| Submit your comments on this article |
| International |
| U.S. Seeks to Extend Int’l Court Deal |
| 2003-06-06 |
| UNITED NATIONS (AP) - In an effort to avoid replaying a confrontation, the United States said Thursday it will seek to extend the deal exempting American peacekeepers from prosecution by the new international war crimes tribunal. Last year's battle pitted the United States against countries around the world, including close European allies, Canada and Mexico. It ended in July when the Security Council agreed to exempt from arrest or trial peacekeepers from the United States and other countries that have not ratified the treaty establishing the International Criminal Court. Not going to be any different this year. U.S. Ambassador John Negroponte told The Associated Press on Thursday that the United States would like ``a technical extension ... of the resolution,'' though he did not give a timeframe or say when a draft resolution would be introduced. ``It's very straightforward. We wouldn't introduce any substantive changes into the resolution we adopted last year by unanimity in the council, and we would assume - certainly hope - that this would receive overwhelming support,'' he said. Richard Dicker, director of the International Justice Program at Human Rights Watch, said the stakes this year are ``in some ways even higher than last year because if the resolution was rolled over without a debate and without objection, it would increase the chance of its becoming a permanent fixture.'' What a smart boy you are! But council diplomats said the United States was pressing for a quick vote without an open debate. The court culminated a campaign that began with the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials for World War II's German and Japanese war criminals. It has jurisdiction over war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide committed after July 1, 2002, involving any of the 90 nations adhering to the treaty, but will step in only when states are unwilling or unable to dispense justice. The United States objects to the idea that Americans could be subject to its jurisdiction even if it is not party to the pact. Washington argues that the court could be used for frivolous or politically motivated prosecutions, especially of American troops. During last year's battle, the United States threatened to end far-flung peacekeeping operations established or authorized by the United Nations - from Afghanistan and the Mideast to Bosnia and Sierra Leone - if it was not exempted. The final deal dented the court's underlying principle that no one should be exempt from punishment for war crimes, and it angered court supporters and human rights groups. Simple choice: exempt us or fly Air Ukraine to your peacekeeping jobs. |
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #8 Completly OT, but since no one has mentionned it yet... To all imperialistic yankee warmongers : thanks for that unilateral, unmandated, hegemonic intervention on that particular day of june, somewhere along the coasts of normandy. And of course, the same go for the others unilateralists involved, Canadians and britons. Thanks. |
| Posted by: Anonymous 2003-06-07 04:37:12 |
| #7 Tell those monkeys to pass any damned rule they want, we'll ignore them anyway. Hope it helps. |
| Posted by: mojo 2003-06-06 15:53:36 |
| #6 All I want to know is, Is that guys name really Dick Dickert? |
| Posted by: Mike N. 2003-06-06 15:18:01 |
| #5 Is this the same kangaroo court that named Blair a war-criminal ? |
| Posted by: Anonymous 2003-06-06 08:32:23 |
| #4 Read JFM's post above, Profshan. Membership of the UN's voluntary, is it not? Why should the ICC be otherwise? |
| Posted by: Anonymous 2003-06-06 06:35:42 |
| #3 And why exactly should the US not be a pert of an International Court of Justice? If the US is confident that it's soldiers commit no human rights violations, then there's nothing to be scared of, is there? If there's a different law for the US compared to other countries, then the US shouldn't expect any other war criminals to get indicted either. Maybe we should just release Milosevic. |
| Posted by: Profshan 2003-06-06 05:57:42 |
| #2 Between the MANY objections to the ICC there is the problem of democracy and separation of powers. The judges of ICC are unelected be it directly or indirectly (when judges are selected by elected bodies) And there is NO legislative body defining the limits for the judges: it is them who define the "law" and then go after people having broken it. So there is a strong temptation to mold the law in order to be able to go after the guy who displeases the court. I will pass on the primadonism of Carla del Ponte whose actions would have exposed her to disciplinary action in most democratic judiciaries (violating presumption of innocence or secret of the instruction). So my advice is: ignore the ICC and if it really gets in the way then have a couple cruise missiles "suicide" in the building |
| Posted by: JFM 2003-06-06 04:22:29 |
| #1 Why would any nation agree to this agreement? It will only serve the ends of leftists and police states. |
| Posted by: TJ Jackson 2003-06-06 02:52:06 |