cyrano | Can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding.

Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands,
hoist the black flag and start slitting throats.

Yeah, who'd have thought.
So. The US is threatening to withdraw from the United Nations again, this time because they're worried about not being granted immunity from prosecution by the International War Crimes Court.
Despite the fact that the Security Council (which the US is still on) can shut the court down any time they want.
Despite the fact that the court won't be prosecuting any crimes occurring before July 2002.
What the hell kind of positive spin can we put on this position?
"Uh. Well, we aren't actually /planning/ to commit any war crimes, but we need the freedom to do so in the interest of national security, just in case."
"We feel much more comfortable being the ones who determine what's a war crime and what isn't."
"War crimes are bad, m'kay?"
This pisses me off even more than our saying that we're demanding free and democratic elections in Palestine, just so long as the guy we want gets elected in that free and democratic election. (Just because you can rig the elections in this country, bub....)
I love my country. I'm ashamed of my leaders.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I must agree with you on this one. Either the U.S. wants to participate in the global goverment, or it doesn't, but it should stop making everyone ELSE participate when we want them to and then fence-sitting when we don't.

Like the treaty to outlaw landmine use. I think the U.S. was one of three countries that didn't support it; the other two were Iraq and North Korea.

Great guys. Way to go.

Um, yeah. What you said.

According to this article on CNN.com, the US is concerned that the court will be used for politically motivated prosecutions of its peace keeping forces.

I'm all for research and reading the authentic documents. Here's the link to what is known as the Rome Statue, which established the International Criminal Court.

http://www.un.org/law/icc/

It was my understanding that the US was threatening to withdraw from international peacekeeping missions, and specifically veto the continuance of the mission in Bosnia, not the UN itself.

They've now offered a wussy-assed compromise exempting the troops of permanent Security Council members from the ICC. Sort of defeats the idea justice being blind, doesn't it?

I had thought that they already closed down Bosnia as a move to let the world know they were serious about this court.
However, I see no support to this stance, and will assume that you are correct.

Can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding.

Sadly...

no subject

Uummm..

Re: Uummm..

Re: Uummm..

Re: Uummm..

Re: Uummm..

no subject

no subject