The International Criminal Courts and the US

Did you know:

Although the US originally voted against the adoption of the Rome Statute, President Bill Clinton unexpectedly reversed his position on December 31, 2000 and signed the treaty

On May 6, 2002, the Bush administration announced it was cancelling the United States' signature of the treaty

public opinion polls routinely show strong popular support for the Court: the most recent poll, conducted in February 2005, found that 69% of Americans supported U.S. participation in the ICC

In 2002, the U.S. Congress passed the American Servicemembers' Protection Act (ASPA), which contained a number of provisions, including prohibitions on the U.S. providing military aid to countries which had ratified the treaty establishing the court (exceptions granted), and permitting the President to authorize military force to free any U.S. military personnel held by the court

The U.S. has also made a number of Bilateral Immunity Agreements with a number of countries, prohibiting the surrender to the ICC of a broad scope of persons including current or former government officials, military personnel, and U.S. employees (including non-national contractors) and nationals. As of August 2, 2006, the US Department of State reported that it had signed 101 of these agreements. The United States has cut aid to many countries which have refused to sign BIAs

In 2002, the United States threatened to veto the renewal of all United Nations peacekeeping missions unless its troops were granted immunity from prosecution by the Court.

Does this sound like the behaviour of a country that is willing to permit its peers to question its actions? Does this sound like a country that does not intend to perform harm to other nations? Does this sound like a country that has the world's best interests in mind?

Maybe Decius.

I've been toiling this around in my head for a while. I ask myself the question what would happen if the poorer countries were to get rich and it was the richer countries who got poor?

All these questions you pose serve to answer the truth. Recently the UK has adopted Trident Missiles of the US at a cost of up to 25 billion. And many people were in uproar claiming that why do we need to spend this money when we could spend it on health. A good question.

I know for a fact that trying to preserve one thing by crushing others physically or with fear is not a good state of being because it will prevent us exploring things outside of us; rather than fighting amongst ourselves. But, I've noticed people open the door for you in a building generally when on their own. But when in a group, they tend not to. Its a symptom of human behaviour at the moment.

Any wise business person will tell you the golden rule is to not stab yourself in the foot. And I think this is true. It not the golden rule to personal success, however, which is to understand. Just think if you were a leader and you wanted to protect your people; the first thing you may do is to minimise risk to those people. And you may just think attack is the best form of defense.

Until this is resolved; I don't think we will ever solve what happened; take solice in the fact you were not born in a poor country. I would like to see a leader of a rich country be brave enough to not attack, to say all nuclear weapons will not be built.

Now, there is a difference between this and greed. Greed is when you have enough and just want more because you can. Deciding on this balance is the way forward. Then the question I ask myself is this:

Is the US trying to maintain power out of fear? If this is the case then it is no different to ever before; except the methods of deception are greater.

Or is the US acting out of pure greed? For this you would have to argue that it sees killing people, denying them of water, etc. not as a self-preservation measure but a want for excess power.

Personally I think the US is acting greedily. All you need to do to ask yourself this is to consider the word need; look at an American at a McDonalds and then look at a child in Africa who is dying of thirst. My optimal solution would be to see the American living on a healthy lifestyle and the African living on what he needs.

I guess this is aside from your point, but I feel it necessary, just because I think pro-Americans are ignorant or greedy and Chomskiites- or left-wingers have their heads in the clouds - and their feet their too.

Well, this has nothing to do with nuclear weapons. It has to do with Crimes against Humanity.

The US has forced many nations into agreeing that no US employee, resident, government official, politcian, soldier, or even US contractor can be held accountable by the ICC. If they refuse to sign that treaty, the US witholds help (to dying nations) and threatens to VETO UN relief efforts.

The intentions behind behaviour like that is not hidden.