Kerry: I'm not going to be questioned....by those who refused to serve

[Utah]

"SOMETHING! Hell, go after him on the Texas Rangers boondoggled. ANYTHING! Otherwise, he's got all hat, no cattle. "

LOL. It means that you buy a big cattleman hat and you walk around like a cattleman. But in reality you dont really own any cattle. You're just show.

[rigoletto]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
One issue that sheeds light on this is how the US has refused to sign the treaty on an international war crimes tribunal out of fear that some from it's own military might be indicted some day. This is the same US who claims to defend human rights everywhere. To the world it looks like hypocracy and it's an indication that the US doesn't want to be part of the international community.


[/ QUOTE ]

To (at least some) of us in America, signing that treaty would be giving up some of our soveriegnty to the international community. Why would we want to do that given the record of the UN and other International authorities.

Stu

[/ QUOTE ]

My point exactly! Most other countries do it willingly because the believe it a benefit for all to be able to persecute war crimes, why not the US?

[ QUOTE ]
The International Criminal Court treaty has already received more than the requisite number of 60 ratifications, and its jurisdiction will commence after July 1, 2002, with or without the U.S. signature. The court will try people accused of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. All of Western Europe and virtually every major U.S. ally are strong supporters of the court. The only states still actively opposing the court are the United States and Libya.

[/ QUOTE ]

[rigoletto]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
One issue that sheeds light on this is how the US has refused to sign the treaty on an international war crimes tribunal out of fear that some from it's own military might be indicted some day. This is the same US who claims to defend human rights everywhere. To the world it looks like hypocracy and it's an indication that the US doesn't want to be part of the international community.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bzzzzz. Wrong. The reason the US doesnt want in on that is because it doesnt want itself exposed to capricious and mischievous prosecutions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, that's also happens to be the arguments used by war criminals on trial at the international court in Haag, when they explain why they don't recognize the court.

[ QUOTE ]
The U.S. government has said that it fears U.S. servicemembers or officials could be brought before the court in politically motivated cases. But the International Criminal Court will only take on cases that national courts are demonstrably unable or unwilling to prosecute. The treaty for the court includes numerous safeguards to protect against frivolous or unwarranted prosecutions. The key, said Roth, is to ensure that they are applied conscientiously.

[/ QUOTE ]

[MMMMMM]

"My point exactly! Most other countries do it willingly because the believe it a benefit for all to be able to persecute war crimes, why not the US?"


The U.N. is a farce in many ways; Sudan is chair of the U.N. Human Rights Committee; the Arab states vote en bloc against Israel; and political considerations, cronyism and overlapping interests make a bureaucratic mockery of the supposedly noble purposes of the U.N.

Granted, the International Court is not the U.N. itself, but the specter of politically motivated prosecutions is daunting nonetheless.

Here's my idea: no nation whose political system is not democratically based should have any vote of any sort in the U.N. If they don't give their own people free elections, they cannot truly be considered to represent their country at the U.N. and are instead an illegitimate government in the first place. So: KICK THEM OUT OF THE U.N, make it a members only club for DEMOCRATIC nations. When the totalitarian regimes are later deposed or reformed, their countries may then apply for admittance too, once a democratic-style system is firmly in place.

The idea of ceding some portion of one's authority or sovereignty is somewhat questionable even when the others are reasonably like-minded, free democracies. The notion of ceding some of one's own authority or sovereignty to nations whose leaders are purely illegitimate thugs, who also have interests diametrically opposed to one's own, is not only daunting, it is in my opinion ridiculous.

If the World Court were made up solely of decent democracies I would say it is a notion to be entertained and evaluated. However, as long as there are regimes involved in its judging or administration which embody the antithesis of human rights, and do not even allow their own citizens (or "subjects") to vote, I would say that even entertaining the idea should be out of the question.

Finally there is the matter of cost and efficiency. Look at what an incredibly lengthy and ex[pensive circus Slobodan Milosevic's trial has turned out to be. This is one reason why the Iraqis should try Saddam Hussein, rather than some international court trying him.

International bureacracies are even more inefficient and ineffective than national bureaucracies--and as such, primarily seem to waste time and resources--in addition to becoming excellent vehicles for stalling or lack of any meaningful action, allowing the problems to perpetuate under the guise of discussions and resolutions which drag on interminably.

[GWB]