Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : GET THE U.S. OUT of The U.N NOW! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Eashoa' M'sheekha who wrote (161)	6/11/2002 11:23:22 AM
From: Tadsamillionaire	Respond to of 411

Tim, I have been told by parents of school aged children, that there are already history books in use, in schools, that say that the United Nations won WW2, and avoid the fact that the organization had not even been formed until after the war was won by the ALLIES!!!! Message 17585094

To: Eashoa' M'sheekha who wrote (161)	6/12/2002 6:33:07 PM
From: Tadsamillionaire	Respond to of 411

US demands jeopardise Milosevic's war trial By Carola Hoyos, United Nations correspondent Published: June 11 2002 21:15 \| Last Updated: June 11 2002 21:15 The US is jeopardising the testimony of some of the most important witnesses expected to be called in the international trial of Slobodan Milosevic, the former Serbian president accused of war crimes. Diplomats and US officials say the US State Department is pushing to have the court keep secret the testimony of Richard Holbrooke, the architect of the Bosnia's Dayton peace accords. The Bush administration is wary of setting any precedent of senior US officials testifying before international courts ahead of the creation of the International Criminal Court, which the US adamantly opposes. Negotiations with the department have become so difficult that Carla del Ponte, the UN's prosecutor who has been given 14 months to present her case, is said to be considering not calling the witness. "In general, for the office of the prosecutor and people in the region, the importance of the Milosevic trial is transparency," said one UN official, adding that hiding witnesses would risk the appearance of a show trial. If Ms del Ponte decides not to call Mr Holbrooke for the prosecution, he faces having to testify for the defence. His testimony would then be shaped to a larger extent by Mr Milosevic. In opening his defence in February Mr Milosevic sounded almost wistful as he recalled leaders, including Mr Holbrooke, whom he once saw as equals, saying he would call many of them to testify. The US supports the United Nations' international criminal tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, which is trying Mr Milosevic. But US officials are concerned that witnesses with high security clearance may be obliged to reveal sensitive information in court. Meanwhile, Mr Holbrooke risks being embarrassed by Mr Milosevic, who could highlight his relationship with the former US special envoy during the Dayton negotiations, where Mr Milosevic was given a seat at the table. "The last thing he [Mr Holbrooke] wants is to have repeated his time drinking whisky with Milosevic after the agreement at Dayton," said one former US official in the Balkans. Critics say Mr Holbrooke helped legitimise Mr Milosevic by giving him such a prominent role at the peace negotiations for Bosnia. They say the experience helped embolden Mr Milosevic, who shortly afterwards sent his troops into Kosovo. Without the power to enforce a subpoena and limited by the need to maintain good relations with its most important financial supporter, there is little the judges could do to compel the US to co-operate. "It would set a terrible precedent," said one UN official. "Other countries would ask themselves why they need to co-operate if the court makes an exception for a member [of the UN] because of its political muscle." Most worrying to supporters of the trial is the possibility that, if too many witnesses fail to appear at the trial, the judges could decide Mr Milosevic was not given a satisfactory opportunity to defend himself. news.ft.com

To: Eashoa' M'sheekha who wrote (161)	6/20/2002 1:43:17 PM
From: Tadsamillionaire	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 411

A fresh clash is looming between the United States and its west European allies over the status of American troops in the International Criminal Court. It concerns an American demand that the Security Council should exempt all troops serving in UN-authorised peacekeeping operations from prosecution by the new Court. The Bush administration and many members of Congress are adamantly opposed to any dilution of American sovereignty in criminal justice Other members of the Council, including Britain and France, are overwhelmingly opposed to an American draft resolution introduced on Wednesday. But the United States has accused European countries of hypocrisy because, it says, they sought similar protection for their troops serving in the international security force in Afghanistan. Human rights campaigners and other supporters of the new Court, which comes into legal existence on 1 July, see the opposition of the Bush administration as symptomatic. Its attitude, they say, is that the United States is a special case and that international rules apply only to others. These critics find ammunition in the way the administration has tried to circumvent American judicial safeguards by holding terrorist suspects outside the United States or declaring them to be enemy combatants. Pull-out threat What is clear is that the American draft Security Council resolution takes the Bush administration's well-known opposition to the International Criminal Court to a new level. It is saying, in effect: if we don't get a Security Council guarantee that American soldiers serving in UN-authorised operations will not be prosecuted for war crimes, we may pull them out of all such missions. In theory, that could apply to the Nato-led force in Bosnia; its mandate is up for renewal in the Council on Friday. Issue could force Britain or France to use veto in Security Council But the attempt to get blanket immunity for all international peacekeepers is the crunch point. Washington argues that without that, its soldiers might be subject to politically-motivated or frivolous prosecutions. In response, the Europeans point to the many safeguards built into the Rome Treaty governing the court - in particular, the principle that it can intervene only if a country cannot or will not prosecute crimes against humanity in its national courts. They stress how unlikely it is that American peacekeepers would commit such crimes; or that, if they did, the Americans would not deal with it themselves. Embarrassment None of these arguments, however, addresses the more fundamental issue: the adamant opposition of the Bush administration and many members of Congress to any dilution of American sovereignty in criminal justice. The United States has sought to embarrass its European allies by citing the military agreement reached last January with the Afghan government. The agreement said that members of the International Security Assistance Force - including British, French and German soldiers - would not be handed over to an international tribunal or other entity or state without the consent of their government. The American representative at the UN, Richard Williamson, told the Washington Post that this was evidence of double standards by America's allies. Undermining the court European diplomats say the cases are quite different: the one-off agreement with the Afghan authorities did not nullify the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, which did not even exist at that stage. The ICC Comes into being on July 1 and begins work early next year Will be based in The Hague 68 nations have ratified the treaty Over 100 nations have signed up and may ratify the treaty in the future China, India, Pakistan, Indonesia, Iraq and Turkey have failed to sign up to the treaty The US, Egypt, Iran, Israel and Russia have failed to ratify the treaty In contrast, formal exemption by the Security Council for all peacekeepers would seriously undermine the Court just as it comes into being. The Europeans also argue that their ratification of the Rome Treaty prevents them from supporting the American resolution. The question is whether the United States is prepared to force the issue to the point where Britain or France might feel compelled to use its veto in the Security Council. That would take transatlantic differences into new territory. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites news.bbc.co.uk.