May 6, 2002
6:42 AM   Subscribe

U.S. Declares Itself Above the Law. Powell says that a groundbreaking United Nations International Criminal Court would be harmful towards maintaining U.S. military action. But what does skipping out on such niceties as genocide and human rights abuses say to the rest of the world about accountability in Washington? Discuss.
posted by ed (85 comments total)

This post was deleted for the following reason: Poster's Request -- Brandon Blatcher



 
Screw the UN. I would prefer, as someone at a blog site suggested, a world body consisting of democracies only. and then the rest of the world can have a UN for their very own. Why should the many thug-run countries, with a huge bloc of votes in UN, decide what is morally right and wrong?
posted by Postroad at 6:47 AM on May 6, 2002


The US does not recognize any court above the Supreme Court.

Damn that Constitution, it does more harm then good.
/sarcasm
posted by Mick at 6:50 AM on May 6, 2002


The current composition of the UN is sufficiently odious that there's only one word for this: Good.
posted by ParisParamus at 6:55 AM on May 6, 2002


Before the usual suspects arrive, Powell's simply upholding the constitutional supremacy of the US judiciary. The problem, of course, is that the US is only too happy to extend its jurisdiction around the world in rather questionable areas (DMCA, prisoners of war) and does so through sheer exertion of power rather than international agreement. (Note that the British troops in Afghanistan now regard captured opponents as prisoners of war and enforce the Geneva Convention, which gives a tacit finger to the US policy of shipping people off to Cuba and the mealy mouthed "unlawful combatant" definition.)

Odious, PP? You must be a cracking lawyer. But really, truly, don't wait up for that judicial nomination.
posted by riviera at 6:56 AM on May 6, 2002


We are the rogue nation that we warn everyone else about.

In terms of the lack of support for US agendas at the UN, that stems from a general lack of support for the UN over the last 20 years. Instead of participating actively in the process, the US has become increasingly individual in action and even, yes, Imperialist.
posted by shagoth at 7:10 AM on May 6, 2002


"I would prefer, as someone at a blog site suggested, a world body consisting of democracies only. "

Well, that would exclude the US, unless you consider a 5-4 vote by the Extreme Court a democracy. This "do as I say, not as I do" hypocrisy sucks. What does Bush Inc. have to hide from the rest of the world? The same things they're hiding from the citizens of the US?
posted by nofundy at 7:12 AM on May 6, 2002


screw this, i'm recognizing couch as a new nation. the national free state of holding my own damned genitals.

fluffers wanted.
posted by jcterminal at 7:22 AM on May 6, 2002


an army of one indeed :) fortress america!
posted by kliuless at 7:26 AM on May 6, 2002


is it any wonder warren buffett is convinced something like this is going to happen on US soil? and one wonders how many in the rest of the world will say: "they had it coming"
posted by specialk420 at 7:27 AM on May 6, 2002


FYI jcterminal: You win my award for "Best Comments Ever".

If you'll excuse me, I have some coffee to go clean out of my nose.

Back to your regularly scheduled thread already in progress...
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 7:34 AM on May 6, 2002


nofundy: "...the Extreme Court..." "...Bush Inc."

Wow, trotting out all of those clever catchphrases, eh?

In addition to the constitutional issue, the US is also legitimately worried that it would be hauled before this court for no other reason than they are disliked by the rest of the world. Even specialk420 seems to recognize this: "how many in the rest of the world will say: 'they had it coming'". That is the general consensus, and there's no question that some UN members would love to accuse the US of "war crimes" just for the sake of embarassment, not truth. This isn't about justice, it's about psychology -- namely, the phenomenon that everybody hates the person (or country) that's on top, and wants nothing better than to bring that person (or country) down a peg or two. Funny, though, how when those other countries get in trouble, they all want the US's help.
posted by pardonyou? at 7:40 AM on May 6, 2002


That is the general consensus

And you don't suppose maybe there's a reason for that? Or is it just because all the other countries are just jealous and meeeeean?
posted by ook at 7:50 AM on May 6, 2002


kev, i await the medal. :D
posted by jcterminal at 7:52 AM on May 6, 2002


Oh no, are you saying that US citizens won't be subject to the whims of China, Syria, Iran, Iraq, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Zimbabwe, Somalia, Rwanda... (the list goes on and on and on)

The horror!

Finally Powell got something right.
posted by dagny at 7:53 AM on May 6, 2002


i suppose this is more principled than waiting to pull out the treaty until the first U.S. citizen is haled before it. that would definitely get ugly.
posted by boltman at 7:54 AM on May 6, 2002


Déjà vu all over again.
posted by NortonDC at 7:56 AM on May 6, 2002


Meme of the day: "The Future is Either Petro-Mercatalism or Globalist-Darwinism."

Examine that statement in detail as an either/or proposition. Then put the US at the top of the food chain in *either* case.
It is my contention that this is how our leaders *must* see us. *Must*, because they *know* that only a handful of nations rule the world and the rest are dying out, an inch at a time. Their cultures, their religions, their peoples are anarchronistic. Failures. Losers.
And it is *not* somehow cruel to permit those who will *not* evolve from dying out. There are just too damn many of them to "save", and nothing for them to do, even if they are "saved." Their only recourse in mindless vandalism--as typified by 9/11. There was no "cause" there, just a brainless kicking out at what they could not understand.

The only difference between the two philosophies is that petro-mercantilism is more passive, more isolationist. Globalist-Darwinism is more active. In either case, the peasant is destroyed. Evolution wins out.

Because "nature abhors a peasant."
posted by kablam at 8:01 AM on May 6, 2002


Thanks for that analysis, kablam. Meanwhile, back on Earth...
posted by dagny at 8:09 AM on May 6, 2002


The point being that the US is de facto better than the rest of the world, and can be trusted to do what's best, even if the rest of the world disagrees. At least, that's what people here seem to be saying.

Like the UN or not, it's currently the only organization that can lay any sort of claim to representing world opinion (rather than the whims and dictates of any of its members.) The US is not above using the UN to further its own agenda, but when it comes to situations where we might have to buckle down and follow the same rules we want the rest of the world to adhere to, fuhgeddaboudit.

Good god, I just hit preview and the comments coming in only prove the point even more. Other cultures are "peasants?" The US "top of the food chain?" What makes that so, other than pure ego? Is it because we represent truth, justice, and democracy?

If so, then how can we justify abandoning these ideals whenever it's inconvenient to us?
posted by ook at 8:15 AM on May 6, 2002


ook: "And you don't suppose maybe there's a reason for that? Or is it just because all the other countries are just jealous and meeeeean?"

For purposes of this issue, I don't care whether there's a reason for it. If there's a likelihood that the court would be nothing but a farce and a mechanism for trying to embarass the US, and not truly motivated to pursue war crimes, than I don't care why world opinion is what it is -- the US can't be criticized for not agreeing to the court.
posted by pardonyou? at 8:29 AM on May 6, 2002


"If there's a likelihood that the court would be nothing but a farce and a mechanism for trying to embarass the US,"

You're right, we don't need help there. Dubya's goons do quite well at embarassing themselves without help. Then France surrendered.
posted by nofundy at 8:50 AM on May 6, 2002


ook, uh, kablam's analysis would be more at home in Zmag than anything else in the thread.

Like the UN or not, it's currently the only organization that can lay any sort of claim to representing world opinion

Would you say that the UN representative from, say, Myanmar represents Myanmar opinion, or only that of the ruling junta? What about Saudi opinion? Who elected the Saudi government? Do you really think it's a good idea to give unelected autocrats who don't like us, whose citizens are out to kill as many of us as they can, to start having say over the US, as if the UN were magically, by the power of having (almost) all countries in the world as members, transformed into a constitutional democracy?

ed, please explain by what authority other than the elected United States Senate voting to ratify a multilateral treaty there is any "law" to which the United States is subject, and how that process guarantees rights for American citizens with greater transparency and accountability than the United States Constitution itself.

I don't see the point of a movement to pull us out of the UN, as others have suggested, but recent events have persuaded me to become much more skeptical about making the whims of bureaucrats appointed by undemocratic regimes the supreme law of our land. Which is what ratification means, constitutionally.
posted by dhartung at 8:56 AM on May 6, 2002


"...our leaders ... *know* that only a handful of nations rule the world and the rest are dying out, an inch at a time."

I'd have put the USA among the countries that are in the lead of "dying out." It's showing the same symptoms of self-destruction as other world-ruling nations have in the past.
posted by five fresh fish at 8:57 AM on May 6, 2002


that's a lot of asterisks and scare quotes, kablam.
posted by moz at 8:58 AM on May 6, 2002


If there's a likelihood that the court would be nothing but a farce and a mechanism for trying to embarass the US (Pardonyou?)

I don't see how you support the claim that the court's sole aim is to embarass the US. Unless you feel the US has been doing some particularly embarassing things, recently?

Other countries aren't out their aiming to take the US down a peg just for the sake of doing so; simple self-interest would be enough to prevent that. (Because we are, at the end of the day, the 800-lb., very well-armed gorilla, and the smaller nations of the world are -- as you say -- well aware that they may need our assistance someday.) The leaders of other countries have different agendas and their own interests -- but they're not stupid.

The point of the world court, like that of any treaty, is to bind its members to conform to a set of behavior that ideally serves the interest of the whole group, rather than those of a single member -- so that if one of the members gets some wacky ideas and starts developing chemical weapons or holding prisoners in secret or subverting democracy or something like that, that the other members have a non-military method of asking them to stop it. It's a checks-and-balances thing. You remember those. We have those here.

The UN is far from perfect; politics sometimes outweighs rationality, and it makes some bad decisions. Just like our own government. All organizations are fallible. Does that mean we shouldn't have them?

Arguing that the interests of the US are more important than the interests of the world as a whole is at best isolationism, and at worst imperialism. I see this as a big step backwards, global-civilization-wise, though with the current ego trip America seems to be on, I suppose it's inevitable.
posted by ook at 8:59 AM on May 6, 2002


Do you really think it's a good idea to give unelected autocrats who don't like us, whose citizens are out to kill as many of us as they can, to start having say over the US...

Yeah, I hate Ashcroft and Rumsfeld too.
posted by riviera at 9:16 AM on May 6, 2002


Missed this on preview; I feel like I'm talking too much so I'll keep this brief:

dhartung: fair point about who some of the other nations' UN representatives actually represent -- but until something better than the UN comes along, I still see it as preferable to every nation for itself (or to US v. Rest Of World, which is where we seem to be headed.) I'm not sure that the fact that some members of the UN are not who we'd like them to be, invalidates the whole idea.

I do, in fact, agree that it's a good idea to give other nations some say over our own behavior, and vice-versa. All nations already do this, whether it's by the clumsy, crude method of military or terrorist threat, by the mostly secret backdoor dealings we call diplomacy, or by the relatively democratic, transparent method of a world court. Right now we're big enough and strong enough to stick with the tried-and-true first option. But in the abstract, which would you choose?
posted by ook at 9:26 AM on May 6, 2002


troll elsewhere riviera.
posted by BlueTrain at 9:26 AM on May 6, 2002


There was no need to completely withdraw from the treaty. Having it signed but not ratified was like saying that we approved of the idea but not the implementation, and without ratification we were not subject to it so there was no danger for us. By going to the trouble of completely withdrawing from it we are sending the message that we are not interested in international justice.

"'Beyond the extremely problematic matter of casting doubt on the US commitment to international justice and accountability, these steps actually call into question our country's credibility in all multilateral endeavors,' Feingold said in a statement."

Hear hear.
posted by homunculus at 9:37 AM on May 6, 2002


Who elected John Ashcroft, BlueTrain? If anything, the Saudi monarchy has a more coherent (if rather perverse) claim to authority than him. And he's the one in charge of enforcing the DMCA and the treatment of "illegal combatants" (ptui). Saying that international jurisdiction ends at the borders of the US ought to cut both ways.
posted by riviera at 9:46 AM on May 6, 2002


I am divided over this issue and tend to agree with Dhartung's assessment in part.

However, I am wondering why European countries and many other democracies have embraced this proposal. Do they not have the same legitimate fears?

How does someone who is against the International Court explain all of the other democracies who have endorsed it?
posted by cell divide at 9:56 AM on May 6, 2002


Who elected John Ashcroft, BlueTrain? If anything, the Saudi monarchy has a more coherent (if rather perverse) claim to authority than him.

Who elected Reno? Along with the election of Bush, or Clinton, comes a certain group of politicians to help further the administration's goals. Ashcroft is following his administration's policies; I have YET to see Bush say, "Whoa, hold up there John...I think you're going too far."
posted by BlueTrain at 10:02 AM on May 6, 2002


A US supported international court will not improve the standard of living of Americans but it could improve the standard of living of people in places (like afghanistan I suppose) where "international criminals" are rampant and have a strong influence over local government. Unfortuneately, if the US allowed itself to be bound by an international court, the court would be overwhelmed by frivolous claims against the US designed to gain attention or to make political statements.

Ratifying an international court implies a certain ideological equality which is not yet there. In addition, many countries are beholden to the US for aid and many others consider themselves arch rivals. It is smart for the US not to endorse an erroneous presupposition of equality.
posted by plaino at 10:09 AM on May 6, 2002


"we are sending the message that we are not interested in international justice."

That may be the message that some people interpret, but I think the bigger picture here is the enormous amount of ill-will hatred that Bush Jr. feels towards the Clinton administration and, more significantly, the man himself.

This is a treaty that Clinton signed, but never submitted for ratification (probably because he knew that it would never be ratified) - thus making it a prime Bush target. And all of this is on top of the philosophical objections to the treaty concepts detailed above.
posted by Irontom at 10:21 AM on May 6, 2002


ook: "If there's a likelihood that the court would be nothing but a farce and a mechanism for trying to embarass the US (Pardonyou?)

I don't see how you support the claim that the court's sole aim is to embarass the US. Unless you feel the US has been doing some particularly embarassing things, recently?"


Why are you disregarding the word "if"? Unfortunately I'm not omniscient, but given what I (and you) know about the vehemently anti-US stance of most UN members, I don't think it's so crazy to suspect that this tribunal might just be used as a means to embarass the US with meritless charges. I don't think any nation has to be masochistic just because other countries seethe with anger.
posted by pardonyou? at 10:44 AM on May 6, 2002


ed, please explain by what authority other than the elected United States Senate voting to ratify a multilateral treaty there is any "law" to which the United States is subject, and how that process guarantees rights for American citizens with greater transparency and accountability than the United States Constitution itself.

Oh, ok. But first, why don't you please explain such wonderful "greater transparency and accountability" to millions of African and Native Americans.

Hail, citizen..."God Ble$$" America, and please accept this complimentary copy of the U.$ Con$titution that "protects" and "guarantees" your rights...uh, wait, a minute...your skin's a little off-color...here...not so fast...gimme that back...

"Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons..."

Those who survived America's countless genocides, and their ancestors who *still* suffer in America despite such an oh so noble document, all might well have wanted (and still desire) an "accountability" a little higher than the board of directors of Enron and the U.$. president they purchased.

Just as the rest of the world does. Can't imagine why...
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 11:00 AM on May 6, 2002


Boy, all the ultra-liberal trolls are in full effect in this thread. Can I give a shout out to my "America-hating" MeFi constituents...

fold_and_mutilate, when our Constitution was written, Blacks were given no respect in the US or Europe, or even Africa, because of colonization. We make mistakes in the past so that we can learn for the future. We cannot change our history; only grow from it. So fuck off with anti-US sentiment. We apologized, on many occasions, for the travesties our govt has committed. Whether it be Blacks, the Japanese, or now with those of Arabic decent, when our security is threatened, mistakes are made.

But make no mistake, our goal, as a govt. and a society, is to maintain the freedom our founders intended. WE are the trend-setters. WE are the hegemon, and guess what, get used to it, because we're going to be around for a while. Don't like it? Try getting one of your socialist friends elected to office. Just stop your whining when no one bothers to take you seriously. Give us serious solutions and expect respect. Give us your BS, which, by the way, is tired, and expect to be treated like the shit your spewing.
posted by BlueTrain at 11:08 AM on May 6, 2002


I've learned so much about how to be a leftist from this thread. Let me try my hand: The Enron United $tate$ of America is the worst country on Earth. Bush, Inc. and friends are so evil, and the blood of countless genocides is on our hands. We wouldn't even have Bush, Inc. if it wasn't for his cronies on the Extreme Court. Talk all you want about opportunity, prosperity, knowledge, and charity. The billion$ the U$ gives away in foreign aid mean$ nothing in light of the fact that the government's sole purpose is to serve large, evil corporations (after all, all they do is provide millions of jobs, evil bastards).

I ¢¾ extreme rhetoric
posted by pardonyou? at 11:17 AM on May 6, 2002


WE are the trend-setters. WE are the hegemon, and guess what, get used to it, because we're going to be around for a while.

Oh, Mr Train, you make me to laugh so badly. Now, do you have a point to make, or just a slogan to chant?
posted by riviera at 11:33 AM on May 6, 2002


¢
i want one of these
this is shaping up to be a 'rut ro' day
like somekioskedpurge
affirms i dont know shit and thats a start.
dont talk back to me or any right thinking, educated american. fuckin genocide startedpree-1600s
going on for a while.
we have ways to document them
and thats why the last century was a bumpy frikkin ride.
pile the detritis and drill for horror core samples
from your local battlefeild/golfcourse
complicity?

someone get out the fact books
someone kick the shit otta this thread
fuck the country Inc.s been jugging over twoo-hunert years
just seperate the passion from the condemantion.
posted by clavdivs at 11:37 AM on May 6, 2002


oops, that character was supposed to be a heart (as in "I heart extreme rhetoric"). The odd thing is it showed up that way on preview.
posted by pardonyou? at 11:45 AM on May 6, 2002


If the abuses are groundless and a trial is conducted in an international tribunal, then why should the United States have to worry about it?

The same reason you, as an individual, would prefer not to be arrested for murder even though you are innocent: because fighting the accusation consumes resources and generates publicity. Three years later when you are found "not guilty" it barely rates a back page column and even then some will suspect you anyway. Now imagine a line of prosecutors around the block waiting to throw the next false accuasation at you just to get their shot at a few minutes of publicity.
posted by plaino at 11:50 AM on May 6, 2002


Plaino, by that logic we should abolish the justice system in this country because everyone once in a while people are accused of crimes they didn't commit.

Every legal system will have instances of the innocent being accused (and even convicted), but that isn't reason enough to shut down the system.
posted by cell divide at 12:10 PM on May 6, 2002


How does someone who is against the International Court explain all of the other democracies who have endorsed it?

*crickets*
posted by dack at 12:14 PM on May 6, 2002


...I don't think it's so crazy to suspect that this tribunal might just be used as a means to embarass the US with meritless charges. (pardonyou?)

OK, "if" noted and understood. And you're probably right, some cases of this would almost certainly happen (though I'd love to see a headcount on your assertion that "most" UN members are anti-American) -- but if the charges were indeed meritless, that would end up embarassing the complainants more than the US. And if the charges aren't meritless, than we deserve all the embarassment we get. We have frivolous lawsuits in the US, too, but I don't see anyone using that as an argument to demolish the court system.

[Regarding which: Plaino: if people "lined up around the block" to keep throwing baseless accusations at the US, then those accusations would rapidly lose any credibility. Foreign leaders may be many things, but they are not stupid men; they're going to save their shots for when they'll do the most good.]

I don't see this as masochism; it'd even work out to our interest in many ways. Not only would we be as able to use the court to our own advantage as well as anyone else could use it against us, a world court would create a safer outlet for those anti-American feelings that indisputably exist. If the only way small nations have to express displeasure with US actions is to fly planes into our buildings, then they'll continue to fly planes into our buildings; moderates will be encouraged to extremism by a lack of options. If, on the other hand, we have a world court, suitably balanced such that no one ideology controls all the decisions, then everybody both pro- and anti-US has more nonmilitary options available.

Homunculus raised a good point back there. It doesn't sound like the US is backing out of this because they believe the court would be stacked against them; if that were the case then it would make more sense to stay involved in the treaty and try to modify the court to be more in line with US interests. It seems, based on the press quotes, more like the US feels that any body that has the potential to question US actions is, by definition, a bad thing. Which, depending on which wing you favor, is isolationism or imperialism.

I sincerely hope that I'm not coming across as an "ultra-liberal troll" here, and I'm doing my best to avoid the extremist rhetoric (and I wish some of our friends on both left and right would do likewise.) But proclaiming "we are the hegemon, get used to it," BlueTrain, is as tired, unjustifiable, and irrelevant as f_and_m's digression about racism. Wanting the US to follow the same rules that it expects other nations to follow is not the same as hating the US.
posted by ook at 12:19 PM on May 6, 2002


cell divide, your analogy doesn't hold up. Remember that in this case, it's the U.S. that's being asked to endorse this system that it reasonably believes will be less about truth and more about nation-hating. In order to have a proper analogy, you would have to ask whether people who know they are going to be falsely accused of crimes should be supporting the justice system that will cause that result. Of course, no rational person would support that system. Neither need the U.S.
posted by pardonyou? at 12:41 PM on May 6, 2002


Funny, nobody in the Bush Administration seems to have a problem with surrendering national sovereignty when it comes to the WTO...

So fuck off with anti-US sentiment. We apologized, on many occasions, for the travesties our govt has committed. Whether it be Blacks, the Japanese, or now with those of Arabic decent, when our security is threatened, mistakes are made.

Did that make you feel good, Blue Train? How's that biscuit taste?
posted by Ty Webb at 12:53 PM on May 6, 2002


Since we're on the subject of the US submitting to authorities outside our own system of government, doesn't this include our infamous trade agreements? Oh, those are OK because they're about the multinational Benjamins, not about the suffering of people, eh? Submit to the man!!
posted by nofundy at 1:16 PM on May 6, 2002


Somehow, Metafilter has made me more conservative than I ever thought possible. After reading this thread, even Rush Limbaugh begins to become plausible.

I wonder how many of you have asked yourself:

What if my dislike or hatred of the United States is really the only way I can express my inadequacy, be it personal, or collective; that I am a citizen of a county as imperfect, or more flawed than the United States, but a puny little one of no plantary consequence, with a joke of justice system, or one where a lack of contingency fee civil system prevents the little guy from ever getting recompense?

What if I just can't accept that I am not a citizen of a nation without which the world would be 10x, or 100x worse?

Why am I so down on the United States, when in a parallel universe, China, or the Soviet Union, or the feckless European Union or France could be top dog? Or aliens from Alpha Centauri or Talos 5?

posted by ParisParamus at 1:18 PM on May 6, 2002


People wet themselves over an international court that won't have any jurisdiction over US citizens since the US has a functioning judicial system but are silent when it comes to NAFTA Chapter 11 which puts corporations above citizens and even nation states.
posted by euphorb at 1:21 PM on May 6, 2002


PP, how about these: Why do I endlessly criticize the U.S.'s track records on civil or human rights, or religious, racial, or gender equality, yet unequivocally endorse the Palestinians, or the Taliban, or Iraq? Why do I despise and rant and retch about Christians in the U.S., but defend and glorify the religious rights of Islam and Islamists?

I know what you mean about feeling conservative. I've never voted for a Republican in my life -- that spans 4 presidential elections -- and only on MeFi do I sometimes feel like the right wing.
posted by pardonyou? at 1:35 PM on May 6, 2002


ParisParamus and pardonyou,
Not to interrupt your little mutual back patting ceremony, but I defy either of you to provide an example of a MeFite, left wing or otherwise, who has "unequivocally endorsed the Palestinians, or the Taliban, or Iraq" or who has defended and glorified the religious rights of Islam and Islamists.
posted by Ty Webb at 1:42 PM on May 6, 2002


man, i love when clavdivs posts.
posted by tolkhan at 1:44 PM on May 6, 2002


A Metafilter Politickal Dictionary.

center, n. 1. political position spanning the breadth between Rep. Cynthia McKinney and Sen. Paul Wellstone.
posted by dhartung at 1:51 PM on May 6, 2002


"unequivocally endorsed the Palestinians, or the Taliban, or Iraq"

The point being made is that to support any of the three odious regimes on almost any terms is unacceptable. Also unacceptable: not recognizing that justice cannot flow from any organization tainted by the membership of the odious, anti-democratic governments which constitute the better chunk of the UN.
posted by ParisParamus at 1:51 PM on May 6, 2002


Ty Webb, it wasn't mutual, I was only patting his back. Anyway, I can rephrase and still make the same point: Why do I endlessly criticize the U.S.'s track records on civil or human rights, or religious, racial, or gender equality, yet side with the policies of the Palestinians, or the Taliban, or Iraq, against the U.S.? As for "defending and glorifying the religious rights of Islam and Islamists" it won't be a problem to give you some examples. Let me do a search and I'll get back to ya.
posted by pardonyou? at 1:58 PM on May 6, 2002


A Metafilter Politickal Dictionary, cont'd

right, n. 1. a political position characterized by constant delusions of persecution, and by the tendency to shed tears whenever a flag is waved.

The point being made is that to support any of the three odious regimes on almost any terms is unacceptable.

I understand the point. I asked for examples.
posted by Ty Webb at 1:58 PM on May 6, 2002


Why do I...side with the policies of the Palestinians, or the Taliban, or Iraq, against the U.S.?

Again, pardonyou, who are you referring to? You seem unable to make the distinction between someone who opposes U.S. policy vis a vis the the Palestinians, the Taliban, or Iraq, and someone who genuinely sides with those regimes against the U.S. You'll find a lot of the former on MeFi, not the latter.
posted by Ty Webb at 2:03 PM on May 6, 2002


living is atlanta, i don't even think of Rep. Cynthia McKinney as a representitive (after some of the recent comments she's made, many of my fellow atlantans agree). If the righties here (of which i am one) think the MeFi's are way out in left field, she's outside the stadium halfway around the world (while moving in a straight line to the left). now, its off to the world of discrete math where in fact, left=right&&center!=left&&center!=right&&this_is_the_meaning_of_life
posted by jmd82 at 2:18 PM on May 6, 2002


I don't see the point of a movement to pull us out of the UN, as others have suggested
It would save a nice chunk of tax dollars and American lives from where I am standing.

How does someone who is against the International Court explain all of the other democracies who have endorsed it?

I don't much care why others would care to join, but this question reminds me of the classic "If all the other countries were going to jump off a bridge, does that mean you would too?"

Is it not possible for the rest of the world to have their court without the US? Go show us how successful it can be.
posted by thirteen at 2:32 PM on May 6, 2002


This speech (warning: video, Realplayer, long, no transcript yet) by Chris Hitchens (notorious America-hater, defender of Iraq and the Taliban, and suspected Francophile) makes an argument for why the ICC is in everybody's best interest.

Internationalism does not equate with hatred of the US.
posted by feckless at 2:54 PM on May 6, 2002


The headline ought to be "US Declares That The Constitution is More Important Than Syria's Opinion."
posted by NortonDC at 3:08 PM on May 6, 2002


Other countries should be (and are, usually) trying to emulate America's ways & methods. The reason: America is the first (and only, to my knowledge) nation founded specifically on IDEALS. Not because a king decreed so, not because of geography, not because of an accident of birth, but because a group of people decided that a nation built upon ideals such as freedom, democracy, and individualism is the most moral & just society possible. They were right.
posted by davidmsc at 3:34 PM on May 6, 2002


Oh, dear sweet Buddha, your record's stuck. Try hitting yourself on the head, repeatedly, to jump past that simplistic little ditty, or we'll have to rehash the old 'ideals vs reality, featuring slavery and Indians' thing for another hundred posts.
posted by riviera at 3:44 PM on May 6, 2002


A Metafilter Politickal Dictionary, cont'd

right, n. 1. a political position characterized by constant delusions of persecution, and by the tendency to shed tears whenever a flag is waved.


I forgot to add: the tendency to label as "unpatriotic" or "anti-American" those who don't genuflect sufficiently to the flag.
posted by Ty Webb at 5:24 PM on May 6, 2002


euphorb, thanks for the reminder. I am more concerned about sacrificing sovereignity to foreign corporations using Chapter 11 than I would have been about the ICC.
posted by homunculus at 5:25 PM on May 6, 2002


Ty Webb - Do you think you're changing anybody's thinking? Or maybe you're content speaking just to hear yourself talk.
posted by NortonDC at 5:50 PM on May 6, 2002


Well, it looks like the time for debate has ended, and the time for flinging mud pancakes at one another has begun. Pity. It was a nice discussion while it lasted.
posted by ook at 7:39 PM on May 6, 2002


Somehow, Metafilter has made me more conservative than I ever thought possible.

Is that an expression of inadequacy?
posted by inpHilltr8r at 7:43 PM on May 6, 2002


Your wrong, no your wrong!

On preview, what ook said.
posted by Zool at 7:46 PM on May 6, 2002


if you strike me down, i shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!

it's like a star wars expression :)
posted by kliuless at 8:49 PM on May 6, 2002


Ty Webb - Do you think you're changing anybody's thinking?

Optimistically, yes.

Or maybe you're content speaking just to hear yourself talk.

Or writing just to see myself in print.
posted by Ty Webb at 9:12 PM on May 6, 2002


Not to interrupt the mud flinging, but I have an honest question that just occurred to me as I was reading the Constitution in preparation for my Constitutional Law exam tomorrow.

Wouldn't participation in an international court violate Article III, Sec. 1 of the Constitution? (that the judicial power of the United States is vested in the Supreme Court and such lesser courts as Congress decides to create). It seems like it might, unless an American convicted by the tribunal could appeal to the Supreme Court. I guess we could develop some sort of extradiction process, but I just can't imagine the U.S. extriditing criminals to the United Nations.
posted by boltman at 9:58 PM on May 6, 2002


and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority

between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.


boltman, these are fragments of Section 2. I bolded the parts where I believe the International Court could have Constitutional validity.
posted by BlueTrain at 10:34 PM on May 6, 2002


How does someone who is against the International Court explain all of the other democracies who have endorsed it?

A lot of the countries in Europe seem to have no qualms about giving up their sovreignty, control over their economic destiny as well as national identity - the EU. Yeah, *that* sounds like a good idea...

A Metafilter Politickal Dictionary, cont'd

jingoism: the nerve of anyone loving their country or actually thinking it's.... horrors!... better than others. The nerve, really
posted by owillis at 10:55 PM on May 6, 2002


"ParisParamus and pardonyou,
Not to interrupt your little mutual back patting ceremony, but I defy either of you to provide an example of a MeFite, left wing or otherwise, who has "unequivocally endorsed the Palestinians, or the Taliban, or Iraq" or who has defended and glorified the religious rights of Islam and Islamists...Ty Webb"
"In order to mirror comments in metafilter. the Zio-Nazi occupying settlers brought it on themselves. Long Live The Intefada against Zionists". "I for one support any and all attacks against IDF and occupant settlers". There are more if you care to look.
posted by Mack Twain at 11:20 PM on May 6, 2002


my, defensive rhetoric abounds. it does seem that the us has some trouble understanding that it is part of the world community.

firstly mack twain, you could do the same for ParisParamus, and find equally obnoxious comments, i have not the time or energy to search for them. in fact adnanbwp states he is mirroring a previous post.

plaino - 'The billion$ the U$ gives away in foreign aid mean$ nothing in light of the fact that the government's sole purpose is to serve large, evil corporations (after all, all they do is provide millions of jobs, evil bastards).'

would be hilarious, were it not so disingenuous. aid is tied to trade, that is not a contentious point for you, is it?
majority world countries pay back more in debt than they receive in aid. they are forced to grow cash crops to pay off the debt, and therefore rely on food aid, rather than becoming self sufficient.
from the linked article:
'First, the US spends far too little on aid, even the new cash barely raises the development budget above 0.1% of its national income. Second, Washington sees aid as a tool of foreign policy. Large sums of US development money props up client states such as Egypt or the cash is "tied" so that the poor are forced to buy American goods. Third, only 17% of American aid goes to the 48 least-developed countries. '

Not that the us is the only country to behave like this, some other countries insipidly follow this example.
posted by asok at 6:37 AM on May 7, 2002


An international criminal court has been called the missing link in the international legal system. The International Court of Justice at The Hague handles only cases between States, not individuals. Without an international criminal court for dealing with individual responsibility as an enforcement mechanism, acts of genocide and egregious violations of human rights often go unpunished. In the last 50 years, there have been many instances of crimes against humanity and war crimes for which no individuals have been held accountable. In Cambodia in the 1970s, an estimated 2 million people were killed by the Khmer Rouge. In armed conflicts in Mozambique, Liberia, El Salvador and other countries, there has been tremendous loss of civilian life, including horrifying numbers of unarmed women and children. Massacres of civilians continue in Algeria and the Great Lakes region of Africa. Check out http://www.un.org/law/icc/general/overview.htm prior to posting to this thread.
posted by tranquileye at 9:09 AM on May 7, 2002


tranquileye - Check out http://www.un.org/law/icc/general/overview.htm prior to posting to this thread.

WTF? I don't know if you know it, but that was a joke.
posted by NortonDC at 9:38 AM on May 7, 2002


...you could do the same for ParisParamus, and find equally obnoxious comments, i have not the time or energy to search for them. in fact adnanbwp states he is mirroring a previous post.

The kind of typical non-truth on which so many of the UN's member states operate; the "these are forgeries" comments of the Saudis and Yasser." Obviously there's no difference between Tripoli, Peking and Washington, so why not have them all "average" their systems of criminal law together to make one happy, cooperative world.

No thanks.
posted by ParisParamus at 10:04 AM on May 7, 2002


That's such a straw man argument, PP, that it could audition for a role in the Wizard of Oz. Why not 'average' the attitude to health-care of Washington, Havana and Paris, to see if it equals the WHO. No? Well, might that be because your notion of 'averaging' -- not only because it maintains a rose-tinted attitude to the US's legal standards, but because it employs an absurd premise -- is an utter fallacy. I now hope you work in non-contentious law, because by those standards, your litigation is as rusty as your capacity for judgement.
posted by riviera at 10:45 AM on May 7, 2002


OK Rivera. I invite you to go on trial in the country of your choice. I'll chose the US criminal litigation over any other. I'll also chose a lay jury to decide criminal guilt, which is not what goes on in most countries; even countries as "civilized" as France. I also probably scored higher on the LSATs than you--HA HA.
posted by ParisParamus at 10:55 AM on May 7, 2002


I also probably scored higher on the LSATs than you--HA HA.

I rest my case. In fact, I file for summary judgement.
posted by riviera at 1:17 PM on May 7, 2002


BlueTrain: I agree that the exceptions clause could theoretically be interpreted to allow Congress to remove cases involve human rights violations from the court's appelette jurisdiction. But the question is, how far can Congress really go with this power? Presumably, Congress can't eliminate the Court's entire appellete jurisdiction without violating the seperation of powers doctrine. Plus "exceptions" vaguely implies that Congress's power to alter the court's appellate jurisdiction is rather narrowly limited. The bottom line is that nobody really knows what the court would do if Congress tried to take away a large chunk of its appellate jurisdiction, although my money would be on them interpreting the exceptions clause very narrowly to protect their own power from Congressional usurption. (Incidentally, a few nutjobs in Congress have been trying for years to pass a bill that would remove all cases involving school prayer from the court's appellate jurisdiction--wouldn't it be interesting to see how the court would rule on that if it ever passed?)

Congress's power to enforce treaties runs into the same problems. It is a substantive power to make law, but like all of Congress's powers it is still limited by the rest of the Constitution. Assuming that the court narrowly interprets the exceptions clause, as I think it would, Congress's treaty power wouldn't do them any good.

Another potential issue that I didn't mention in my original post is the question of the applicability of the bill of rights. U.S. citizens accused of a crime are accorded all sorts of substantive rights that may or may not be respected in an internatioanl tribunal. I doubt, for example, that the U.N. tribunal recongizes the right to a grand jury. Is it fair or even constitutional for the U.S. to effectively undermine the criminal rights of its citizens by exposing them to the jurisdiction of an international court not bound by the bill of rights? Wouldn't that make them something less than rights guaranteed by the constitution? To me, these are serious constitutional issues that go way beyond any traditional liberal/conservative debate about the legitimacy of the UN as an organization.

Anyway, It sounds like we're never going to get to find out how the court might rule on it anyway. But it is an interesting theoretical question.
posted by boltman at 1:34 PM on May 7, 2002


PP - 'The kind of typical non-truth on which so many of the UN's member states operate'
Did you check the linked comments?

'In order to mirror comments in metafilter. the Zio-Nazi occupying settlers brought it on themselves.

Long Live The Intefada against Zionists.'

The post of PP's that this reminds me of said something along the lines of 'I hope these attacks [current israeli incursion] continue for a long time'. Maybe i am mistaken.
I cannot find it at the moment, there is a plethora of material to sift.
posted by asok at 4:35 PM on May 7, 2002


« Older   |   Aung San Suu Kyi released. Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments