![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ebonlockBrief LOTR post:
For those interested in Hobbit architecture, I highly recommend:
Building Hobbit Holes.
I wanted to say how sorry I am that![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
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.
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.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2003-02-19 12:23 pm (UTC)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:
Date: 2003-02-19 12:47 pm (UTC)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!"