who committed rapes in Okinawa. what was their punishment?
never mind, I'll answer that questionweiwentg
Jul 14, 2002 5:49 PM
http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9603/okinawa_rape/

7 years for brutally gang raping a 12-year old. they weren't tried under the UCMJ, though.
that isn't an isolated case; as of 2000, US military courts had conducted 169 courts martial for sexual assaults on Okinawa. I am not aware of what sentences were handed down; perhaps someone could enlighten me.(http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j072600.html)

these incidents, of course, do not fall under the category of war crimes. what they do tell is that US soldiers often don't get the punishments they deserve.
for info, maximum punishment under UCMJweiwentg
Jul 14, 2002 5:54 PM
http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/mcm/bl120.htm

4.46.5 e. Maximum punishment.
(1) Rape. Death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct.

(2) Carnal knowledge with a child who, at the time of the offense, has attained the age of 12 years. Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 20 years.

(3) Carnal knowledge with a child under the age of 12 years at the time of the offense. Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for life.
and, slightly off topic, two quotes you should readweiwentg
Jul 15, 2002 1:50 AM
"I spent 33 years in the Marines. Most of my time being a high-classc muscle man for Big business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer for capitalism. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenue in. I helped in the rape of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street.... "

"If only more of today's military personnel would realize that they are being used by the owning elite's as a publicly subsidized capitalist goon squad "

Smedley D. Butler, (1881-1940) Major Gen U.S. Marines
guess he told youMJ
Jul 15, 2002 1:30 AM
soldier boy

if the US stops peacekeeping - then what exactly is the military for?

it doesn't appear you have actually read any of the ICC rules/regs - or indeed any of the discussions above

anyways - why is the US military still in Germany? exactly what are you protecting there?