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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (74923)	10/5/2004 12:16:51 AM
From: KLP	Respond to of 793885

Just posted that, probably while you were...

To: LindyBill who wrote (74923)	10/5/2004 12:17:22 AM
From: KLP	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793885

Re NWC and UN--What are these folks thinking? ~ UN Signs Pact with New World Court Opposed by U.S. cnn.netscape.cnn.com UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - The United Nations signed a cooperation agreement on Monday with the new International Criminal Court, despite objections to the tribunal from the United States. The pact that would encourage "greater cooperation and consultation" on administration and judicial matters was signed by U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan and Judge Phillipe Kirsch of Canada, the court's president. The 191-member U.N. General adopted a resolution last month approving the agreement. But in a nod to the Bush administration, the assembly's resolution says that the world body would be reimbursed by nations supporting the court for any expenses occurred. Some 97 countries, including the entire European Union, have ratified the 1998 statute creating the court. The last three nations to ratify two weeks ago were Burundi, Liberia and Guyana. The Bush administration is bitterly opposed to the new court and rescinded former President Bill Clinton's signature to the tribunal's statutes, arguing that it would expose U.S. soldiers and officials to frivolous law suits. But supporters of the court say the ICC steps in only when a country is unwilling or unable to investigate, making it highly unlikely U.S. citizens would be targeted. The court, based at The Hague in the Netherlands, is the first permanent world tribunal set up to prosecute individuals for war crimes, genocide and other gross human rights abuses. Its first investigations involve war crimes in the eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo, where thousands have been killed, raped and tortured. Another probe centers on leaders of Uganda's rebel Lord's Resistance Army, who have kidnapped and tortured thousands of children in their camps in Sudan. On Friday, U.S. representative Stuart Holliday warned the Security Council after a vote to increase U.N. peacekeepers in the Congo that "any expenses resulting from the provision of any cooperation or support to the ICC would need to be on a reimbursable basis." William Pace, head of the Coalition for the International Criminal Court, representing 2,000 advocacy groups, said, that "by allowing for crucial cooperation between two of the most powerful global justice institutions, this agreement will play an important role in the fight to end impunity for the perpetrators of the world's most atrocious crimes." © Copyright Reuters Ltd. All rights reserved. The information contained In this news report may not be published, broadcast or otherwise distributed without the prior written authority of Reuters Ltd. 10/04/2004 20:27 RTR 88888888888888888

To: LindyBill who wrote (74923)	10/5/2004 6:23:05 AM
From: JDN	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793885

Does anyone remember that Saddam released ALL his criminals from the prisons just as the war started. If the USA were to suddenly release ALL of its criminals from prison, does anyone doubt our crime would SOAR and we dont have a wartime chaos on our shores. I am not so sure that any number of American troops could have prevented what went on. In the process we might have alienated a number of innocent Iraqi's. No, I dont think our mistake was too few troops, I think our mistake MIGHT have been disbanding the Iraqi Army and police forces and starting from scratch. I am not SURE that was a mistake but I am willing to admit it MIGHT have been so. jdn

To: LindyBill who wrote (74923)	10/5/2004 7:24:58 AM
From: unclewest	Respond to of 793885

No doubt we should have had a brigade of MP's and full Marshal Law. LB, We have chopped this subject up before. There were three of Saddam's most loyal divisions operating N of Baghdad. 40 A Teams from the US 10th SF Group contained them after the 4th Infantry Division was denied access through Turkey. Unfortunately those divisions never really got into the fight...not like they would have with the 4th ID. That imo continues to be the problem. Those folks need to be provided the opportunity to fight us. We are providing them some of that opportunity now. The 4th ID would have added 20,000 troops and our most technical fighting equipment to the battle area. They would have taken out all three divisions in the desert. The war will end when someone submits. uw