International Criminal Court

HighLordDave · Post by **HighLordDave** » Tue Jul 16, 2002 8:39 am

Originally posted by Rob-hin
By not accepting the ICC, you put yourself above the law.

Might makes right.

The Golden Rule: Whomever has the gold makes the rules.

These two maxims describe not only the United States but every major power throughout history (which have included, at one time or another: Britain, Spain, France, the Mongols, and the Macedonians, among others). The US is not the first, nor will it be the last hegemonic world power to bend the rules everyone else has to play by for itself simply because it can.

However, if we avoid the ICC for any reason other than, "because we can", we surrender the moral high ground. The United States is a land of revolutionary ideas: democracy, free speech, freedom of religion and equality before the law. The US is hypocritical to demand that the Serbs hand over Milosivec for prosecution if we are unwilling to do the same for serious accusations against our own citizens and soldiers.

At the same time, who can compel the United States to do anything? No one can. If you do something we don't like, we'll park two carrier battlegroups off your coastline and send the ready brigade of the 82nd Airborne Division to pay you a visit. If we do something you don't like, you can complain about it, but it won't make a difference because (we think) we don't need you.

Rudar Dimble · Post by **Rudar Dimble** » Tue Jul 16, 2002 9:00 am

@High Lord Dave:
The fact that others in history have done the same, does not justify it.
Many countries have started wars, is that also justified???

HighLordDave · Post by **HighLordDave** » Tue Jul 16, 2002 9:06 am

I didn't say it was right. But who's going to stop us from doing whatever the hell we want?

Rudar Dimble · Post by **Rudar Dimble** » Tue Jul 16, 2002 9:16 am

And that was exactly what I meant with the arrogance of the American governement.

If you do whatever you want now, you will pay back later (what goes around comes around)

HighLordDave · Post by **HighLordDave** » Tue Jul 16, 2002 9:28 am

Originally posted by Rudar Dimble
If you do whatever you want now, you will pay back later (what goes around comes around)

But Dubya doesn't care about the long-term implications of anything. And it's not isolated to Dubya; American presidents are heistant to take actions which are beyond the reach of their administrations for a couple of reasons. First of all, they don't care because in 20 years, it will be someone else's problem. Second, they don't want to be blamed in 20 years for something they did when they were president and damage their historical legacy. Third, short-term solutions yield short-term results (read: re-election).

I think the current administration's stance on the ICC is a peculiarity to Dubya; I think Clinton would have had no problem with it provided that there were safeguards in place to keep people (not just Americans) from becoming the objects of superflous or politically-motivated accusations. That speaks about the difference in style between the two men: Clinton is a consensus-builder and Dubya doesn't give a damn about what anyone else thinks.

On an unrelated side note, when talking about the policies of the current regime, I feel like Dubya is the crazy cousin that has to go places twice: the first time to stick his foot in his mouth and the second time to apologise. I hope that you folks overseas don't judge us all by what Dubya does.

fable · Post by **fable** » Tue Jul 16, 2002 10:05 am

Originally posted by HighLordDave
On an unrelated side note, when talking about the policies of the current regime, I feel like Dubya is the crazy cousin that has to go places twice: the first time to stick his foot in his mouth and the second time to apologise. I hope that you folks overseas don't judge us all by what Dubya does.

I heartily second the above. Please remember that Dubyah wasn't even elected by a majority of the 50% or so of US voters who actually turned out for the wonderful choice of Gore or Our Man in the White House. I know he frightens the rest of the world with his "get lost" attitude towards every other nation and their concerns, but that's not true of the rest of us.

PosterX · Post by **PosterX** » Tue Jul 16, 2002 11:28 am

Originally posted by fable

I heartily second the above. Please remember that Dubyah wasn't even elected by a majority of the 50% or so of US voters who actually turned out for the wonderful choice of Gore or Our Man in the White House. I know he frightens the rest of the world with his "get lost" attitude towards every other nation and their concerns, but that's not true of the rest of us.

Gore didn't get 50% either. I did not vote for Bush but a third party candidate (whose initials are not RN). However, I have to say that I'm glad Bush is there and not Gore. I have frightful visions of Gore's version of Madeleine Albright sitting at a table with Mullah Omar, bin Laden, and others asking how we offended them and asking forgiveness for any hardships we may have caused. In our fight against terrorism the rest of the world does not have a veto or even a vote.

Bush caving in to the Left on the domestic front makes me not regret not voting for him though. All things considered the Bush presidency is not much different from what I imagine a McCain presidency might have been.

fable · Post by **fable** » Tue Jul 16, 2002 1:33 pm

[QUOTE]Originally posted by PosterX

Gore didn't get 50% either....

Not what I said. I referred to "the 50% or so of US voters who actually turned out," or in other words, Gore received the largest percentage of the 50% or so of eligible voters who turned out.

I have frightful visions of Gore's version of Madeleine Albright sitting at a table with Mullah Omar, bin Laden, and others asking how we offended them and asking forgiveness for any hardships we may have caused. In our fight against terrorism the rest of the world does not have a veto or even a vote.

You left out Gore actually accepting service under bin Ladin, and captured on film eating the bodies of American children slain at his hand. I'm sure this is an oversight on your part.

Bush caving in to the Left on the domestic front makes me not regret not voting for him though...

Domestic left? I am left wondering whether we even have a left, when nearly every one our national politicians are multi-millionaire industry leaders and lawyers. Gore certainly wasn't left; his voting record was solidly moderate, and more fiscally conservative as a governor than Bush. At best, we we have two relatively conservative parties, one edging over the rim into La-La Land, thanks to the perceived need to cosy up to the Religious Far-Right; and the latter has definitely entered a Unilateralist phase. It's words like "Multi-lateralist" and "Uni-lateralist" that are far better descriptors of public divisions at this time among the US public. And regrettably, since we live in a single world, it's the Uni-lateralists (to bring us brack to the ICC) who are setting us up for higher tariffs thanks to trade wars, and problems with international criminal proceedings, due to this blatant attempt at national vote getting through the crisis over the ICC.