|
24 Jun 04 - 09:06 AM (#1213492) Subject: BS: US forced to Concede on War Crimes From: GUEST I don't know how many Americans are aware of this, but the US government has been refusing to allow it's peacekeeping troops deployed throught he UN, to be held to the same legal standards of the newly created International Criminal Court. Yesterday, it was announced that US would drop it's UN Security Council resolution seeking to extend the exemption for it's troops from prosecution for war crimes under the jurisdiction of the ICC, because it was obvious there was literally NO support for the resolution in the wake of the torture scandal. After a closed door meeting where it became clear the US had little support, rather than face a humiliating defeat at the UN, the US decided to withdraw it's resolution. CNN reports U.S. ends war crimes exemption bid |
|
24 Jun 04 - 10:43 AM (#1213533) Subject: RE: BS: US forced to Concede on War Crimes From: Peter K (Fionn) Thanks Guest. I'd missed this. |
|
24 Jun 04 - 08:21 PM (#1213859) Subject: RE: BS: US forced to Concede on War Crimes From: McGrath of Harlow This was front page news here (aside from those tabloid papers that just had stuff about football). Here is the BBC analysis - US drops immunity request This concludes: "What is still not clear is how far the US will go to carry out its threat to block future UN peacekeeping operations." I imagine the UK government, which had been planning to vote for extending the immunity, must be very pleased about being let off the hook. With stories continuing to appear every few days in the papers, and in broadcast media, detailing further accounts of torture and abuse of prisoners in various places, it would have been excruciatingly embarrassing for the government to vote for further immunity - and for different reasons highly embarrassing not to. There has never been any attempt by any other country to secure thius kind of immunity agreement. In fact, the US has, by one method or another, persuaded over 80 countries to sign bilateral agreements giving its citizens immunity from normal legal sanctions against war crimes, in practice it is unlikely this will make much practical difference. |
|
24 Jun 04 - 08:31 PM (#1213862) Subject: RE: BS: US forced to Concede on War Crimes From: GUEST It was front page news around the world from what I can tell at Google News. However, it wasn't even mentioned on the national network news. Nor was the news that US Senate unanimously passed the defense appropriations bill, which included another $25 billion for the war, which everyone agrees is just pocket change to get them through the November election, when it is expected there will be another request for $50 billion. And it passed without a debate, I might add. This, despite the fact that the majority of Americans now believe going to Iraq was a mistake. But don't tell Dubya or John Kerry that... |
|
24 Jun 04 - 10:01 PM (#1213887) Subject: RE: BS: US forced to Concede on War Crimes From: GUEST,Paranoid Android Now that we have establised the United States of Europe I reckon its time that we do the decent thing and send our united armies to liberate our American friends from the repressive government of Mr. Bush. The invasion will commence in Texas and we expect to sell petrol in Europe for 50 cents per gallon from July 4 onwards (The two events are entirely unconnected) |
|
24 Jun 04 - 11:53 PM (#1213918) Subject: RE: BS: US forced to Concede on War Crimes From: Stilly River Sage They dropped it with the UN, but Bush has another plan. I'll see if I can find that article. I read part of it today. The little turd just doesn't know when to stop. Yes, Guest, a lot of Americans are aware of this status. The same majority who elected Al Gore are aware of a lot of this stuff. |
|
25 Jun 04 - 12:02 AM (#1213923) Subject: RE: BS: US forced to Concede on War Crimes From: Stilly River Sage On second look, this is a different aspect of the same issue. From the BBC: US gives Iraq troops legal cover |
|
25 Jun 04 - 09:19 AM (#1214133) Subject: RE: BS: US forced to Concede on War Crimes From: McGrath of Harlow "Sovereignty"... The British Empire had a much more accurate term for this kind of arrangement - they used to call the territories involved "Briish Protectorates". |
|
25 Jun 04 - 10:09 AM (#1214172) Subject: RE: BS: US forced to Concede on War Crimes From: Stilly River Sage Following up on the last sentence in that article I posted: this is from the BBC Q&A: Coalition forces in Iraq |
|
26 Jun 04 - 01:49 AM (#1214576) Subject: RE: BS: US forced to Concede on War Crimes From: Bo Vandenberg link "Why Isn't Bush On Trial?" http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0625-13.htm |
|
26 Jun 04 - 11:51 AM (#1214622) Subject: RE: BS: US forced to Concede on War Crimes From: Stilly River Sage The articles I pasted in weren't particularly long, they certainly were within the One Screen rule (I also have a 19" monitor) so I find it a but heavy-handed to lop them out completely. We don't know if those links will stay active for long. SRS |