5 Nations: No Americans to Int'l Court

[Rose Siding]

5 Nations: No Americans to Int'l Court

WASHINGTON -- The White House on Tuesday announced agreements with another five countries to exempt American personnel from prosecution by the International Criminal Court, which it staunchly opposes.

The 1998 Rome Statute establishing the International Criminal Court has been ratified by 90 countries, but the court faces opposition from the United States. Washington says it fears that Americans, particularly soldiers abroad, could fall victim to politically motivated prosecutions.

The Bush administration has signed bilateral treaties with more than 35 countries that have agreed not to hand over American citizens to the court. The latest, according to a statement released by the White House, are Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Djibouti, Mauritius and Zambia

Newsday

[Resistance Is Futile]

1. "Politically motivated" prosecutions

The Americans are afraid of "politically motivated" prosecutions in exactly the same way that the GOPpers are afraid of looting money. What they're really afraid of is genuine prosecutions for such lovely behavior as hostage taking, habitually attacking journalists, and bombing marked red cross warehouses.

[TankLV]

6. Well, if you initiate "politically motivated" wars (w/lies), then you

should expect politically motivated prosecutions.

Hello Pot?, Kettle here....

[Catshrink]

2. But Gitmo and "military tribunals" are okay?

Americans can prosecute what Rummy calls "war crimes" but the international community can't prosecute Americans? Is this a double standard? Will someone explain it to me?

[Rose Siding]

3. They are drawing up sides

for the New World Order :shrug: Similar to the Iron Curtain...A new alloy perhaps?

[I AM SPARTACUS]

8. Iron Curtain???...more like Platinum Card Club

...you got the card??? you in the club...
...ain't in the club??? get lost, bub...

[fizzana]

4. I'm glad to see the powerful nations of the world

are signing on to support the U.S.

[leesa]

5. Why would he need these agreements if we aren't guilty of war crimes?

I don't think the tired old Republican charge of 'playing politics' works in this scenario. Where the hell is Djibouti...it's a good thing though that Bush is challenging our geographical skills by making treaties with all these important countries.

How the mighty have fallen!

[jamesinca]

7. Djibouti is in Africa

It is pronounced "ja booty" as in get ja booty out of my chair. If you notice it seems that a bunch of third world countries are signing on. I guess they want to be in good graces, or are being threatened by the Bush administration. It sounds similar to the coalition of the willing here.

[ColumbusGirl]

9. Bribery?

This smells to me like some nations who really could use some change. Why not agree to harbour international outlaws that won't ever step foot in your country anyway?

This is like saying my grandmother promises not to hand over Tom Cruise should he happen to commit a crime and come to her rural Illinois house.

They have GOT to be getting desparate to be touting this.

[Resistance Is Futile]

10. Get a map

Look up where some of these places are in the world.

With the exception of Bosnia (which already has a large number of US/NATO peacekeepers on its soil), all these tinpot mininations are all in strategic spots where it would be useful for the US to install bases or use as staging areas for invasions.