-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
What does Kerry think of America's involvement with the International Criminal Court?
- Thread starter Socreges
- Start date
- Status
videogamer
Banned
wrong forum?
Socreges said:
whats to elaborate? if Kerry gets to be president and he signs up America for the world court, all hell with break loose on him for putting America under the jurisdiction of a kangaroo court. No way in hell should an outside body have sway over American soldiers or officials where anyone can file a empty accusation at us. America like it or not is above this.
See, that is what I'm asking you to elaborate on. You're not that slow, I'm sure. Please explain why you use words like "kangaroo court" or why advocating the court would make Kerry "dumb". You're only stating the same hawk rhetoric.Ripclawe said:
[edit] I've got to go, but I expect a fleshed out response on my return!
videogamer
Banned
Ripclawe said:
Well, usually if a crime is committed in another country, then that country has jurisidiction over it. It's pretty common knowledge. The State Department makes it known that while in other countries, Americans would be held to their laws.
I mean, remember Michael Fay who got jail time and a heavy spanking for graffiti? He got his number of canings reduced from 6 to 4 only because the President was making a big deal over it.
http://travel.state.gov/travel/abroad_pub_safetrip.html
http://travel.state.gov/travel/livingabroad_drugs.html
oh no, that I am fine with, if you are dumb to do a crime elsewhere, you are asking for it.
The ICC OTOH
The reality is that in the position America is in the real problem is frivolous cases brought against soldiers/officials like it happened when Belgium had that ridiculous law where you can file lawsuits against any world officials.
videogamer
Banned
Ripclawe said:
The quote that I used was pretty broad. Even in the context of the previous posts, that post seemed to encompass everything.
ToyMachine228
Member
"I don't know, but I have three purple hearts."
John Kerry
John Kerry
V
Vennt
Unconfirmed Member
Obviously not, It seems he'd rather America was held to a different standard than the rest of the world, or better yet he'd rather the rest of the world would fall in behind America and accept their new overlords.
Ever hear the term "pride comes before a fall" Ripclawe?
Sooner or later you are going to have to re-evaluate America's position in the world, or the rest of the world will end up re-evaluating America and it 'values'.
Freeburn.
Ripclawe said:
If I didn't know you were serious, I'd call your point of view "quaint" if I were trying to be cheeky, "archaic," if I just wanted to cut to the chase.
But if the ICC is good enough for other countries, then it's good enough for us. You don't win friends and allies by telling them that you're too good to play with them. Global trade and communication has shrunk this world. The fact that an international court with said jurisdiction was formed shouldn't surprise you, it should be expected and ideally, welcomed. Keep waving that American flag Rip, and singing that old ditty, "America's Better Than the Rest of the World." Eventually, we'll be the ones who are trailing behind.
Cauliflower of Love
Banned
The US cut military funding to countries who supported the ICC. A bunch of South American countries got fucked beause of this, which boils down to blackmail.
the only that counts in terms of American officials, service personnel is ours.
America is different from the rest of the world , We are not like everyone else, nor should we be brought down to the level of everyone else.
I could care less what is good enough for other countries, We are in the unique position where nonsense like this is not in our best interests, if other countries don't like it. tough.
I don't see anyone bitching about Russia, China and India also not signing up for it.
whats wrong with that? sign the treaty or you get cut in funding, maybe they should go to the EU and getting buddy buddy with them.
Socreges said:
They can put in all the "safeguards" they want, America should not be a part of the ICC under any circumstances. A lot of other countries have not signed up for the ICC such as Russia who has not voted yes for it, China or India and I think a lot of Arab nations as well. So we are not the only ones wary of it or like the idea of some outside entity being an anchor around our necks.
I know this attitude doesn't sit well with people from other countries, but almost no one cares about your feelings.
oh and this joke of an article http://www.eccmei.net/E/E027.html
his opinions is less than dirt.
Cauliflower of Love
Banned
Because the original agreements have jack shit to do with the ICC.
Well:Ripclawe said:
Like the US, the countries you listed would have their policies handicapped the most.the article said:
What impression do you think you're giving people with statements like these? Not strength. Not intelligence. You just come across as a very sad person.
And you can continue to stress that America can do whatever the hell it wants. But perpetual isolationism will likely hurt them more in the long run, than help.
Thaedolus
Gold Member
If the rest of the world hates how America forces its ideals upon them, why should they expect us to accept this in return? I don't like the idea of anyone outside our country being able to convict our people of crimes based on different standards than we've set up here. I don't see why any country would approve of this, unless they were trying to equal the playing field with the big guy, which is exactly what I think is going on.
Forget it.
Forget it.
No, no. Rather than you dismissing him because of association, I would like you to show where the article is incorrect. Or at least present an argument against it (citing other countries does not qualify). I would like to understand the situation as best I can, whereas you, as always, narrow your perspective to what fits your agenda.
Cauliflower of Love
Banned
Like I said the original agreements for military funding have jack shit to do with the ICC. The amendment to the aspa regarding the military funding was introduced long after the ICC was conceived.
Don't think the US is giving away free military funding to random countries.
If in January I sold three cookies for a dollar, then in October I hear the cops are running around trying to nab pot holder, then ask you to oppose the cops trying to find pot growers otherwise my three cookies no long cost dollar to you. That's blackmail.
Don't think the US is giving away free military funding to random countries.
If in January I sold three cookies for a dollar, then in October I hear the cops are running around trying to nab pot holder, then ask you to oppose the cops trying to find pot growers otherwise my three cookies no long cost dollar to you. That's blackmail.
muncheese said:
Look let me break it down to this, its our money, on our terms. They want to keep getting our money, then they better damn well agree to our terms. This is not blackmail.
Look up and down the thread, I have already presented numerous arguments.
Let me sum it up
1) America should not under ANY circumstance favorable or unfavorable have itself under the thumb of any outside entity.
2) America should not under ANY circumstances favorable or unfavorable put its foreign policy, military or any of it interests in harms way because of countries beneath it sees this as being equal.
3) American is top dog, no one is equal to us because of our unique position in the world, that means not putting ourselves in a position to make us weaker because other countries wish it to be.
4) The ICC will be used to throw roadblocks in our way, as your author pointed out some absurd flimsy examples that anyone can bring to the ICC to put against us. The same ICC that ruled the Israel Wall that has almost stopped terrorist bombings must be torn down which is interfering with a country's right to defend itself.
This article sums it up nicely about the ICC and Israel http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/Columnists/Toronto/Peter_Worthington/2004/07/12/pf-536321.html
You're simplifying a very complicated concept.
If isolationism hurts the rest of the world, then it invariably hurts the US. The world is incredibly interdependent (largely on the US , of course). Cooperation is so, so necessary to stability.
But does it fit into today's international community? Machiavelli was speaking of leaders over (relatively) primitive populations. Applying that to relations between states and state leaders (without explaining the relevance - as if it speaks for itself) just doesn't work. Yet, that you would think such an idea will continue to hold the US in power is ultimately so characteristic of you.
You should have just said that from the beginning. Depending on how which cases the ICC actually takes on, that could very well end up being the case. The UN, for instance, is essentially a tool of the US. The ICC would not be so convenient. And the US would actually have to adjust its policies around the set rules or they might actually be held responsible for once. The US, up to now, has not answered to any law - rather, they've answered to allies and what they can get away with without alienating these allies to the point of conflict or fallout.
See, I'm not entirely sure where you disagree with the article. It doesn't even say that the US should join the ICC. Instead, Sigler argues why the US hasn't or won't.
Hell, I haven't even said that the US should join. I would like them to, but I can see why they wouldn't (reasons other than what they tell people).
Cauliflower of Love
Banned
Well, that's that. Continue to believe the US is entirely indepent and self sufficient. EVERY super power will have a high point, and with that high point comes the downfall. Have a nice one(day that is, not the downfall).
Ripclawe said:
I love how you talk about America not being "dragged down" to the level of those "beneath" America, and then cite a corrupt government (Russia), a communist government with a litany of human rights issues (China) and a collection of countries with MASSIVE human rights issues ("Arab nations") as support for America's position. Some great bedfellows, eh? America is going right down to "their level".
And STFU up about America's "unique" position, and not being "dragged down" to the level of other countries. When it comes to war crimes etc. etc. no country should be treated differently than any other. Not to mention that a) the US's only real strength now over many other nations is military strength (taken under many other measures, the US falls behind other countries, in fact) and b) the US will not be the world's sole superpower anymore in the near to mid-term. Actions taken now won't be forgotten in the world of the tomorrow.
I'd love to know what you think other first world, civilised countries are like that make them so base compared to the US...?
Socreges said:
I would argue that saying someone or some country is "above" another has moral connotations..
However he may peg countries to his little "levels", for most people who do that, things like government stability, freedom (personal & economic) & respect for human rights will/should be factors. If he doesn't use those factors, he's got to use others, and I doubt the countries he has cited are model examples when it comes to those others eithers. You can't fall back on an abstract "america is better than everyone else, just cos"...there got to be reasons, but whatever they are, I doubt lumping the US in with the countries he mentioned supports his case.
In simple terms, he argues that America is so much better than other countries, and "above" countries, and then assigns it to a less than prestigious group as support for his argument.
no you are complicating a very simply concept, he who has the most power wins and sets the rules, many of the problems of the world is because there is absurd notion of everyone is equal, on the same level and should be treated as such.
It absolutely fits into today's "international Community" across the board, You think Sudan would be dragging its feet to stop the killings in darfur if they knew not doing so would mean certain economic and physically destruction? fear is a powerful motivator.
I did.
and we should not subject ourselves to something meant for others.
my bad, but it still fits into the fact of an outside entity trying to dictate what is best for someone, in this case Israel who is rightly ignoring this ruling.
according to the latest UN best places to live, we are in solidly in the top 10, our economic power is unrivaled, the EU is not competition, China still has a ways to go and it has a host of problems just waiting, India...no..Japan..no... who else?
Ripclawe said:
My country is also in the top 10 in that UN report, and there are others ahead of the US...what about them?
Re. economic power, I wouldn't say it is unrivalled, or will go unrivalled in the near future. I read a very interesting article in the economist (who seem perenially optimistic about the US and pessimistic about the EU), which basically examined the EU vs US argument - if you take Germany out of the equation, the EU has performed as well, or outperformed the US economically in the last several years. Once/If Germany sorts itself, it'll be interesting to see where things stand, not to mention what might happen if the eastern bloc countries can turn themselves around in the same way that nearly every other country that has joined the EU did. Not to speak of China or India..they have much further to go, agreed, but between all those blocs, I wouldn't bet my house on the US being the strongest economic power in the world in 50 or 100 years.
edit - I'd also like you to explain the logic behind citing less than model countries in support of why America should not get into something, and how that doesn't start dragging the US down to their level..morally, it does.
What does that matter to what I said? Address this, instead:
"If isolationism hurts the rest of the world, then it invariably hurts the US. The world is incredibly interdependent (largely on the US , of course). Cooperation is so, so necessary to stability."
Of course it is. Often. But you used that quote as if to support your argument that America can do what it likes and isolate itself without consequence. Fear will only work for so long and for certain countries.
Ok, where?
One nation will decide what is best for themselves. The ICJ will sooner decide what is best for two.
Here is an opposing perspective.
You stress that America should be able to do whatever it wants, with no law binding them. You don't seem to care for the expense. The US becoming weaker is more important than people being held to account; or future war crimes and carelessness being prevented.
No, I dismissed the relevance. Machiavelli was brilliant.
No. Practically every conflict in foreign affairs can be traced down to one thing, "nationalism".
Alowing a state of World anarchy, where the most nationalistic nations survive, will only further fuel nationalism in other ussually more pascifist nations.
Ironically, this is what happened to the US early, and this is what the US is now helping spread further.
It's a viscious circle, and your mentality is only helping such conflict, not solving it.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked