US cuts aid over ICC immunity refusals

[K.I.L.E.R]

http://www.abc.net.au/ra/newstories/RANewsStories_892816.htm

The United States has cut military aid to 35 countries over their refusal to exempt US troops from prosecution by the new International Criminal Court (ICC).

Why is it that the USA can detain people from other countries and hold them against their will for war crimes and yet when another country wants to do that to an American soldier who had done something wrong (with hard evidence to prove the claim) they should be immune?

Why should criminals be immune from the law only because they come from another country?

The US, which is not a signatory to the ICC, has asked nations that recognise the court to exempt Americans from its provisions over fears they could be subject to politically-motivated prosecution by the court.

I would hope at the VERY least that they could be tried in the USA to the full extent of the law. I believe that would be fair as long as there is hard and undeniable evidence to backup the claims which would be proven in court anyway.

 

[Clashman]

I'm suprised that they actually pulled military aid to Colombia, which is actually a plus in my book given their history of collaborating with right-wing death squads. On the whole, though, this all leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

 

[MfA]

I would hope at the VERY least that they could be tried in the USA to the full extent of the law. I believe that would be fair as long as there is hard and undeniable evidence to backup the claims which would be proven in court anyway.

That is the whole idea of the the present setup of the ICC, the US (under their former administration) did an admirable job of ensuring that. The latest round of ICC controversy has never been about sovereignty, but about accountability. The powers that be simply dont want their military to have any to anyone but themselves period. Wether it is a national or foreign court is entirely irrelevant to them.

 

[K.I.L.E.R]

I'm surprised that not many people seem interested in this.

What would happen if the Bush department was found of lying (fabricating evidence and the like) and had their own soldiers killed among Iraqi civilians over falsified evidence?

Wouldn't standard international law apply to them under normal circumstances? Sort of like what happened to Milosovic in the Hague.

Can someone please clear up my confusion.

I am not trying to pretend to know anything, I just want to know how it all works and what's happening as I am currently confused.

Am I right about standard international law?

 

[Deepak]

US is not winning many friends with this kind of arrogance!

 

[K.I.L.E.R]

US is not winning many friends with this kind of arrogance!

Isn't Bush & Co the ones doing this?

I bet the Australian government is also supporting Bush & Co's proposition.

 

[Deepak]

John Howard has been the most pro-US Aussie PM I think!

 

[Trawler]

John Howard has been the most pro-US Aussie PM I think!

Yeah, 100% behind the US and it's policies. He just loves stirring up problems in Asia by promoting Australia as the region's mini-America (police force).

Howard has implemented a strike first policy, just like the States. That didn't go down well at all with neighbouring countries leaders when announced.

We live in chilling times.

 

[micron]

US is not winning many friends with this kind of arrogance!

Whatever Deepak

 

[Deepak]

US is not winning many friends with this kind of arrogance!

Whatever Deepak

But honestly micron! Isn't humuliating to be asked to exempt US soldiers for whatever reasons? There is something called self respect / national pride, and US alone does not possess those qualities, others do too!

 

[micron]

Deepak,
All you do is lurk around in the 'general' forum, and take pot-shots at America. What gives you the right to say that the US doesnt have any self respect, or national pride?....do you live here?.....
You think that India is some kind of perfect place obviously because you bash America so much, we all know how you feel. I wish you would just stfu about it. Why dont you talk about video cards or something?, do you know what those are? did you know Beyond3D is a technology forum?
Ive never seen you type a word outside the General Discussion forum and it makes me a little curious.
Also!, I'd like to know why you put an exclamation point at the end of every sentance! Like this! It makes you look always excited! Yay! Lets bash America!

 

[Deepak]

Micron!

If I am critisizing (not bashing) US, it is not without reason...and this particular action from US deserves critisism!!

What gives you the right to say that the US doesnt have any self respect, or national pride?....

Did you *read* my post....I did not say that US does not have self respect/national pride...I said that other nations too have these!

BTW, I post a lot in Consoles forum (you never post there!), about other forums like tech/3D, I don;t know about them much so I don;t feel like posting there...I visit all forums though!

 

[Gubbi]

John Howard has been the most pro-US Aussie PM I think!

Yeah, 100% behind the US and it's policies. He just loves stirring up problems in Asia by promoting Australia as the region's mini-America (police force).

Howard has implemented a strike first policy, just like the States. That didn't go down well at all with neighbouring countries leaders when announced.

We live in chilling times.

Well, John Howard is navigating the only (Well, NZ too) ship in a sea of shit (Indonesia, Malaysia etc.).

So it's no wonder he's tough.

Cheers
Gubbi

 

[chavvdarrr]

IMHO
USA expects that cutting funds will "change minds" in these "punished" countries. After all, money from USA means "possibilities" for politicians - possibilities for coruption and personal profits.
Unfortunately such expectations are correct .

 

[K.I.L.E.R]

Chavvdarrr, are you saying that those countries have leaders that are not corrupt?

 

[chavvdarrr]

Chavvdarrr, are you saying that those countries have leaders that are not corrupt?

the oposite...

 

[Sazar]

deepak.. you understand that though friends are good to have... they are not NEEDED by the US @ this time...

though I personally think this is a bad way to do things... the battles we have picked are not overstressing our nation to the extent where we are vulnerable (like russia's economy was @ the end of the cold war)

obviously a continued policy of pre-emptive strikes is only going to make the situation more difficult and threatening other soverign nations for having a different idea of to do things is never a good thing..



on the whole... it is incorrect for one nation to judge citizens from other nations per ITS laws and get upset when other nations hold ITS citizens accountable for actions that they consider inappropriate...

it is also the right of the united states to withdraw funding from wherever it deems it is not to much the money that is the issue however... it is more the arrogance that americans around the world are somehow ABOVE the law..

 

[MfA]

I dont think it is so much about the battles you have picked, moreso the battles the present administration has picked. Is the majority of the US citizens who know something about the ICC, beyond republican spin, really opposed to it? I find it hard to believe.

 

[Sazar]

I dont think it is so much about the battles you have picked, moreso the battles the present administration has picked. Is the majority of the US citizens who know something about the ICC, beyond republican spin, really opposed to it? I find it hard to believe.

unfortunately our brilliant senate was clever enough to give bush the authority to pursue confrontations as he sees fit...

it was an exceptionally intellectual move to remove more checks and balances from our system of government and show you just how a panic'd crowd reacts in the face of adversity...

thats also one of the main reasons we have the Patriot Act (or big brother 1 as I like to call it) in effect

 

[Dave H]

I dont think it is so much about the battles you have picked, moreso the battles the present administration has picked. Is the majority of the US citizens who know something about the ICC, beyond republican spin, really opposed to it? I find it hard to believe.

Um, yes. I haven't seen any polls on the issue (it is true that it's not very high profile here and most people don't know about it or don't care), but I would be shocked if public opinion weren't hugely opposed in the event it did become a high profile issue. To put it bluntly, the reason it's not a big issue, and the reason there haven't been any polls conducted, is because everyone knows how opposed Americans would be.

Americans (unfortunately IMO) don't like giving up any of our sovereignty for any reason, and we (correctly IMO) resent the implication that our internal civilian and military judicial system doesn't do a perfectly fine job policing crimes committed by Americans.

Europeans now have a completely different view of national sovereignty than Americans, due to a huge host of historical, cultural, geographical and institutional reasons. For Europeans who are already subject to a European Court (not to mention all the other ways the EU limits national sovereignty) the further step of an International Court doesn't seem like a big deal. It is to the US.

If this were put to a vote in the Senate, even if the Administration supported it, it would go down to a ridiculously lopsided defeat. Sort of like the Kyoto treaty, which was defeated 99-0 under the administration of Bill Clinton (which helped negotiate it). Except I think public opinion on the ICC wouldn't be nearly as divided as it was on Kyoto.