US attacked over UN resolution

[Czar]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3180667.stm

International human rights groups have accused the US Government of attempting to block a United Nations resolution that would seek to enhance the protection of humanitarian workers in conflict zones.

US officials are objecting to a section of the resolution which refers to attacks on humanitarian workers as a war crime under the statutes of the newly-established International Criminal Court (ICC).

Washington does not recognise the court.

It also insists on either removing reference to it from UN resolutions or having paragraphs inserted that give immunity to nations like America that have not ratified the Rome Statute establishing the ICC.

Human rights groups are angry that less than a week after the attack on the UN headquarters in Baghdad, the US is objecting to the draft UN resolution.

With emotions still running high in the aftermath, they now say Washington may have gone too far.

Human Rights Watch has accused the US of waging an ill-conceived and ideologically-driven crusade against the court and in the process, compromising efforts to protect aid workers.

"After the tragic killing of aid workers in Baghdad, the US opposition to the proposed resolution is disgraceful," said Richard Dicker, director of Human Rights Watch's international justice programme.

Other human rights groups argue that the court should be supported as it acts as a deterrent to those who might consider attacks on humanitarian workers.

 

[DealMonkey]

Typical. So what's the U.S. rationale? Do we just like being above the law? Or are we afraid of being dragged into the ICC for accidentally shooting UN workers?

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Typical. So what's the U.S. rationale? Do we just like being above the law? Or are we afraid of being dragged into the ICC for accidentally shooting UN workers?

How is this typical? For many years, indeed the majority of this last century, the United States was one of the biggest proponents of international political organizations and enforced international criminal law.

 

[Moonbeam]

We used to use international law as a brake on the Soviets. Now that undisputed top dog we don't need law anymore. Now we just do what we want and aren't about to let the legality of it get in our way. We authorize the court and Bush goes on trial.

 

[etech]

Is passing this bill going to make anyone safer?

The threat of being charged by the ICC is not going to stop Al-Queada from harmiing aid workers.


DealMonkey
There are groups that would use the ICC for their political aims and not for justice. Look at what happened in Belgium.

 

[tweakmm]

Originally posted by: Orsorum
How is this typical? For many years, indeed the majority of this last century, the United States was one of the biggest proponents of international political organizations and enforced international criminal law.

And then baby Bush became our president...

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I understand why the US is generally against the ICC, but in this instance I think it sends the wrong message to object to it. The whole thing is moot unless the US decides it is going to target humanitarian workers. Unlikely.

The ICC is problematic in itself. I like the idea of war criminals being held accountable, but the US isnt going to participate. The US is perpetually going to find itself going against punishing criminals as the rest of the world understands it.

Messy thing.

 

[etech]

With emotions still running high in the aftermath, they now say Washington may have gone too far.

I guess the terrorists that actually did the bombing didn't go to far?

 

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

Originally posted by: etech

With emotions still running high in the aftermath, they now say Washington may have gone too far.

I guess the terrorists that actually did the bombing didn't go to far?

For many the attacks did not hit close enough to home, figuratively speaking. I have often wondered if public sentiment in California would be different if they bombed the Academy Awards, or some other 'red carpet' award ceremony. Then, people in CA would turn to Washington and demand something be done to protect against these atrocities in the future. Honestly, I believe the political cleavage of public opinion is split right down the middle still; if you support Bush, you support taking the fight to the terrorists, or any country that poses a threat to our security, whether that threat is perceived or not. If you feel Gore was cheated because of the 'Chads', then you oppose Bush and everything he does, regardless of the means and the ends.

I wish Washington would have gone even further in the 90's...bombing an aspirin factory is not my idea of national security.

 

[Siwy]

Originally posted by: etech

With emotions still running high in the aftermath, they now say Washington may have gone too far.

I guess the terrorists that actually did the bombing didn't go to far?

You guess wrong. Try again.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: Siwy

Originally posted by: etech

With emotions still running high in the aftermath, they now say Washington may have gone too far.

I guess the terrorists that actually did the bombing didn't go to far?

You guess wrong. Try again.

edit/

The point is that the people condemning the US actions are just using this as a political ploy. This resolution will do nothing to stop the actions of the terrorists. They knew that the US has valid reasons for not supporting the ICC as it currently stands.

There are valid things that those countries and organazations could do to stop terrorism. This isn't one of them and the attacks on the US instead of the terrorists should be seen for what they are.

Now do you have anything to add to this discussion or not?

 

[Siwy]

Are you saying that the bombers didn't go far enough and should kill more UN workers?

That's sick.

God...I think you need to take some English classes, your comprehension of simple sentences is disturbing.
You tried to imply that Human rights groups think that "terrorists that actually did the bombing didn't go to far" and I said that you are wrong, since Human rights groups think that terrorists did go too far, that is the whole point of "United Nations resolution that would seek to enhance the protection of humanitarian workers in conflict zones". Got it? Or should I draw you pictures?

Hmmm...I don't know why I'm replying to you, I bet you will get beat down and abandon the thread like the last time.

/edit
etech, when you post something don't later remove the post, just make a correction below, because then it's hard to follow who said what.

 

[Siwy]

Now do you have anything to add to this discussion or not?

Do I have anything to add to this discussion?! The topic of this thread is whether US blocking the UN resolution is right or wrong, and you come in here and say something like: "I guess the terrorists that actually did the bombing didn't go to far?". I simply thought that your "insightful" post needed just as "insightful" reply.

Back to the topic.

Humanitarian workers commit their lives to help others in parts of the world that an average Joe would never think of going to, so I don't see what is wrong with a resolution "that would seek to enhance the protection of humanitarian workers in conflict zones." and I don't understand why US would try to block it.

The point is that the people condemning the US actions are just using this as a political ploy.

You might think that condemning the US actions is just a political ploy but I think for the sake of humanitarian workers it is a right think to do.

This resolution will do nothing to stop the actions of the terrorists. They knew that the US has valid reasons for not supporting the ICC as it currently stands.

What reasons would that be? I'm sorry if you believe that US should not be accountable for their actions like the other countries are. I know you think highly of USA but thinking it is above everyone else is simply wrong and sad.

There are valid things that those countries and organazations could do to stop terrorism. This isn't one of them and the attacks on the US instead of the terrorists should be seen for what they are.

This is one of the valid things they are doing, and US is trying to stop them. Human right groups are attacking US for not allowing UN to punish the terrorists! What is wrong with that?

 

[kaizersose]

i dont blame the us for opposing it. the way i see it, there are two possible scenarios in which this law could be applied:

1. terrorists or outlaw countries kill/torture human rights workers to keep them out of the way. international court never gets their hands on the criminals, law becomes useless.

2. human rights workers attempt to give medical/food aid to people in a battle in which US forces are involved. some are accidentally hurt/killed by gunfire. idiots in belgium file lawsuits against every officer within spitting distance of the incident.

either way, it's a waste and a liability.

edit: the US puts its ass on the line way more than any other country out there (ie: bosnia and somalia were both completely humanitarian causes).

 

[Nitemare]

I wonder if Syria will give up its seat on the human rights board to play judge against the US?

Personally, I would like to see us pull out of the UN and clean up NATO a little.

 

[0roo0roo]

more EU power grabbing and paper shuffling. its a sickness with them, under their internationalist umbrella they stick their dirty hands in everything.

as was said, terrorists and such don't care about stupid resolutions. the fact is the US is the worlds enforcer. the eu really resents this and doesnt want to shell out to do the work themselves, so they instead obstruct. easy to critisize when you can't do anything yourself.

instead of passing stupid resolutions maybe they should get off their asses and stop the genocide happening in their backyard from time to time. rowanda? bosnia? the EU sat on their pansy little hands. talk is cheap.

I wonder if Syria will give up its seat on the human rights board to play judge against the US?

only moral relativism could allow syria to be on that human rights board.

 

[kaizersose]

Originally posted by: Nitemare
I wonder if Syria will give up its seat on the human rights board to play judge against the US?

Personally, I would like to see us pull out of the UN and clean up NATO a little.

syria is the rotating chair of the security council--way more powerful than the human rights committee, which is chaired by lybia...who is currently shelling out $2.7 billion for the pan am hijacking they sponsored.

that is irony if i have EVER heard it.

edit: grammar

 

[kage69]

The UN irony doesn't stop there. What a friggin joke, it's turned into the League of Nations 2.0

 

[kaizersose]

Originally posted by: kage69
The UN irony doesn't stop there. What a friggin joke, it's turned into the League of Nations 2.0

its worse. the league of nations was simply inneffective--the UN does more harm than good sometimes.

 

[shuan24]

I say forget it. Forget it all. Pull out of Iraq, pull out of Europe, pull out of S. Korea.

Why are we wasting precious lives for these scum suckers anyways? We need to promote isolationism, and not imperialism. Isolation is what made us strong, and imperialism is making us weak.

We should be worried about the state of our country and economy, not the state of others. What hits closer than home? Money and our economy!

edit/ maybe we'll stay in Iraq, since it got good potential!

 

[Siwy]

It all seems hunky-dory until you notice the US hypocrisy. For example, in 1993 US pushed the UN to establish ICTY (International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia) with countries subjected to it (Yugoslavia) having no say in it. What is interesting is that ICC is based on exactly the same features as ICTY that US is still so eager to support. Yet, when the same international laws are to be applied to US, US is complaining that it wouldn't be fair?! Hypocrisy at its worst.

 

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

Originally posted by: shuan24

edit/ maybe we'll stay in Iraq, since it got good potential!

They had more than enough oil to go around when I was there last. I agree; let's stay for awhile and build Wal-Marts and 7-11's and get some porn in that country.

 

[kaizersose]

Originally posted by: Siwy
It all seems hunky-dory until you notice the US hypocrisy. For example, in 1993 US pushed the UN to establish ICTY (International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia) with countries subjected to it (Yugoslavia) having no say in it. What is interesting is that ICC is based on exactly the same features as ICTY that US is still so eager to support. Yet, when the same international laws are to be applied to US, US is complaining that it wouldn't be fair?! Hypocrisy at its worst.

how about this. if our government systematically slaughters american muslims and buries them in mass, shallow graves and yugoslavian peace keepers come in to bring about peace, i will support the ICC to prosecute americans.

until then, and while our peacekeeping forces across the world stick their necks out are attacked by terrorists that hide among civilians, the UN can shove its resolutions where the sun dont shine.

syria runs the goddamn security council, the heart of the UN. thats like letting mike tyson run a rage-aholics meeting!

 

[povertystruck]

Anyone's opinion here on the ICC is irrevelent. "Power comes out the end of a gun"(I love that saying)

 

[kaizersose]

Originally posted by: povertystruck
Anyone's opinion here on the ICC is irrevelent. "Power comes out the end of a gun"(I love that saying)

sweet, lets close the whole p&n forum up then. according to those reasons, lets stop expressing any politcal opinion in general because it's just useless.

be thankful you can speak publicly without having your family killed.