Join 3,424 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


"A sad day for the United Nations."
July 12, 2002 5:49 PM   Subscribe

"A sad day for the United Nations." When it comes to international law, there's one law for the USA and one law for the rest of the world. Disgusting.
posted by tranquileye (58 comments total)

 
Disgusting? Sorry, no. Simply a victory for sovereignty.

Thank you, Mr. President.
posted by hadashi at 6:08 PM on July 12, 2002


Actually, it was perfect example of WHY the UN is absolutely useless: they have no ability to enforce anything they say. That is, of course, unless they get the US to do their enforcing for them.

The United States objects to the idea that Americans could be subject to the court's jurisdiction if a crime is committed in a country that has ratified the treaty, even if the United States is not a party.

Sounds reasonable to me.
posted by RevGreg at 6:15 PM on July 12, 2002


...and if anybody should know a thing or two about the ins and outs of disrespecting a country's sovereignty, it should be Mr. President.
posted by boost ventilator at 6:17 PM on July 12, 2002


The UN has no ability to enforce because it takes buy-in from civilized countries. America, with its current chimp-as-president, does not qualify for that adjective. Anyone who believes this decision has anything do with Bush believing in principles of sovereignty needs to step back into the real world (though I hear that the weather is nice in Naiveland).
posted by fncll at 6:33 PM on July 12, 2002


Yikes, I am a very liberal person, who actually admires much of the great liberalism of many European countries (my Mom is Swedish.) Unfortunately, they are losing it. The EU "human rights court" gets to decide things whether member states must allow gays in their militaries. Sure, they made the right decision, but the fact that EU members think that simple decisions like this should no longer be made at the national level indicates that they are completely out of touch with American sentiment.

Like me, many of you probably think that discrimination against gays is wrong. However, how large a class of problems do you think should be addressed in trans-national courts? I submit that Americans and Europeans don't see eye-to-eye on this. My point finally is: Europe needs to stop acting like we're fuckwits. We have a educated opinions that differ from them. Convince us we're wrong, don't condescend. Personally I'm not interested in larger units of government. Pot isn't the most important issue in the world, but we out here in the far west of America are getting fucked and disenfranchised. We need smaller units of government not larger. Christopher Alexander says teh same thing in his very first pattern and he's hardly a right-winger.

The new European way of Justice.
posted by Wood at 6:33 PM on July 12, 2002


There's no question as to the US's sovereignty hadashi. I can't believe the cons on this issue and the Bush administration's tact must be continually spelled out to American jingoists.

And as to the UN being "absolutely useless", it's only as good as it is united. With America as the fairweather friend that it is, the UN will always be neutered. Which is bad, if you are concerned about handling GLOBAL problems multilaterally.

~disgusting~

Prior discussion here.
posted by crasspastor at 6:35 PM on July 12, 2002


“WHY the UN is absolutely useless: they have no ability to enforce anything they say”

Uh, that really isn't a reason for the UN's impotency per se, it's a reason for international law's dogmatism on a whole. Countriess have to consent to international laws, which make them more ideological props than anything like codified justice.
posted by raaka at 6:35 PM on July 12, 2002


"I believe it is peace(keeping) in our time."

(And Wood, the relevance of your rant escapes me.)
posted by riviera at 6:37 PM on July 12, 2002


Disgusting.

Other countries have been given immunities, so why is it wrong for the US to protect itself and it citizens?

Besides, other countries and world powers such as China, India, Israel and Russia (among others) have totally rejected the war crimes court. Why should the US take all the flak? Or act any differently if it feels that such an organization would not be in the best interests of its citizens? Why is the sovereignty of their citizens more or less sacred than ours?

I ask you: Why are other countries and other world powers treated differently than the US? That's disgusting.
posted by Bag Man at 6:39 PM on July 12, 2002


Off topic, but it makes me sad that, on google at least, it's hard to find information about the original pattern language because of all the software engineering crap.

(And riviera, it is a bit of a rant, maybe that makes it less clear. I believe Europeans (and Europhiles) find America's response to the ICC so maddening because they have already adopted so much trans-nationalism. I believe that the differences between us prior to the whole ICC controversy are ignored and that confuses the ICC debate.)
posted by Wood at 6:50 PM on July 12, 2002


I think people are being hard on the US because unlike, China, India, Israel, the US styles itself on being the center of freedom and justice.
posted by Iax at 7:03 PM on July 12, 2002


bagman, the US is taking all the flak because it is the only security council voter who is getting immunity. If China is so hot for immunity then why don't they get it also?

revgreg, yes the UN will remain crippled as long as one member of the security council arguably controls the rest.
posted by skallas at 7:12 PM on July 12, 2002


When you let a cpountry like Syria currently in charge of the Security Council then you have to ask what the UN is all about: they fund terrorism, they allow Hezbullah sactuary, they have had and still have 35 thousand troops occupying Lebanon against the will of many many Lebanese, and they said no to peace attempts on the Palistinian issue made by Saudi Arabia.
posted by Postroad at 7:22 PM on July 12, 2002


China, India, Israel and Russia

That's hardly esteemed company if you're talking about human rights/war crimes.
posted by donkeyschlong at 7:31 PM on July 12, 2002


I guess the U.S. will need to work overtime to get all its war crime-ing in within the next 12 months. Time to get busy.
posted by fleener at 7:46 PM on July 12, 2002


Oh postroad you continue to disappoint. Its called rotation. You get your good and your bad. Syria is president for a month.
posted by skallas at 7:53 PM on July 12, 2002


Thirty signatory nations ratified the ICC treaty with declarations and reservations. {see end} See, for example, the extensive reservations of France, who reiterated their right of self-defense, right to deploy and use nuclear weapons, and various clarifications on the 'means and methods' of war. And Britain demanded immunity for its soldiers deployed to Afghanistan's peacekeeping force; Afghanistan's interim authority agreed not to extradite any British soldier to the ICC.
posted by dhartung at 7:54 PM on July 12, 2002


And as to the UN being "absolutely useless", it's only as good as it is united.

That is correct, and I am a huge fan of disunity. Hell, I wouldn't mind if the USA devolved into 50 independent states, with no 'war criminals' at all, but that's just me. Decentralization of power good, UN bad.

And what are these 'global problems' you speak of, and why can't they be handled locally?
posted by insomnyuk at 7:56 PM on July 12, 2002


revgreg, yes the UN will remain crippled as long as one member of the security council arguably controls the rest.

Well, the only reason the US has any control over the rest of the security council in this case is if we take our ball and go home, the rest of the UN either can not or will not continue on its own. The Europeans could easily reduce the power that the US wields by actually funding their RRF, but instead they chose to do nothing, declare it "operational" and go on about their business.
posted by jaek at 8:04 PM on July 12, 2002


the whole idea of "war crimes" is stupid.
posted by delmoi at 8:46 PM on July 12, 2002


The UN is useless because the humanistic notion of global interest and cooperation among them is dead. Representatives of the member nations entirely politicized the operation in the interests of their own ideological justification to keep the status quo and their privileged status and paycheck continue in perpetuity.
posted by semmi at 8:53 PM on July 12, 2002


the whole idea of "war crimes" is stupid.

But "war," now THAT'S brilliant!
posted by rushmc at 9:17 PM on July 12, 2002


Thirty signatory nations ratified the ICC treaty with declarations and reservations. {see end} See, for example, the extensive reservations of France, who reiterated their right of self-defense, right to deploy and use nuclear weapons, and various clarifications on the 'means and methods' of war. And Britain demanded immunity for its soldiers deployed to Afghanistan's peacekeeping force; Afghanistan's interim authority agreed not to extradite any British soldier to the ICC.

Right on...So I guess the US is just like any other nation, seeking to defend their "best interests." I couldn't have said it (and didn't) better myself.

Gee, only thirty signatory nations...why aren't we complaining about the other 140 countries who didn't sign at all?
posted by Bag Man at 9:45 PM on July 12, 2002


And what are these 'global problems' you speak of, and why can't they be handled locally?

Nuclear weapons come to mind.
posted by y2karl at 9:53 PM on July 12, 2002


...the US styles itself on being the center of freedom and justice.

Because it IS the center of freedom & justice on this planet. It had to be said.
posted by davidmsc at 9:55 PM on July 12, 2002


Representatives of the member nations entirely politicized the operation

It was politicized from the very beginning, because politicians created it, and set themselves up as the directors. What did you expect from an international political organization? Clear thinking? For an answer to that rhetorical question, see Rwanda, 1994, when the U.N. actually had a chance to do some good, and utterly, miserably failed.
posted by insomnyuk at 10:42 PM on July 12, 2002


This is disappointing to me, but not for the reasons previously stated. I wanted our troops brought home. The UN and it's members do not have the will or much of anything else to fill the void so they melted like a cake in the rain. They took the easy way out, and that is what is truly disgusting, and shows how much they really cared about their hollow court. Way to buckle UN, I should not have expected better of you. The organization is as good as dead, and will never be able to convince Americans to do anything they do not feel like.

Do not get me wrong, I did not want the US to sign on for the court, for the constitutional reasons mentioned here and before. However, I did not expect the members to sell their ideals at bargain basement prices.
posted by thirteen at 12:44 AM on July 13, 2002


I think this is a good thing... I don't think a US citizen SHOULD be detained by a "world court". Hell, the whole "world court" concept is so fraught with problems the only thing to do is reject it.

No US citizen held by another government ... I like it.
posted by soulhuntre at 1:10 AM on July 13, 2002


Because it IS the center of freedom & justice on this planet. It had to be said.

And all the times you have to say it don't make it any more true.
posted by riviera at 2:02 AM on July 13, 2002


Or any less true, as the case may be.
posted by David Dark at 2:15 AM on July 13, 2002


riviera, if you don't believe the US is the 'center of freedom & justice on this planet', what nation do you think holds that honor? And why?
posted by Slithy_Tove at 2:59 AM on July 13, 2002


Or any more or less true that Americans could stand to understand the world as a whole and not what the world should or shouldn't understand about us.

As with any mental instability, one must ask: Does my dysfunction get in the way of my life to the point that it harms others and the common relationship? If so, it needs treated. And furthermore, if we're to utilize Occam's Razor for the purpose of world politics, it's probably safe to assume that the global ills that dog us aren't because "the world" is too rigidly opposed to us, but that we're uncomfortable making the kinds of necessary changes that subvert all of the heroic American folklore we've been tought to just wholeheartedly vicariously embrace. Nobody American I know is a fucking hero for any other reason someone else I know of another nationality isn't. We're all workaday stiffs who believe somehow, some way, there are real, actual heroes doing heroic things for our benefit while we heroically take on yet another credit account for the gipper. The heroic patriot is someone who dwells in the same spaces as you, only never when you're there. But goddammit, you know they're there. They just are. The media wouldn't lie.

And they probably aren't lying. They're only doing their job.

Nothing can be more heroic than doing one's job, doing it well and doing nothing more.
posted by crasspastor at 3:04 AM on July 13, 2002


Because it IS the center of freedom & justice on this planet. It had to be said.

Not only on this planet! Are you some sort of Communist? In the whole universe I'd say!
posted by matteo at 5:52 AM on July 13, 2002


The UN exists because, although it's very difficult to get people to agree on difficult questions, it is important to try. At least, it was considered important 50 years ago when people were not that happy about the alternatives in their recent past - two world wars.

It works by consensus because there was, at the time, felt to be very little alternative. At the level of nations, the only ways to force agreement are either negotiation or war. And, as I've just said, war wasn't considered that good an idea. And people tried to agree because it was pretty clear that if there wasn't resolution of the more serious problems then the alternative (war again) would be pretty unpleasant.

However, we're now in a position where at least one country feels that war isn't so bad - that it is so dominant that it really doesn't need to negotiate. If push comes to shove, war (is believed to) costs less to the USA than compromise.

And immunity for soldiers helps keep that cost down.

(Personally, I find it odd that 9/11 appears to have strengthened that attitude, rather than been seen as a counterexample to the low cost of dominance.)

The work of the UN is messy because life is messy at the international level. Different countries want very different things. Compromise is necessary. It's not like school where there's a nice safe figure of authority. At least, that's the non-US view. It appears that the US view is that there is an authority figure - the USA - and that life would be so much simpler if the UN stopped trying to find agreement and, instead, everyone did what the USA wanted. Of course, all countries have wet dreams at night where they think such things - but now it's reality for one country.

(Another aside - can US citizens imagine a superpower that does not think itself the centre of something it felt important? Could you imagine a superpower whose citizens said "actually, we're not the world centre for [insert values important to that superpower here]"?)
posted by andrew cooke at 6:26 AM on July 13, 2002


Amerika is the best. Nobody can put us to trial, 'cause we can kick their ass. We can put anyone to trial, 'cause we can kick their ass. If someone forks with us, we will kick their ass. If anyone pisses us off, we can kick their ass. Might makes right, and Amerika is always right.

And we don't need our rights, 'cause the terrorists might attack. Better to be safe than free of government intrusion. The government knows whats right. Our homeland defense has had us on yellow alert since its inception of the code. We haven't had an attack since the inception of the code. But that's 'cause the yellow alert told the terrorists we knew they were coming and got scared off. And it reminds us how much danger we're in, and how important it is we surrender our rights so we can be safe.

We have every right to invade any country that pisses us off, because they might hurt us before we hurt them. 3000 Amerikan civillians were killed on 9/11. Its only right that we killed 1500 Afghani civilians since by bombing, and over 3000 Afghani citizens have died during our police action due to lack of potable water, starvation, etc. We had to kill them so we could kill the 800 military targets, so we could rid Afghanistan of the Taliban and put in a government more to our liking, that won't ever, ever piss us off. You can't make an omlet without breaking a few eggs, and you can't install a puppet government without knocking off the occassional civillian that gets in the way of our bombs.

Now we get to do the same thing to Iraq, 'cause they might have terrorists that might hurt us someday, 'cause its better to be safe than sorry. We will not stop our invasions until all of the people who might hurt us are gone, and only people who will listen to us and do what we say are left. That way we can be safe. That's why Amerika is great, and anyone who has a problem with that better watch out, 'cause we can kick their ass.
posted by Perigee at 6:38 AM on July 13, 2002


When you let a cpountry like Syria currently in charge of the Security Council then you have to ask what the UN is all about: they fund terrorism, they allow Hezbullah sactuary, they have had and still have 35 thousand troops occupying Lebanon against the will of many many Lebanese, and they said no to peace attempts on the Palistinian issue made by Saudi Arabia.

Of course the United States was on the Security Council as well and they didn't have a unblemished track record (Central America - oops!).

The interesting part about this stink is that it is framed in terms of sovereignty but only one country's sovereignty. Not only that but technically U.S. sovereignty (and all other countries as well) stops at the borders. It isn't some bubble surrounding every American (or other national) no matter where they go. Like it or not you are subject to another country's law when you cross their border.

The legitimate threat to sovereignty isn't what happens to peacekeepers abroad, problematic though they may be, but in whether the ICC looks to enforce its laws within the borders of its signatories.
posted by srboisvert at 6:47 AM on July 13, 2002


Perigee, thanks for the kickass post
posted by matteo at 7:17 AM on July 13, 2002


"You think you're livin' in the land of the free? Whoever told you that is your enemy!"
-(Yeah, it's Rage Against the Machine... had to be said.)
posted by kaibutsu at 7:28 AM on July 13, 2002


Because it IS the center of freedom & justice on this planet.

OK, I can see where freedom comes in - freedom to commit war crimes - but where does that leave justice?
posted by stuporJIX at 8:31 AM on July 13, 2002


Like Slithy Tove asked: ...if you don't believe the US is the 'center of freedom & justice on this planet', what nation do you think holds that honor? And why?

Everyone who is bashing the U.S. in this thread--seriously--can you point to any country that has done more to improve the world in every imaginable way (justice, liberty, economy, rights, health, technology, science, etc) in such a short period of time? Yes, the U.S. has done some bad things, and yes, the U.S. is not perfect. That does not and can not erase the centuries of striving for and, more often than not, attaining the ideals that are (or should be) universally recognized as desirable.
posted by davidmsc at 8:53 AM on July 13, 2002


And the Roman Empire gave us roads and indoor plumbing. And El Duce made the trains run on time. Its NOT about what is right - there's plenty of it. Its about what's WRONG. Recognizing whats wrong is a requisite for making it right. Blind patriotism flies in the face of our progress ethically and morally as a country.
posted by Perigee at 9:02 AM on July 13, 2002


Everyone who is bashing the U.S. in this thread--seriously--can you point to any country that has done more to improve the world in every imaginable way (justice, liberty, economy, rights, health, technology, science, etc) in such a short period of time? Yes, the U.S. has done some bad things, and yes, the U.S. is not perfect. That does not and can not erase the centuries of striving for and, more often than not, attaining the ideals that are (or should be) universally recognized as desirable.

Sure maybe the United States is one of the best countries in the world (second to Canada of course!) but that is no reason to accept the status quo. I think it is important to remember the difference between self-esteem and conceited denial. I am sure there are some Catholic priests out there saying they were better than the other priests in their parish even though they molested children.

You get to be the best by holding yourself to a higher standard. Always. Pointing out that you are better than a country like Iraq and patting yourself on the back really doesn't say much. It is like a crappy father pointing out that he didn't sexually abuse his children.

The real failure in this ICC issue is that it's opponents are not doing a good job of pointing out what specifically they oppose and why. Some actual examples of things that could go wrong would be useful. Ironically, the people trumpeting the ICC exemption as a failure of America to live up to its ideology are the same ones who oppose the anti-democratic aspects of Globalization. So they want globo-cop but not globo-shop.
posted by srboisvert at 9:21 AM on July 13, 2002


When it comes to international law, there's one law for the USA and one law for the rest of the world. Disgusting.

Yet, that's exactly what the Kyoto Protocol would have created: one law for the U.S. and exemptions for China, India, and other "developing" nations which would have tied one hand behind our economy's back relative to theirs. (Yes, we could still whup 'em...) Where was your objection to that?

International law is always a negotiation of interests, frequently resulting in some countries receiving different treatment than others; the United Nations itself raises the United States, China, Russia, France, and the United Kingdom to "veto" power level in the Security Council.

The reality is that all nations are not the same; the United States and East Timor are not equivalents no matter how hard you wish them to be. International law must recognize this, or it cannot be legitimate in the real world.

Since the United States does the bulk of the world's policing, we ought to have some extra protections for ourselves in that role. The only other alternative for the United States is to withdraw from U.N. peacekeeping missions, since participation would expose our soldiers to great danger from the false accusation of our enemies.

If you favor U.N. peacekeeping and think the United States should participate, you should be satisfied with this. If not, we can just take our ball and go home.
posted by mikewas at 9:56 AM on July 13, 2002


Blind patriotism flies in the face of our progress ethically and morally as a country.

Perigee, I think you make an excellent point. However, “blind patriotism” this not why I support the US' exemptions (plus, I hardly think that the Bush Administration would count me as a "patriot").

I also don't think this why many Americans either don't support the ICC or have pushed for exemptions. The reason behind it is a sense of pragmatism. All countries need to do things that are less than altruistic to survive, so they just want to make sure that they can still do certain things within reason without being hauled in fount of a court. Further, many countries worry that the ICC would used to railroad a country for taking a necessary, yet unpopular, act. I believe that this is a legitimate fear for any country.

I will admit that Bush may use the exemptions in the short to do things I don’t agree with, but in the long run it is the best course to take.

The thing I take issue with my single out the US' acts as "disgusting" when many other countries have done the same exact thing. Further why criticize the US when the vast majority of sovereign nations on Earth have not even exposed themselves to the ICC’s jurisdiction at all? If the US is "disgusting," what can we call the countries that did not even ratify the ICC? If anything, the US is amongst the progressive countries by joining the ICC (with respect to the exemptions the US should judged just all of the other countries who have asked for, and been granted, similar exemptions). Why isn’t Britain or France’s conduct “disgusting”? What gives other countries (that are incidentally freedom loving democracies) the moral high ground while taking the same or similar sets as the “disgusting” US?

Bashing just to bash is as foolish as being “blind patriot”.
posted by Bag Man at 10:13 AM on July 13, 2002


I dunno, Bag - I think the thing that's most troubling to me is the phrase 'America Bashing' when criticism is leveled is becoming a modern buzzword. Something out of the Rush Limbaugh playbook that dismisses a percieved problem without the need to fairly investigate it.

I guess if there is a 'race card' that can be played, then I see the blythe use of the phrase as something very similar - playing the 'patriot card'.

Why not Britain, or France, or anyone else? I can't speak for everyone else, but for myself I'd say its because America is my problem. Its a familything to me - they have people in those countries that should be fighting the battle of fairness for the honor of their country.
posted by Perigee at 11:04 AM on July 13, 2002


Bag Man - be clear I'm not bashing, just exploring what I perceive to be some inconsistencies.

I'm not clear how a nation can be (1) so trusting of their Government that they believe it does not need to be held accountable for its international actions, while being (2) so distrusting of their Government that they believe it cannot be trusted with elementary powers of domestic monitoring.

Does the Government become squeaky clean in its actions as soon as it begins operating in the international arena, or is some of the thinking here a little...discontinuous?
posted by RichLyon at 11:06 AM on July 13, 2002


I'm not clear how a nation can be (1) so trusting of their Government that they believe it does not need to be held accountable for its international actions, while being (2) so distrusting of their Government that they believe it cannot be trusted with elementary powers of domestic monitoring.

Does the Government become squeaky clean in its actions as soon as it begins operating in the international arena, or is some of the thinking here a little...discontinuous?


I wish I could give you an answer, but I can't. I'd support what you have suggested I support in (1). I can only say that an exception is just that: an exception, it's not a total exoneration of all conduct.
posted by Bag Man at 11:19 AM on July 13, 2002


I'm hardly trusting of my government. Is the ICC going to be under the complete control of the western European democracies forever? Because I don't think I want Russia or China to be charged with "holding us accountable"? How do we create a world criminal court when so much of the world is controlled by dictatorships, military or otherwise?

Is there somewhere where we can see good examples of what this court will do? Best would be examples based on real events in the past. I feel about 90% sure that land mines will come before the court. I don't have any idea what they'll rule. Once again, my personal beliefs are with the liberals on this, however, I don't see how there is a suitable world community for creating "law" on these issues.
posted by Wood at 11:36 AM on July 13, 2002


Dictatorship."A ruler who is not effectively restricted by a constitution, laws, recognized opposition, etc." My confusion blossoms.

Now that the US has appointed itself during the current crisis to exercise supreme authority (the ancient Roman definition of Dictatorship), and freed itself from any restriction on the manner in which it does so (the essence of the modern definition), the difference between its actions and those of a dictatorship would be what, exactly?
posted by RichLyon at 12:07 PM on July 13, 2002


So, Rich, every country before the invention of the ICC was a dictatorship? And every country that hasn't signed is a dictatorship (e.g. Japan)? Freeing yourself from restrictions on actions while participating in invited peace keeping activities is "the essence of the modern definition" of dictactorship? Come on, meet me half way.

The court has limited scope and defined crimes. However, these things are going to be subject to much interpretation and clarification by the judges involved. I'm trying to figure out how this is supposed to work. It appears that the countries vote on state nominees. Does that sound reasonable to you? I'm not saying that the Chinese government or people lack moral credibility. I just don't think we're ready for joint legal institutions.

I have enough trouble with the judges in other parts of my country.
posted by Wood at 12:46 PM on July 13, 2002


OK, Wood, that was a bit of a bashing. I'll meet you part way insofar as I accept that you have to work pretty hard to find the UN an inspiring organisation right now.

There is a clear distinction that can be made, though, between the legitimacy of international opinion (however poorly expressed) on what a country does while operating within its own borders (i.e. very little), and on what a country does while operating within someone else's (i.e. ineluctable).

In your (otherwise worthy) diatribe against the EU's tomfool pronouncements on gays in the armed forces, you appear to confuse the two and, muddled up, use that as the basis for rejecting the international community's moral right to hold you accountable for your actions. Can't meet you there.

But I also agree with you that the world is probably not ready to form joint legal institutions. Given your size, though, by making it a precondition of entry you prevent it, Catch-22, from ever being ready. The sadness is the loss of the opportunity for you to take an active part in making it so. Maybe a bigger country would have tried?
posted by RichLyon at 2:02 PM on July 13, 2002


Now that the US has appointed itself during the current crisis to exercise supreme authority

If we sat and twiddled our thumbs, the folks who think like you would be first in line condeming the great superpower for "not doing anything".
posted by owillis at 2:56 PM on July 13, 2002


Since I don't even trust the judicial system of France, I fail to see how saying "no thanks" to a tribunal overseen by all the wack job nations in the UN is unreasonable.

PS: Whatever the US does, it's going to be the object of criticism, partially out of jealousy, partial out of the mistakes of big nations looming larger than the mistakes small ones.
posted by ParisParamus at 4:42 PM on July 13, 2002


Nothing can be more heroic than doing one's job, doing it well and doing nothing more.

Wow, I couldn't disagree with THAT any more....
posted by rushmc at 11:17 AM on July 14, 2002


U.S. finds unusual allies in opposing court
posted by Mack Twain at 11:29 AM on July 14, 2002


For what it's worth rushmc, it was sarcasm.
posted by crasspastor at 1:12 PM on July 14, 2002


I'm really amazed that anyone can point to the UN as anything other than a political/legal joke. If you want to get on the US's case, surely there must be a more credible way.
posted by ParisParamus at 6:55 PM on July 15, 2002


Why not Britain, or France, or anyone else? I can't speak for everyone else, but for myself I'd say its because America is my problem. Its a familything to me - they have people in those countries that should be fighting the battle of fairness for the honor of their country.

Point taken.

However, how do we set the base line for what is fair and not fair? How about how other countries are treated?

Further, the whole purpose of this thread seems to be to exclaim that some how the US is living above the law. How can that be true if the other participants in the ICC are being treated in the exact same way as the US? How can getting exceptions be above the law if other countries are getting them too? If France, Britain and others are getting exactions for the peace keeping operations and so is the US isn't the only conclusion that the same rules are being applied to all ICC participants, including the US? In light of all the exceptions that all ICC members are getting, the statement there's one law for the USA and one law for the rest of the world. Disgusting. is absolutely, factually wrong.
posted by Bag Man at 11:30 AM on July 16, 2002


« Older John B Spencer...  |  TV Guide Names 'Jerry Springer... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments