"The answer to your next question is, 'Beats the hell out of me'."

[ebonlock]

Brief LOTR post:

For those interested in Hobbit architecture, I highly recommend:
Building Hobbit Holes.



I wanted to say how sorry I am that elo_sf's lovely cat Daisy has been diagnosed with fibrous sarcoma. Vets are only beginning to understand feline cancers, and before you get your cat vaccinated you should discuss it in some depth with him or her. Fortunately my vet seems to be pretty on the ball and was the first to recommend that I minimize her shots to just rabies as she's an indoor cat and unlikely to come into contact with other cats. E- posted a great link on the subject for those interested in learning more:
http://www.geocities.com/~kremersark/aafp.html



The main argument I keep hearing from a lot of the pro-war folks these days is that the real reason Bush & Co. want to invade Iraq is that Saddam is an evil guy who's responsible for some truly horrible human right violations. Lord knows the US military and intelligence agencies aren't having any luck proving there are WMD in Iraq, so it makes sense to use this as their back up argument for the prudence of removing Saddam from power. Wanting to investigate this assertion a little further I started at what seemed to me to be a logical place, Amnesty International.

Here's a bit of what they have to say:

First their Rules of Engagement that they feel all political leaders who are in favor of this war should have to respond to. Seems like a pretty reasonable list if you ask me.

Also they've posted a petition (Human rights in Iraq - what about the people?.

Now if we really are this concerned about human rights and the Iraqi people I don't think it's unreasonable to deploy Human Rights Monitors. Indeed it seems almost as necessary as weapons inspectors really. And yes, the US should be held accountable by them, if we're going into this on the moral high ground we need to stay there.

No arguments yet? Cool, let's move on.

Here's a fantastic summary of the human rights abuses that can be directly linked to the Iraqi regime:
Iraq FAQ. Can't argue with that.

So let's consider for a moment what most of the nations of the world have agreed should be done about petty tyrants who commit such horrible crimes against their own people. The International Criminal Court is a multi-national judicial body that was formed specifically to prosecute individuals accused of international crimes (crimes against humanity). As of nine days ago 89 countries had adopted and ratified this treaty (you'll note that neither the US nor Iraq are on this list). Of particular note:


The United States of America was one of only 7 nations (joining China, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Qatar and Israel) to vote against the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court in 1998.

The Bush administration's hostility to the ICC has increased dramatically in 2002. The crux of the U.S. concern relates to the prospect that the ICC may exercise its jurisdiction to conduct politically motivated investigations and prosecutions of U.S. military and political officials and personnel. The U.S. opposition to the ICC is in stark contrast to the strong support for the Court by most of America's closest allies.

In an unprecedented diplomatic maneuver on 6 May, the Bush administration effectively withdrew the U.S. signature on the treaty. At the time, the Ambassador-at-large for War Crimes Issues Pierre-Richard Prosper stated that the administration was "not going to war" with the Court. This has proved false; the renunciation of the treaty has paved the way for a comprehensive U.S. campaign to undermine the ICC.

What is the basis for this withdrawal? Well the US wants exemptions for its military personnel. Basically we don't want to any other nation or international body to have the authority to monitor our actions or to hold us accountable for them. Specifically:

The Congress passed the American Servicemembers' Protection Act (ASPA), which was signed into law by President Bush on 3 August. The major anti-ICC provisions in ASPA are:

a prohibition on U.S. cooperation with the ICC;

an "invasion of the Hague" provision: authorizing the President to "use all means necessary and appropriate" to free U.S. personnel (and certain allied personnel) detained or imprisoned by the ICC;

punishment for States that join the ICC treaty: refusing military aid to States' Parties to the treaty (except major U.S. allies);

a prohibition on U.S. participation in peacekeeping activities unless immunity from the ICC is guaranteed for U.S. personnel.

The ICC Homepage

I have to shudder a little when I see what company we're keeping on that list of 7 nations who oppose the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court in 1998. If we are to hold other nations accountable for their human rights violations why on earth shouldn't we be held accountable too?

Does the ICC currently have "teeth", so to speak? Not really, but with major US backing it certainly could. UN sanctions against states who refuse to accept the jurisdiction of the ICC could be pretty damn compelling, made even more compelling by the threat of UN forces brought to bear on rogue nations.

Again, I'm not entirely anti-war, in that I believe there are definitely times that force should and must be used. But I also think there are processes that even the biggest and most powerful first world nation must and should go through before they can invade another nation. The US is a world leader and as such must adhere to even more strict standards of conduct and deportment. Our ethical standards must be high and uncompromised. Rather than acting like the biggest bully on the playground, we need to set an example, and our current one is rather alarming.

Comments

[tyee.livejournal.com]

The thing that cracks me up is that now people are talking about boycotting french goods because the french are looking out for their own national interests, instead of ours. I mean really, how dare they? *smirk*

Nevermind that our dependence on oil is what has us in this mess, and that the Bush administration has no interest in reducing our oil consumption now (ten years and hypothetical hydrogen cars are somehow better than hybrid vehicles that reduce gas consumption now? I don't get it...). We must reduce our consumption of french wine and cheese! We must send the french a message that we are not to be trifled with! Hell, in the name of liberty and democracy, why don't we invade France next!

*sigh*
I wish it weren't so cold in Switzerland.

Re:

[ebonlock.livejournal.com]

The thing that cracks me up is that now people are talking about boycotting french goods because the french are looking out for their own national interests, instead of ours. I mean really, how dare they? *smirk*

Yes well I'll continue yesterday's secret word through today, it's "hypocrisy"! Yes, I know, it's the backbone of modern politics, but that doesn't mean I have to like it. As for personal boycotts of French goods, hey I think everybody has to make their own decision on that. Personally I don't do a lot of importing myself so I don't have any stake in this. What gets me, though, is the American media's virulent attacks on the French in particular.

I always hope that our public officials and media can act in a mature and rational manner. Emphasis on hope here, but I'm often disappointed. I mean what's next, shall we begin referring to them as "big poopy heads"? Honestly, I'm not sure how much less mature our nation could look to the rest of the world short of our diplomats choosing to shoot spitballs at the French ambassadors in the UN.

[tyee.livejournal.com]

What gets me, though, is the American media's virulent attacks on the French in particular.

Well, Americans in general have an endemic dislike of "French snobbery." My personal opinion is that this stems from the fact that the French are the only ones who come anywhere near approximating our own superiority complex.

Honestly, I'm not sure how much less mature our nation could look to the rest of the world short of our diplomats choosing to shoot spitballs at the French ambassadors in the UN.

How about Bush chanting "Weeeee're going to waa-aar and you caa-aan't stop us! Naaah nuh naaah nuh naaah naaah!"? Oh wait, he already does that. Damn.

[senatorhatty.livejournal.com]

Actually a lot of folks outside America hate the French, too. I think it's their superiority complex in the face of history and political reality more than the superiority complex itself.

What's the current status with them? Have they actually admitted that they reason they don't want war is because they're getting great deals on oil during the current "sort-of-embargo" that is helping starve out the Iraqi populace?

Re:

[ebonlock.livejournal.com]

Actually a lot of folks outside America hate the French, too. I think it's their superiority complex in the face of history and political reality more than the superiority complex itself.

Perhaps a combination of the two? Having visited France myself, specifically Paris, I can say with some authority that the French are some of the biggest snobs on the planet. Almost every interaction we had with the populace was a negative one. Now that might have been because we were Americans with only a smattering of French between us, but I don't think that accounts for everything.

What's the current status with them? Have they actually admitted that they reason they don't want war is because they're getting great deals on oil during the current "sort-of-embargo" that is helping starve out the Iraqi populace?

Mais non, the great oil deals don't seem to have come up. I think both countries are too busy name calling at the moment.
"Traitorous weasels! What about saving your capers in WWII?"
"Imperialistic bully boys, we fart in your general direction!"

[senatorhatty.livejournal.com]

I HATE LJ! it ate my pithy anti-French reply.

Re:

[ebonlock.livejournal.com]

I HATE LJ! it ate my pithy anti-French reply.

You mean there was another one than the one I just responded to? }:)

[senatorhatty.livejournal.com]

Damn LJ to hell. It was that one, yes :)

[mallen.livejournal.com]

The reason we're not signatories of the ICC convention is because it will be used against American troops by countries hostile to the United States. And not just in situations like Iraq. I'm talking about purely humanitarian missions in places like Kosovo and Somalia where Americans went in harm's way to do good -- to stop the people in those places from brutally butchering each other.

U.S. justice (be it a court-martial or a civilian criminal prosecution) for troops which engage in criminal acts during military campaigns is good enough for me.

Re:

[ebonlock.livejournal.com]

The reason we're not signatories of the ICC convention is because it will be used against American troops by countries hostile to the United States. And not just in situations like Iraq. I'm talking about purely humanitarian missions in places like Kosovo and Somalia where Americans went in harm's way to do good -- to stop the people in those places from brutally butchering each other.

I'm sorry, but this seems like a rather weak argument to me. If another nation accused our troops of such atrocities (falsely) we'd still be tried by an international jury in the Hague. And in this case we'd undoubtedly be found not guilty. If we have nothing to fear regarding the moral correctness of our actions then we have nothing to fear from such a court.

U.S. justice (be it a court-martial or a civilian criminal prosecution) for troops which engage in criminal acts during military campaigns is good enough for me.

Ahh, but probably not good enough for the rest of the world. What puts us above international law? Again, I say we should lead by example, if our actions are just and good then we have nothing to fear, do we? I'm not a big fan of "do as we say, not as we do".

[mallen.livejournal.com]

Ahh, but probably not good enough for the rest of the world. What puts us above international law? Again, I say we should lead by example, if our actions are just and good then we have nothing to fear, do we? I'm not a big fan of "do as we say, not as we do".

I'm fine with other countries that participate in military campaigns meting out their own justice too. There's already a tribunal for international war crimes.

[centerfire.livejournal.com]

If another nation accused our troops of such atrocities (falsely) we'd still be tried by an international jury in the Hague. And in this case we'd undoubtedly be found not guilty.

The ICC uses a panel of judges, not juries.

That aside, though, I'm absolutely unwilling to gamble the life of even one United States citizen that the ICC will "undoubtedly" acquit American defendants of unjust and/or politically-motivated allegations of war crimes or the like. Sorry if this comes off as a slam, but to believe that unjust and politically-motivated accusations will never fly in the ICC takes a degree of faith in the so-called international community that I just don't have, and that I think is dangerously naive.

What puts us above international law?

Two things:

One: our constitution. If the procedural rules of the ICC are incompatible with the constitutional guarantees afforded criminal defendants in the United States (and in some areas they are), then there is no constitutionally-permissible way for us to implement the requirements of the treaty establishing the ICC.

Two: the fact that there is really no such thing as "international law". "International law" is a consensus, not a code, and boils down to an amalgam of treaties and resolutions and so forth. There is no guarantee that international consensus is always going to be fair (never mind favorable) to the United States, and in any case, I fail to see why we should subordinate our national sovereignity to the moral judgement of, say, Syria, or even France.

[ebonlock.livejournal.com]

That aside, though, I'm absolutely unwilling to gamble the life of even one United States citizen that the ICC will "undoubtedly" acquit American defendants of unjust and/or politically-motivated allegations of war crimes or the like. Sorry if this comes off as a slam, but to believe that unjust and politically-motivated accusations will never fly in the ICC takes a degree of faith in the so-called international community that I just don't

A quick response from the ICC page itself:
The International Criminal Court will complement national courts so that they retain jurisdiction to try genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.
If a case is being considered by a country with jurisdiction over it, then the ICC cannot act unless the country is unwilling or unable genuinely to investigate or prosecute.
A country may be determined to be "unwilling" when it is clearly shielding someone from responsibility for ICC crimes. A country may be "unable" when its legal system has collapsed.

Could such unjust accusations be made? Hell yes, but I think there are enough safeguards included during the creation of the ICC to negate this. Unless, of course, we were to a) shield the US citizen(s) accused of said crime or b) had our own entire judicial system collapse. That seems pretty fair to me.

If the procedural rules of the ICC are incompatible with the constitutional guarantees afforded criminal defendants in the United States (and in some areas they are), then there is no constitutionally-permissible way for us to implement the requirements of the treaty establishing the ICC.

Which doesn't seem to be the basis of our current opposition, but let's say it is. Can you give me a link to the info that spells out the areas in which the ICC is incompatible with our constitution?

There is no guarantee that international consensus is always going to be fair (never mind favorable) to the United States, and in any case, I fail to see why we should subordinate our national sovereignity to the moral judgement of, say, Syria, or even France.

Well, no there is no guarantee that things are always going to be fair (or what we consider fair), but that is a part of the risk we take being international players. Are we honestly to say that we are the only ones with the right to morally judge our own? Actions taken on the international stage, whether we like it or not, are subject to international scrutiny, and they should likewise be held accountable on an international level.

[centerfire.livejournal.com]

Unless, of course, we were to a) shield the US citizen(s) accused of said crime or b) had our own entire judicial system collapse. That seems pretty fair to me.

The likelihood of the United States judicial system being unable to prosecute someone for genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes is so tiny that it's not worth argument.

Look at the language of the other part: "A country may be determined to be 'unwilling' if it is clearly shielding someone from responsibility for ICC crimes."

Who gets to decide whether a country is 'clearly shielding someone from responsibility'?

Hint: not us. We might reasonably believe that we're protecting somebody from an unjust and politically-motivated prosecution; the ICC signatories can turn around and say we're 'clearly shielding' et cetera, and try to claim jurisdiction.

Which is why I will quite happily help add some .308 caliber ventilation to the blue helmets of any UN peacekeepers who turn up in my hometown attempting to enforce ICC diktats.

Can you give me a link to the info that spells out the areas in which the ICC is incompatible with our constitution?

ICC rules track pretty closely with American criminal procedure until we get to the Fourth Amendment and the exclusionary rule. Evidence obtained in violation of a person's Fourth Amendment protections is usually inadmissible at trial. Article 69 of the Rome Statute, which covers evidentiary rules for the Court, offers no such guarantee.

Well, no there is no guarantee that things are always going to be fair (or what we consider fair), but that is a part of the risk we take being international players.

Ah, so: "We might get screwed, but that's just the chance we take?" Sorry if I don't find that a compelling bit of logic. :)

As to the rest, I don't think you understood what I said. I don't give a hang if the French and the Syrians and whomever else makes moral judgements about the behavior of the United States or her citizens.

What I do mind is subordinating our national sovereignity to those moral judgements. It is by no means apparent why the moral judgements of the so-called international community have more clarity or less bias than those we make of ourselves.

Re:

[ebonlock.livejournal.com]

Which is why I will quite happily help add some .308 caliber ventilation to the blue helmets of any UN peacekeepers who turn up in my hometown attempting to enforce ICC diktats.

Um...ok...*backs away slowly*...you are a really scary man...But I think I finally and fully understand where you're coming from now, so I'll take that away from this conversation as my silver lining.

red herring

[elo-sf.livejournal.com]

I think the 4th amendment issue is a red herring as a post hoc rationalization for something that was part of a US negotiated treaty.

The ICC undoubtedly would not be perfect. But is it any worse than Belgium now deciding to prosecute Ariel Sharon? Or the UK trying to detain Pinochet decades after it makes sense?

Yes, the ICC also would undoubtedly will have problems, but if we aren't there to help shape its formative years won't we have LESS chance to get changes/procedures implemented in a way we want?

Re: red herring

[centerfire.livejournal.com]

I think the 4th amendment issue is a red herring as a post hoc rationalization for something that was part of a US negotiated treaty.

That's fine. I think for you to believe that, you would have had to have ignored a lot of the debate surrounding U.S. ratification of the Rome Statute. This has not been the most prevalent issue -- judicial and national sovereignity is a much less technical and more viscerally appealing objection to the ICC. But it has been an issue.

The ICC undoubtedly would not be perfect. But is it any worse than Belgium now deciding to prosecute Ariel Sharon? Or the UK trying to detain Pinochet decades after it makes sense?

Wrong question. What you want to be asking is whether it's any better. The world's had an imperfect but halfway decent record at trying war criminals in an ad hoc manner, to date.

The Belgian prosecution of Sharon is a good example of exactly why the ICC is a bad idea. The prosecution is pure politics, but fortunately, even if they convict, all the Belgian courts can really do is push paper and make ominous noises about what'll happen to Sharon if he ever sets foot in Belgium.

The ICC, on the other hand, would have extra-national authority to demand Sharon's extradition to the Hague and so forth.

Fortunately, Israel would probably use military force to prevent the unjust and politically-motivated prosecution of one of its citizens. I hope that the United States would do the same.

Yes, the ICC also would undoubtedly will have problems, but if we aren't there to help shape its formative years won't we have LESS chance to get changes/procedures implemented in a way we want?

U.S. ratification of and participation in the ICC would help legitimize the institution. If our national interests are not served by the existence of the ICC in its current form, why would we help lend the body legitimacy? What does that get us?

I've got a better idea: how about ICC voluptuaries fix the problems first, and then the United States will reconsider whether or not to ratify.

[mallen.livejournal.com]

our current one is rather alarming

So I suppose going through the U.N. security council is not the appropriate course of action?

Much hay has been made about how Bush is a warmonger, he's a bully, he's pushing people around. The fact remains thus: There is no war with Iraq, and the U.S. is seeking more U.N. approval even as I type.

How's that for reckless and unilateral?

Re:

[ebonlock.livejournal.com]

So I suppose going through the U.N. security council is not the appropriate course of action?

Not at all, I and applaud the fact that we are still giving the inspectors time to do their job and to come up with some evidence that clearly shows that Iraq has WMD. This is still our number one reason for invading the country, yes?

Much hay has been made about how Bush is a warmonger, he's a bully, he's pushing people around. The fact remains thus: There is no war with Iraq, and the U.S. is seeking more U.N. approval even as I type.

How's that for reckless and unilateral?

But are you honestly going to sit there and tell me that you believe that this was his plan all along, to let the UN come to a conclusion and do its job? Our president's message to the UN and the world at large can be summed up thusly: "We know Iraq has WMD, whether we can prove it or not, and we're going to invade the country, whether you approve or not."

We've had to slow down the rush to war not because of caution and consideration on the part of our country's leaders, but because a) we've lost some significant allies (not to mention some of our credibility among the other nations of the world) and b) countries like Turkey have decided to blackmail us for the use of their airspace and bases for troop deployment. Outside factors have slowed down this "showdown" (and good lord could our media play into the negative "cowboy" stereotypes any more than through the use of terms like that? *sigh*) with Saddam. We've been hindered, rather than willingly going through these processes, we're grudgingly doing so because we want multi-national support.

Or *shrug* that's what I've been seeing and hearing lately.

[centerfire.livejournal.com]

the rush to war

Sorry, this sticks in my craw.

We've been "rushing to war" for twelve effing years of ongoing Iraqi intransigence.

Twelve. Years.

When the original ceasefire resolution ending the 1991 Gulf War required Saddam Hussein's Baathist terror state to disarm, and cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors' verification efforts, within 30 days.

We would prefer to get this thing done sooner rather than later because of the manifold consequences of waiting (i.e., more innocent Iraqis raped, tortured, and murdered, and more WMDs built and/or hidden, by Hussein's regime). But in the the thirteen months since President Bush first characterized Iraq as part of the "axis of evil", he has genuflected to virtually every demand of the United Nations voluptuaries. Opponents of the war have had ample opportunity to make their arguments to their leaders and to the public as a whole. We've waited for logistical reasons; we've waited for foreign powers to get on board; and yes, sometimes the waiting has been grudging rather than completely willing. But we've waited.

And we continue to wait.

Twelve. Years. And counting.

If we were moving any more slowly and judiciously we'd have pigeons crapping on us.

so what exactly is the big rush?

[elo-sf.livejournal.com]

I mean if we've been waiting so long maybe we don't really need to invade to achieve our results?

Re: so what exactly is the big rush?

[centerfire.livejournal.com]

This argument makes sense if our desired results are to leave a murderous dictatorial regime with access to chemical and biological weapons, and an interest in acquiring nuclear weapons, in power.

If that's our goal, then all this waiting has been an astonishing success beyond all hope or reason.

[xleste.livejournal.com]

Ahhh!!!

I appreciate hugely your post, which raises my awareness around this issue! But AHHH!!!
Now I'm seriously disturbed! (or at least, more so than I normally am when I think of Bush!)

Re:

[ebonlock.livejournal.com]

Ahhh!!!

I appreciate hugely your post, which raises my awareness around this issue! But AHHH!!!
Now I'm seriously disturbed! (or at least, more so than I normally am when I think of Bush!)


Sorry, didn't mean to disturb ya, just wanted to share a few facts that I found particularly interesting. And to make sure I'm not being perceived as a total Hussein apologist }:)

[xleste.livejournal.com]

*grin* Apology completely unnecessary...I WANT to know these things, though paradoxically, I also think ignorance is bliss. I think it's important to stay reasonably informed, and to keep questioning everything...

I think one of hte things I'm most afraid of is going through life "asleep"...and so...I'm really grateful when people put up thoughtful posts based on things that they've gotten curious about, whatever their opinion on the specific issues are because it challenges me to think and challenges my own assumptions.

And thus, I equally appreciate your posts on world events and your deconstructions of the Two Towers. =)

[cyranocyrano.livejournal.com]

http://www.marigoldzine.com/suff/sc-action-50questions.htm