Bush 'Unsigns' War Crimes Treaty, page 1


Pages: <<  1    2  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times
Topic started on 18-11-2005 @ 10:54 AM by twitchy
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 Bush had already withdrawn the US from the World Court, one of his first acts as Presidente', now as more and more information is being revealed about the US use of illegal weapons in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.


reply posted on 18-11-2005 @ 11:48 AM by soficrow


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.


reply posted on 18-11-2005 @ 01:48 PM by ludaChris
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]


reply posted on 18-11-2005 @ 02:24 PM by Duzey
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.
Pages: <<  1    2  >>    ^^TOP^^



GOP moves to keep Gary Johnson off the ballot
  Posted 9 days ago with 32 member flags
The GOP Conspiracy – Hidden in Plain Site
  Posted 10 days ago with 14 member flags
The JFK Assassination, An Overview
  Posted 19 days ago with 12 member flags
The Politics of Rape
  Posted 3 days ago with 10 member flags
Retreat! Government shuts Arpaio probe; no charges filed
  Posted 11 days ago with 9 member flags
Feminism and the Reorganization of Society
  Posted 2 days ago with 6 member flags