US will deny aid to countries that refuse ICC immunity deals

[T_i_B]

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/story.jsp?story=460255

The United States aims to secure agreements "with every country in the world" guaranteeing immunity for its citizens from any prosecution from the new International Criminal Court (ICC), and will cut off military aid to countries which do not comply.

In an uncompromising defence of Washington's decision to shun the court, Under Secretary of State John Bolton announced yesterday that the US has already reached so-called Article 98 exemption agreements, under the Rome statutes setting up the ICC, with 70 countries; 50 of them among the ICC's 90 signatories.

The White House's total rejection of the court, announced soon after it took office in 2001, fuelled some of the first criticism of the Bush administration as unilateralist and scornful of international pacts. The language of Mr Bolton, in-house 'neo-conservative' hawk at the State Department, will only sharpen such complaints. He lambasted the "intolerable" authority of the court, with its "unaccountable prosecutors and unchecked judicial powers" which represented a "macro-constitutional" issue for the US. More clearly than ever before, Mr Bolton indicated that Washington's biggest objection is not to the risk that the court poses to American soldiers, diplomats and other officials, but that it would encourage attempts to prosecute top figures in US government, past and present, for war crimes.

He cited the efforts in Belgium - since abandoned - to level charges against President Bush and military and civilian leaders at the Pentagon over Iraq. "Launching criminal investigations can have enormous political implications," Mr Bolton said.

[rfranklin]

1. "Unaccountable" and "unchecked power?"

Why does that sound familiar?

[hang a left]

2. "Launching criminal investigations can have enormous

political implications". Well now, launching criminal wars ought to as well, doncha think?

"Unaccountable prosecutors, and unchecked judicial powers" kind of makes you homesick.

edited to many investigations

[truthisfreedom]

3. can anyone think of one other major point on which both bush* and Clinton

agreed? the unelected fraud and the most popular president ever, presiding over the greatest economic expansion in history?

what was Clinton's deal wtih this topic, anyway?

[hang a left]

4. I am sure someone else can help you better than I but...

I seem to remember there were alot of negotiations but I believe it was finally signed by Clinton.

edited for bad english

[Paschall]

11. Yes, Clinton signed it over heated GOP opposition

Shrub "unsigned" it before Senate ratification.

Human Rights Watch: The US and the ICC

I'm not sure what truthisfreedom means by "Shrub and Clinton agreed." Their positions are radically different. Clinton wanted to be engaged in the Court and its evolution; Shrub has turned his back on it.

[Muddleoftheroad]

12. Not to confuse things

But even if * had not unsigned it, it wasn't going to pass the Senate. Much like Kyoto, it was DOA.

[dArKeR]

5. What a disgraceful Administration we have!

[DarkPhenyx]

6. Again the heavier blade Mr. Basset?

Once again we justify the worlds opinion that we are nothing but a country of bullies and tyrants. How many years of hard work by decent people do you think this little temper tantrum is going to add to the "reconstruction effort" here at home?

[Gman]

7. There it is for the whole world to see... except in the US

because you will not see the same story in any American paper or other news outlet.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

8. bush* has done MORE to harm America than 500 Osama's ever could! and

i wanna know how the "felonious five" of the USSC sleep at night...they are to blame more so than bush and all our protests need to be held outside of their homes and at every venue they attend!!!

[ConcernedCanuk]

9. Didja know that the Bush admin UNSIGNED the treaty after Clinton signed?

. . "6. In a communication received on 6 May 2002, the Government of the United States of America informed the Secretary-General of the following:

"This is to inform you, in connection with the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court adopted on July 17, 1998, that the United States does not intend to become a party to the treaty. Accordingly, the United States has no legal obligations arising from its signature on December 31, 2000. The United States requests that its intention not to become a party, as expressed in this letter, be reflected in the depositary's status lists relating to this treaty."



Also at above link is a list of who has signed onto the ICC

And

if you wonder why what may be keeping the US Admin outta Canada?

Check link > > >

"The following Canadian statutes authorize enforcement action against alleged war criminals or persons who have committed crimes against humanity:

The Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act:

provides for the prosecution of any individual present in Canada for any offence stated in the Act regardless of where the offence occurred;
creates new offences of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and breach of responsibility by military commanders and civilian superiors;
creates new offences to protect the administration of justice at the ICC, including the safety of judges and witnesses; and,
recognizes the need to provide restitution to victims and provides a mechanism to do so for victims of offences (regulations to implement these provisions have not yet been passed).

/snip/

YIKES - right ?

- not much wonder Junior don wanna visit Canada - you think ?

[ElsewheresDaughter]

10. correct