Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Bush 'Unsigns' War Crimes Treaty

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 18 2005 @ 10:54 AM
link   
As the War Crimes Trial For Saddam Hussien founders around in bloodshed and mystery, half way around the world the very nation that is pushing the trial forward withdraws from the very same treaty Saddam is being tried under. Bush had already withdrawn the US from the World Court, one of his first acts as Presidente', now as more and more information is being revealed about the US use of illegal weapons in Iraq and policies of torture, Bush convienently withdraws from the War Crimes Treaty.


www.alternet.org...
The Bush administration Monday formally renounced its obligations as a signatory to the 1998 Rome Statute to establish an International Criminal Court (ICC). Critics say the decision to "unsign" the treaty will further damage the United States' reputation and isolate it from its allies.

"Driven by unfounded fears of phantom prosecutions, the United States has hit a new nadir of isolationism and exceptionalism," said William Schulz, executive director of Amnesty International's U.S. section (AIUSA).

A simple three-sentence letter to U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan formally ended U.S. participation in an agreement to create the world's first permanent tribunal to prosecute war crimes, genocide, and other crimes against humanity. In the letter, Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, John Bolton, asserted that Washington "does not intend to become a party to the (Rome Statute of the ICC)" and that it "has no legal obligations arising from its signature (to the treaty) on December 31, 2000."


Hypocrisy aside, how in the hell can we justfiy policing the world while simultaneously withdrawing from the same treaties we use to judge and invade other nations? Can we even legally enforce a treaty to which we are no longer a signatory of? How long will the rest of the world let us get away with this rubbish? What is Bush Worried about? Swinging from a rope outside the Hague apparently doesn't appeal to the Bush Regime.

"has no legal obligations arising from its signature..."
Absolutely disgusting.
Try telling that to your bank next time you bounce a check.




posted on Nov, 18 2005 @ 11:48 AM
link   



www.alternet.org...
The Bush administration Monday formally renounced its obligations as a signatory to the 1998 Rome Statute to establish an International Criminal Court (ICC).




Every sick, tired, broke, and in debt American who has been prevented from going bankrupt by Bush should do EXACTLY THE SAME THING.

That 'll larn im.



posted on Nov, 18 2005 @ 11:50 AM
link   
I'm not surprised, but I am very, very disappointed in our nation. I hope more Americans get their heads out of the sand and see this administration for the isolationist imperialistic entity it is. And I would never have guessed that our own government would prove itself to be anti-American as this one has. For shame.



posted on Nov, 18 2005 @ 12:26 PM
link   
Ok, i dont know about the 'torture' of people, its a war, they cut peoples head's off and do far worse yet no one is screaming aboiut 'war crimes'. I think it has been established that the WP mortar shells are perfectly legal.
If the US withdrawed now, it would do far more damage than staying until the job is done.



posted on Nov, 18 2005 @ 12:38 PM
link   
Your last line apply's to this thread better in another context.

Withdrawing from this treaty does far more damage then obiding by it.

Not only does this withdrawel admit guilt to torture and at the very least the intent of using banned weapons, its another showing that Bush doesn't care for freedom or peace anywhere(eventhough that is the guise under which these wars are faught). All he (or the people he works for ...) care about it playing wargames and making big bundles of cash, with no respect for anyone else but their select club of warmongering sociopaths.



posted on Nov, 18 2005 @ 01:48 PM
link   
If it was a public withdrawl there would be a white house press release, I couldnt find one. Someone else give it a shot? The more I read about the Rome Statute, I wonder why we would pull out, it protects U.S. personel stationed in other countries from prosecution. Read article 98 of the document here:

www1.umn.edu... (This is my judgment of the text.)

and now look at the links of white house press releases relating to it:

www.whitehouse.gov...

Kinda confusing seing as while it does cover international law and establish an international court to prosecute those who violiate it, but article 98 protects U.S. personel in other countries. If we wanted to cover our own backs here for war crimes, then we would need to stay in this treaty. It seems to be what makes it possible for us to prosecute our own and not the international community as you will see if you read the different links pretaining to all the countries who have entered this treaty with the U.S.

[edit on 11/18/2005 by ludaChris]

[edit on 11/18/2005 by ludaChris]

[edit on 11/18/2005 by ludaChris]



posted on Nov, 18 2005 @ 02:03 PM
link   
Sadly, this will be interpreted by the world as yet another negative act by the US, and rightly so. Since Bush has taken office, there are almost no positives that the world can label americans.

I only hope that the world knows to hate the US leadership, not the US people. We the people didn't do this.



posted on Nov, 18 2005 @ 02:06 PM
link   
When Bush was elected, the neo-cons promised us that he would restore dignity back to the Oval Office.

Remember the good old days when the worst thing a President would do is cheat on their wife?



posted on Nov, 18 2005 @ 02:23 PM
link   
Exactly right. If getting a BJ and then lying about getting it is impeachable. Then I guess Bush must be feering the big oak tree. Treason is a serious offence and I don't think he can claim ignorance. Rumsfeld's signature is on documents telling troops how to torture people. He's going down for sure.



posted on Nov, 18 2005 @ 02:24 PM
link   
I remember when this happened and people outside the US were kind of upset about it.

I believe the reason given for withdrawing from the Rome Statute was because US troops were not protected from what was termed 'politically-motivated' charges. It was felt that countries who did not like the US would use the court to bring frivolous lawsuits against US personnel.

There was an attempt to have all of the other signatories to sign impunity agreements with the US under Article 98 of the Rome Statue.



Article 98
Cooperation with respect to waiver of immunity
and consent to surrender

1. The Court may not proceed with a request for surrender or assistance which would require the requested State to act inconsistently with its obligations under international law with respect to the State or diplomatic immunity of a person or property of a third State, unless the Court can first obtain the cooperation of that third State for the waiver of the immunity.

2. The Court may not proceed with a request for surrender which would require the requested State to act inconsistently with its obligations under international agreements pursuant to which the consent of a sending State is required to surrender a person of that State to the Court, unless the Court can first obtain the cooperation of the sending State for the giving of consent for the surrender.

www.un.org...

Countries that would not sign the agreements had military aid cut under the American Service-Members Protection Act. When the US was told that these agreements violated the spirit of the Statute, the US resigned from the Rome Statute.



posted on Nov, 18 2005 @ 02:27 PM
link   
excuse me guys may i join the conversation. what is the illegal use of weapons that we used in Iraq? can anyone identify what weapons that was use in Iraq that is illegal?



posted on Nov, 18 2005 @ 02:42 PM
link   
Plain and simple, i saw the so called 'documentary' about the WMD use by the US in Iraq, pure rubbish if you ask me. There was no definative proof, and until then thats my opinion of these allegations, pure rubbish.



posted on Nov, 18 2005 @ 08:22 PM
link   
Bush doing something thats in his own best interests and the interests of his rich friends at the expense of the USAs creditbility and reputation in general?

Naaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah! STOP IT! You are putting me on!



posted on Nov, 19 2005 @ 05:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by twitchy
Hypocrisy aside, how in the hell can we justfiy policing the world while simultaneously withdrawing from the same treaties we use to judge and invade other nations?


A very good question.

It seems, the more bush f***'s up, the more he re-writes laws, passes ammendments or withdraws from treaty's to protect himself and his fellow neo-cons.


Originally posted by curme

Remember the good old days when the worst thing a President would do is cheat on their wife?


And everyone was so out-raged at that! At least it only effected his personal life, and didn't really have much effect on him as a politician.

But hey, let Bush Bomb countries and shoot innocent people and label them 'terrorists'. Let him disregard just about every law regarding to war or human rights and even let him cover his ass with ammendments and withdraw from every court that could ever prosocute him for his crimes.

*Covers his eyes and ears and sings the LALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALA song*

And the other serious issue is, why isnt this on any of the news sources that 99% of people read? Do they really have that much control?



posted on Nov, 20 2005 @ 10:19 PM
link   
Nothing wrong with isolationism (I am an isolationist), but the imperialism has got to go.

Quit invading other countries. Get the US out of the UN and vice-versa. No foreign entanglements (which Washington warned against).



posted on Nov, 20 2005 @ 10:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amethyst
Nothing wrong with isolationism (I am an isolationist), but the imperialism has got to go.

Quit invading other countries. Get the US out of the UN and vice-versa. No foreign entanglements (which Washington warned against).


Yeah, if you want to go play in everyone elses back yards, then obide by the rules that are made for when anyone plays in someone elses backyard.

If you don't want to follow those rules, then stay in your own damn yard!



posted on Nov, 20 2005 @ 10:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amethyst

Quit invading other countries. Get the US out of the UN and vice-versa. No foreign entanglements (which Washington warned against).


Absolutely. I really wonder sometimes if the US is the most childish nation of them all. It has to be ONE of them.

I know how kids invent rules when they are playing games, then suddenly change them to suit their every need, while still expecting everyone else to play by the original rules.

Is this not what the US is doing?

Still, i am in such shock that this wasnt on MSNBC, CNN, FOX News, BBC or anything :|

What has the world come to?



posted on Nov, 21 2005 @ 12:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by curme
Remember the good old days when the worst thing a President would do is cheat on their wife?


WOW if you think that was the worst thing Clinton did those are some nice Rose colored glasses you have.



posted on Dec, 24 2005 @ 08:44 AM
link   
wow if only all americans were like u guys



posted on Dec, 24 2005 @ 08:48 AM
link   
The Snake Oil sales people are at it again, huh?

Just another sleazy act. Its ok with most Americans.





new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join