http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...02121090253556


Basically, the Republicans are attempting to stop an International Court from coming into existence, with the threat to ban certain forms of aid to US allies.

Yup..the Republicans are saying no to an International Court.

Which could have the effect of adding to the joyfulness of togetherness that the world appears to lack.


Is this attempt by the Republicans enough proof that Republicans have an urge toward Nationalism that isn't overtly helpful in the end?

Mmmm..

That's the best and most principled thing they've done in years. I applaud it.

Too bad the Bush Administration isn't applauding it, eh?

sappy as it sounds, that's pretty much what it would do, I believe.

Dgg9, why not have/be a part of an international court?

The problem here is that some of you actually TRUST that this is being done with pure motives. If this court happens, it will be used as a political weapon against the USA. Every time a bomb misses its target by 20 feet, the pilot will be hauled into a court where he doesn't have the protection of the U.S. constitution. If this court actually tries to assert jurisdiction over American citizens, we'll stop participating in ALL peacekeeping missions, and what will that do for the happy feelings you want to promote?

For anyone to think this court is even necessary, you have to first believe that an American who commits a war crime will be protected by our gov't even if he's guilty. THIS IS NOT THE CASE. Everyone who participated in Abu Ghraib is being prosecuted. The pilots who accidently killed those people in Italy several years ago are in jail. The pilots who accidentally killed the Canadians in Afghanistan lost their wings.

WE POLICE OUR OWN!!!!!

No one can even argue that we don't!

This court is an abomination, and I'm glad the republicans are doing the right thing.

Synikul...basically you're saying "If we do it it'll go wrong."

Now, let's take that basic way of thinking and apply it to such things as the actions of the Republicans, or what they want.

Perhaps what they're doing, or what they wish to do, will go wrong and as such they should cease and desist with their actions?

The International Court would allow for a place where political bias would not exist, where say leaders of countries could be tried and had all of the information evenly distributed.

Rather than....say an American military tribunal where they have total control of what is allowed to be used in the court.

If certain restrictions are placed on the International Court, therein ceasing any potential for abuse, and an underlying allowance for local crime to be dealt with by local courts, I see no problems whatsoever with it.

Interesting to see someone with such religious intolerance bring up the constitution that affords religious freedom.

We police our own huh? Then who holds the police accountable for inevitable error? The flaw in your statements synikul is that you seem to think our government is infallible. Look at the iraqi war, we invaded and tookover an entire country based on "bad intelligence" yet no one is being made to take responsibility for this. Someone has to be at fault when something wrong happens. Are you so concieted that you would lead by words rather then actions? Do you ever wonder or pretend to know why all these terrorists hate america so? If you think you know synikul please tell me. Subject at hand though, being a part of an international court is good for many reasons. One it is showing that we dont hold ourselves above the law. Two it is showing faith and goodwill towards other countries. Three it leads to more peacfull resolutions of ignorant skirmishes with other countries. Four it shows the rest of the world we are willing to move in a new direction with the rest of them. Five it is an admitance that our way is NOT the best way for all. And six it can and probably will lead to future alliances with other powers and strengthen those we allready have.

These are just the benefits we as a country stand to gain from joining an international court system. The worldwide benefits are likely to be astronomical in amount.

No one said they wouldn't be protected by something similar, did they?

that'll be America's choice if they do that.

Good lord what an incredibly arrogant thing to say. This is an international court, and there's more to think about than the doings of one country. An international court would help insure that anyone who commits a war crime or terrorist act wouldn't be protected by any government, giving him/her no place to hide, like Bin Laden in Afghanistan, or any dictator guilty of war crime. I would hope such a court would help eliminate shitty corners of the world where scum like Hussein and Milosevic are tolerated.

Interesting way of seeing things. We police our own... Would that this would also have applied to the nazi's on '45... or to Saddam and his consorts. If you send those people on trial by their own laws, they will naturally be absolved... in the eyes of the world, this is what the US is trying: To create total immunity for their citizens from any kind of foreign law, while actually in foreign territory.

I agree, while on US soil, only US law should apply. But when out there, US citizens are -NOT- in the US and therefor fall under a different kind of law. If those citizens cannot comply with that they should not venture out their country. Peacekeeping (or enforcing) reasons included.

If you want to police your own, keep to your feckin' selves...

Basically; America HAS to say no to the ICC, for it has become a "Rogue State".

So, if the ICC cannot exist - how can "International Law" exist?
Or is there no actual "International Law" - and hence by extension; no actual "Rogue States"?

Why not exempt Australian's, or the English, as well - or is this a purely "racialy motivated idea"?

Because people think an IC would be some larger extension of the domestic courts they know and respect. But, as every available bit of track record indicates, no such thing will happen. The IC would be as bad as the UN, and worse. There is no larger accountability, and the reality is that most countries are dictatorships, and an IC would simply be an extension of their malign foreign policy.

In a world where millions are still being slaughtered in genocides, and where sadistic despotisms are still the norm, what does the ICC concern itself with -- bashing Israel, the only democracy in the Middle East.

To waste time castigating Israel for building a fence that is in fact saving lives, while ignoring the monstrous piles of severed human limbs in Africa, or the thousands starved to death in the satanic North Korean realm is simply despicable, and removes any shred of credibility the ICC might claim.

LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You mean like the ICC is now???

And by the way, the Tooth Fairy doesn't exist either.

More like take credit than take responsibility.

If we deposed a viable democracy for bad intel, then that would be one thing. But we deposed perhaps the most vile dictator on the planet. The Iraqi people will be immeasurably better off for us having done this.

You might also thhink about learning some legal concepts. Good faith errors are not "crimes."

The most vile dictator on the planet?
Hardly.

Did you know that Iraq had a superb education system and free healthcare?

That's more than we can say about the oh so great Democracy of America.

LOL! Your remarks would be disgusting if they weren't so (unintentionally) amusing. I hear the same thinsg about Castro's Cuba too.

"Yeah, it's true tens of thousands of children were raped and tortured to death in front of their parents, with two year olds having all the bones in the feet crushed and others dropped in the woodchipper or the acid bath-- but they have socialized medicine, so it must be a paradise!"

That you can utter that with a straight face makes me wonder whether I should laugh or vomit.

I recommend both...at the same time, because you might swallow some of the vomit back up and choke to death.



You do realize that America is just as guilty, including Bush(Both Sr. and not) of killing hundreds(If not thousands) of people?

The only difference is that Saddam doesn't hide the fact that he's done it.

Good to see you're not trolling.

And there it is -- the repulsive moral equivalence of the Left.

So we free 25 million people from despotism so they can enjoy democracy -- but Bush = Saddam. The war will very quickly save net lives (no more people flung into the woodchipper), but Bush = Saddam.

According to your "logic" the US was morally equivalent to Hitler.