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.

Politics : Moderate Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: epicure who wrote (2053)	6/12/2003 12:44:23 PM
From: Yogizuna	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20773

Well said.... Very well said.

To: epicure who wrote (2053)	6/12/2003 1:14:49 PM
From: Thomas M.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20773

To use the "law" of the UN in a war the UN did not sanction, is, I think, one of the most hypocritical actions I have seen in my lifetime Amen! Tom

To: epicure who wrote (2053)	6/12/2003 2:54:54 PM
From: LPS5	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20773

If the US has ruined the UN, that is, imo a crime against humanity. If by deciding to address an issue on its own, a single member 'ruins' an organization, what perception are you left with regarding how "nited" the other members are? Is the U.N. a bona fide union or, as I see it, a weak, unnecessarily binding political welfare club, best cast into the gutter of history alongside its predecessor, the League of Nations? And if you are a proponent of the United Nations...the same United Nations that wouldn't back the United States in its action against Iraq...how could you possibly stomach this? U.S. Gets War Crimes Tribunal Exemption Thursday, 12 June 2003 by EDITH M. LEDERER, Associated Press Writer UNITED NATIONS - The U.N. Security Council on Thursday approved another one-year exemption for American peacekeepers from prosecution by the new international war crimes tribunal, but it faced opposition from France, Germany and Syria. France, Germany and Syria abstained, despite a U.S. appeal not to further strain the bitter trans-Atlantic division over the war against Iraq. The three argued that a special U.S. exemption was not necessary and only weakens the International Criminal Court. U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan spoke out strongly against any attempt to try to make the exemption permanent — which the United States initially sought. He warned that this would not only undermine the court but the authority of the U.N. Security Council "and the legitimacy of United Nations peacekeeping." The resolution adopted by a vote of 12-0 with the three abstentions, authorizes a yearlong exemption from arrest or trial for peacekeepers from the United States and other countries that have not ratified the Rome treaty establishing the court. France and Germany, both members of the European Union, were in the forefront of opposition to the U.S.-led war against Iraq. Last week, the United States warned the EU that its criticism over the exemption request was putting more strains on trans-Atlantic relations. France's deputy U.N. ambassador Michel Duclos said agreeing to the renewal "risks in effect giving credence to the perception of permanent exceptions which can only weaken the court and impair its authority." During an open Security Council debate before the vote, Greece's U.N. ambassador Adamantios Vassilakis, speaking on behalf of the 15-nation bloc, put the United States on notice that "automatic renewal would be undermining to the letter and the spirit of the Rome Treaty and its fundamental purpose." All 15 EU nations are among the 90 countries that are party to the court, which will prosecute cases of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity committed after July 1, 2002. The court will step in only when countries are unwilling or unable to dispense justice themselves. The court got a boost Wednesday when China's U.N. Ambassador Wang Yingfan said his country was "positively considering" ratifying the Rome Treaty. Beijing was one of seven countries that voted against the Rome statute but in the last four years has taken a more positive attitude. "China's change reflects a growing support worldwide for the ICC and international justice," said William Pace, who heads the Coalition for the International Criminal Court, which represents more than 1,000 organizations supporting the tribunal. Then President Bill Clinton's administration signed the 1988 Rome treaty setting up the court, but the Bush administration has rescinded the U.S. signature. President Bush contends that Americans could be subject to the court's jurisdiction even if it is not a party to the pact. Washington argues that the court could be used for frivolous or politically motivated prosecutions of American troops. In addition to the exemption, it also has signed bilateral agreements with 37 countries not to prosecute American officials — and is seeking more. During Thursday's debate, Canada's U.N. Ambassador Paul Heinbecker appealed to the council to keep the exemption from becoming permanent and emphasized that "the ICC is not a court for frivolous prosecutions." He noted safeguards put in the treaty at U.S. request to ensure that such prosecutions will be screened out. Last July, the council unanimously approved a one-year exemption after a diplomatic battle in which the United States threatened to end far-flung peacekeeping operations from Afghanistan to Sierra Leone. Washington had asked for a quick vote on its resolution. But non-council nations asked for — and got — an open council meeting before the vote. 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. U.S. deputy ambassador James Cunningham called the Rome Treaty "fatally flawed" and said the resolution represented a compromise that should be respected by all nations. He denied that it violated the treaty.

To: epicure who wrote (2053)	6/12/2003 5:58:07 PM
From: Raymond Duray	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20773

X, Well stated. I'm in complete agreement with you. -Ray

To: epicure who wrote (2053)	6/12/2003 8:41:45 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 20773

We are in other words totally unfit to wield the power that we have, imo. I couldn't disagree more. Somebody is going to wield power in the world. And the world is frankly lucky its us. What we have done may be worse than what Saddam has done. Oh my God. What you've charged America with is hypocrisy. Even assuming for the sake of argument that the charge was warranted, what kind of morality equates hypocrisy with the slaughter, torture, and rape of hundreds of thousands of people? Which is what Saddam did. Re. the UN in the first place, it has never been what you I think you would like it to be. And it isn't and never shall be sovereign over the US.