U.S. Said to Lack Votes on Immunity from World Court

[floda]

By Evelyn Leopold
UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - The United States faced an uphill fight on Friday to get an exemption from a new International Criminal Court, with diplomats saying ambassadors were hesitating because of the Iraqi prisoner abuse scandal.

The Bush administration, for the third year, is seeking to renew a U.N. Security Council resolution that would exempt from the court's prosecution military and civilian personnel "related to a UN-authorized operation" such as that in Iraq.

The immunity would be extended to all nations not among the 94 countries that have ratified a treaty establishing the court, set up to prosecute the world's worst atrocities -- genocide, mass war crimes and systematic human rights abuses.

"We're going to be coming back to the council by Tuesday with a final plan -- with our position in terms of next steps," said U.S. representative Stuart Holliday.

more...

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=5460305

[short bus president]

1. Um... a "UN-authorized operation?"

I think that matter is still open to debate. I recall some argument that the existing resolution provided all the UN backing necessary for the US to invade Iraq this time around, but it seems strange for the US to then seek (and fail to secure) a second resolution authorizing force...

[Spazito]

2. Good, the Security Council needs to hold firm on this...

especially after the torturing of Iraqi and Afghan detainees.

[gratuitous]

3. Gee, more ducking

From the Party of Personal Responsibility! What say, Rush? Henry? Bob? Newt? Bill? All the other hypocritical mofos?

[klook]

4. Saving the U.S. military from frivolous lawsuits

"Former U.S. President Bill Clinton signed the treaty in December 2000. But the Bush administration withdrew the signature in May 2002 and warned it could be used for frivolous suits against U.S. troops."

Yeah, like frivolous lawsuits over "fraternity pranks" gone bad. :puke:

[Miss Authoritiva]

5. Can the US executive branch withdraw a treaty signature without

the approval of Congress? Please excuse my ignorance -- these things always confuse me.

[rinsd]

6. I don't think the Senate approved it...

Same with Kyoto....no Senate approval, no US adherence to treaty.

[struggle4progress]

7. You know it's really serious when diplomats begin taking stands.

[DaveSZ]

8. It must be ratified by the Senate

Even if the Dems win a narrow majority, and with the moderate Republicans' vote, I don't think there would still be enough votes.

[keithyboy]

9. We don't deserve immunity.

What have we done to earn it?