EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Wisconsin Bill Would Treat Organic Milk, Sharp Cheddar, Brown Eggs as "Junk Food"
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Climate Change's 'Evil Twin': Ocean Acidification
- Disaster Capitalism Strikes as Hedge Funds Circle Near-Bankrupt Municipalities Like Vultures
- Ignoring Bee Crisis, EPA Greenlights New 'Highly Toxic' Pesticide
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Wisconsin Bill Would Treat Organic Milk, Sharp Cheddar, Brown Eggs as "Junk Food"
- Climate Change's 'Evil Twin': Ocean Acidification
- In 'March Toward Disaster,' World Hits 400 PPM Milestone
- Ignoring Bee Crisis, EPA Greenlights New 'Highly Toxic' Pesticide
Popular content
Today's Top News
Could International Criminal Court Deploy U.S. as World Law Enforcer?
The United States, which continues to shun membership in the International Criminal Court (ICC) for fear that it might itself be prosecuted, could wind up acting as the ICC's military muscle on the planet. Having failed to prosecute anyone but Africans since its creation in 2002, the ICC now actively woos the U.S., the world's most prolific perpetrator and sponsor of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide, as global enforcer of ICC indictments.
The ICC's 111 member states are gathered in Kampala, Uganda, for a 12-day conference (May 31 - June 11) that is largely focused on defining the international crime of "aggression," the only crime listed under the ICC's mandate that is without agreed upon definition. The next, much more difficult question: will the ICC independently decide who shall be indicted for crimes of aggression, or must the Court defer to the United Nations Security Council, where the permanent members hold veto power? Predictably, the United States is lobbying hard to maintain the Security Council as the sole arbiter of global aggression. Smaller nations and human rights groups contend that filtering indictments through the Security Council would further "politicize" the ICC -- a code word for granting the great powers immunity from prosecution.
From the African standpoint, such immunity already exists, as evidenced by the all-African lineup of 14 individuals indicted to date, including the first sitting head of state, Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir. All have been charged with war crimes, and eleven also face charges of crimes against humanity. ICC prosecutors are currently considering adding the crime of "genocide" to President al-Bashir's indictment. But enforcement is problematic. ICC member states are treaty-bound to arrest indicted persons that enter their territory. However, the African Union collectively opposes Al-Bashir's indictment, officially on grounds that it is an impediment to a peaceful settlement in Sudan's Darfur region, but unofficially because of the ICC's color-coded notions of justice.
The United States cheers the prosecutors on from its position of immunity, since only ICC members fall under the Court's jurisdiction. But that doesn't stop Washington from primping and posturing as a guardian of international legality at the Kampala conference.
"It's hard to emphasize how happy countries are to see us here," said State Department legal affairs official Harold Koh. "They felt very distressed at the period of U.S. hostility to the court. They're very excited about the Obama administration and its renewed commitment to international law and engagement. And they're just thrilled that we're here as an observer country."
No such commitment international law exists, beyond President Obama's rhetorical flourishes. The ridiculously titled U.S. Ambassador-at-Large for War Crimes, Stephen Rapp, advised the world not to hold its breath waiting on the Americans to join the ICC. "[W]e're nowhere near that point," he told reporters in Kampala. But Washington is quite eager to use the ICC as a tool of its own foreign policy objectives. "What we're here talking about is ways that we can support this court constructively when it works in our interest," said Koh. "And so far in the cases it is taking on, they are in our interests and in the interest of all of human kind."
The U.S. has the ICC's Chief Prosecutor in its pocket. As reported by scholar-activists Samar Al-Bulushi and Adam Branch:
"In June 2009 at a public event in the US, Chief Prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo declared the need for ‘special forces' with ‘rare and expensive capabilities that regional armies don't have,' and said that ‘coalitions of the willing,' led by the US, were needed to enforce ICC arrest warrants."
Prosecutor Moreno-Ocampo is volunteering the Court as an instrument of American R2P -- "Responsibility to Protect," the Obama administration's substitute for the Bush doctrine that justified American wars to spread "democracy." As defined by Susan Rice, Obama's snarling Ambassador to the UN: "The international community has a responsibility to protect civilian populations from violations of international humanitarian law when states are unwilling or unable to do so."
The U.S. is especially keen to deploy R2P as cover for its own continued crimes in central Africa, where Washington's main proxies in the region, Ugandan dictator Yoweri Museveni and Rwanda's ruling Tutsi military, are the most culpable parties in the death of an estimated six million Congolese. As recounted by Edward S. Herman and David Peterson in their invaluable new book, The Politics of Genocide, since overrunning the mineral-rich eastern region of the Democratic Republic of Congo in 1996, Rwanda and Uganda "have largely carved up the DRC between them, helping to cause a death toll more than fifteen times the scale of the "genocide in Darfur."
But neither Uganda's Museveni nor Rwanda's Paul Kagame nor any of the three U.S. presidents that are culpable in the Congo genocide -- Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama -- will ever face indictment by the ICC.
Impunity extends from the world's sole superpower to its capos and hit men, and makes a farce of an International Criminal Court that appears ready to offer a marshal's badge to the planet's biggest thug and bully: the United States.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
42 Comments so far
Show AllI predicted this eight years ago.
U.S. will be the military/police/surveillence for the planet.
Full spectrum dominance.
And people are still under the belief that nation states matter.
One world, one military. This is where we are.
Teddy Roosevelt suggested this in 1914 in his book "Fear God and Take Your Own Part", a collection of essays, articles and speeches. He thought, however that the time was not yet. I recommend reading this book for a good insight into early American hubris.
The man was a contradiction of integrity and exceptionalism.
And don't forget Nicholas Murray Butler - President of Columbia University and a crony of TR - proposed a World Navy as early as 1908. Butler made a trip to Europe to talk to as many leaders as possible and see how many might go for the idea. Hardly any responded positively. Butler's 2 volume autobiography is suffused with hubris. His Nobel Peace Prize for the Kellog-Briand Pact is vapid.
In 1944-45 the idea of an International Air Force was floated, by people who knew nothing about the Manhattan Project.
The ICC, or 'World Court', has been, to me, an 'ace in the hole', a secret weapon, the backup plan for ultimate justice that is otherwise so lacking in the world. To hear that it is not only weak which we knew but subject to misuse and/or takeover by the U.S. PTB very nearly reduces me to tears.
I naively thought that a few gutsy Europeans and myriad signatories from around the world, allied for universal justice, would grow in power and influence to eventually act en masse to stop the American empire-building before more peoples, nations, and perhaps the earth itself, are destroyed.
This is a very dangerous time; it's almost as if the fate of humanity itself hangs in the balance. I hope I'm wrong and am being overly alarmist.
"The ICC, or 'World Court', has been, to me, an 'ace in the hole', a secret weapon, the backup plan for ultimate justice that is otherwise so lacking in the world."
Man, were you ever taken in! Must be nice to have the blinders removed and reality show its ugly face. The UN and its Secretary General are pretty much a tool of the US. The US enjoys world hegemony and as long as that remains the case, only American citizens can deal with the mafia gang that run the US politically.
Frightening, really, when one considers that the U.S. military has the ethical sensibilities and moral fiber of Nazi stormtroopers ("just following orders"). How can anyone conceive of giving a country like ours, waging illegal wars around the globe and killing millions of innocent people, authority to enforce laws that it routinely violates?
Sioux Rose
FAST EDDIE & LILY TV: Right on! I didn't read your excellent analyses before posting my own.
And I wouldn't have had to write anything if you had posted first! Tag! You're it!
Sioux Rose
Fast: Thanks for the smile.
Thanks Sioux Rose
Tag......runs away
"It's hard to emphasize how happy countries are to see us here," said State Department legal affairs official Harold Koh.
It's hard to emphasize how happy the US is to SEE ITSELF there.
"The U.S. is especially keen to deploy R2P as cover for its own continued crimes..."
The US is already the self-appointed global police force and it alone decides where to launch preemptive strikes, whether there is a crime or not. The war mongering US and the MIC likes it this way.
"They're very excited about the Obama administration and its renewed commitment to international law and engagement."
LMFAO!!!
As for the US policing the world, it would fit right into the American mythos; many a Wild West Outlaw ended his years behind a tin star. They say it takes a thief...
Sioux Rose
Only 6 posts... because Israel isn't the sole, ostensible guilty party? How convenient (spoken in the lingo of Dana Carvey's "Church Lady").
The U.S. has supported dictators whose policies have left an estimated 6 million slaughtered. Square those numbers with the offenses in the Israel-Palestine debacle, or those in Iraq, or even those underway in Afghanistan, a war zone for two decades and counting.
Look: Violence and naked aggression under any pretense are always morally repugnant. Once again I would ask those who are so quick to push Israel to the sacrificial pyre why they don't evidence a similar response to worse fates being aimed at other populations? Or aim their justifiable outrage at the U.S. being the world's main offender (spreading democracy, sure), while also holding that seat of power that exempts it from all legal accountability.
The world needs a viable court that upholds principles of universal justice for all!
No one ever said Israel is the sole guilty party on the planet.
Find me a post that says that.
And please, spare me. You can find posts bashing the US on every freaking thread. You know this. So, why the pretense otherwise? All you say that posters on CD should do, posters on CD do every freaking day. You know this. So, why the pretense otherwise?
Rwanda under the Hutus, supported by the French and Belgians, were scum. As were the French and Belgians. The French and the Belgians especially, never seem to get any of crap thrown their way for their support of genocide. Rwanda under the Tutsis, supported by the US, are scum. As is the US. And so is Museveni.
It's the matter of scale and the level of expressed outrage. NO comparison. Odd, for you, the site's most intrepid facts-finder, not to notice.
The first posting "Israel attacks Gaza Flotilla" a week ago netted over 400 responses, and the TONE was one of a torch-carrying mob. Sorry, I seldom if ever find that level of response when it's the U.S. on the wounding end of the military stick. And there is ALWAYS a paltry response when the topic is violence directed at women, or what's going on in Haiti.
Go back to the gym.
Hi Sioux,
Is it your contention that posters on this site are anti-semitic---and that the outrage expressed on that first thread is really veiled anti-semitism?
Are you taking names and keeping score because you believe this is the case?
Sioux Rose
I'll put it to you this way. On the topic of Israel, the level of anger is enormous. Why don't we see anything like that on the following:
1. the ecocide being furthered by corporate leaders/big oil, as per the deadly damage in the Gulf.
2. The continued gang rapes in Rwanda/Congo
3. The pathetic misery that Haitian earthquake survivors are left to cope with even after major relief funds were collected
4. The death of 10-30 every few days in some drone attack centered on Afghanistan
5. The people left to languish in torture camps
6. The fact that an estimated one million were killed in Iraq based on an utterly false pretext for aggressive war.
I believe in universal justice. I do NOT believe one group should be targeted beyond others.
I happen to feel that Israel is being set up. Once the US economy falters to the point that it can no longer be counted on to protect the little Zionist nation, Israel will find itself coping with living in a dangerous neighborhood, a fact based in part on its own actions.
I would say that about 30% of posters on this topic believe that Israel controls US foreign policy. Those same numbers use examples of influential political figures, bankers, and media elite to suggest that Jews run the world. This is an old prejudice and yes, I think it IS being rekindled. I believe that Israel is unknowingly cooperating with its own potential demise.
I am against war and violent conflict. I am in favor of justice. Yet given the fact that the world's professed leader in "spreading democracy" also moonlights as the chief arms' distributor, there's a vast moral contradiction (if not chasm) at work.
As for "taking names," since I use my name while others do not, I'd like an idea of who it is that I am communicating with. So I run a little tab now that lets me know (for reference):
1. Who is a shill for nuclear power
2. Who is in favor of the Draconian Arizona anti-human immigration "laws"
3. Who is a defender of the status quo, one that is anathema to all forms of life
4. Who is an Obama apologist
5. Who clamors for Israel to be erased from the map
6. Who speaks of violence to men when the topic of violence to women shows up
7. Who supports the homeland security state
8. Those who only think science has a basis for viability
9. Those who are pro-Christian STATE policies
10. Those who conflate new age with anything that might be genuinely spiritual, metaphysical, or reflective of Ancient universal Truths.
11. Other
Of course the fact that so many hide behind all sorts of screen names, and I am totally convinced a few use more than one WHEN they sign on, my "list" is more anecdotal than anything you might associate with McCarthyism, in case that was your intentional allusion.
Of the 6 items in your list, only items 2 and 3 don't get a very high volume of comments.
The recent Israel threads, after the convoy attack have gotten very high volume, BECAUSE of the convoy attack. Go back to before the convoy, and quite a few Israel threads were low volume too.
You know this full well. You know full well that Iraq, drones, torture threads are all high volume threads, hot button issues, on this site. Stop pretending otherwise.
Good post. It bothers me that legitimate criticism of Israels policies and Zionist exceptionalism can so quickly become super-emotional and degenerate into generalized attacks on Jews. This does not happen on other equally disturbing issues.
I am not so systematic in keeping track, but will not respond to certain shills I recognize UNLESS the issue they raise is one I have heard from honest friends and colleagues. In that case, I like to try to formulate short cogent responses and move on. The back and forth with people who are not ready to consider anything and like to argue for argument's sake degrades the discussion.
I would not accuse you of McCarthyism. Just discernment and trying to keep our comments productive and thought provoking. McCarthyism involves using the power of the state and corporations to punish dissenters, which you cannot / would not do.
I would add poverty to the list of issues that do not raise emotions commensurate with the damage being done daily. So much of the damage is diffuse, suffered by women and children distinctly unglamorous, and behind closed doors. So many people still subconsciously accept poverty as a natural state of affairs, and not the result of deliberate policies and value judgements. But that is too much to discuss here.
Joe
Sioux Rose
JOE & READY TO TRANSFORM: I agree with and admire both of your posts. Thank you for adding intelligence and fair-mindedness to this discussion.
RFLOH: I totally disagree with you. Higgs suggested the 400 + posts--just when the original attack occured may have explained the numbers as well as vitriol. Except for arguments on 911 and/or Chris Hedges, NO topics generate 200 posts. Nor does the level of hatred hit the outrage meter. Israel is being set up to be the fall guy for failed US foreign policy. If you read READY TO TRANSFORM'S above post, perhaps your sensibility will open, as you seem to have issues with me, personally. Your views on porn, for instance, disgust me; so it's quite evident that we view life from inordinately different prisms. Your sensitivity is molded along very narrow channels. To support porn, for instance, for YOUR OWN pleasure while it SERIOUSLY degrades half the world's population (and I am yet to know if you are male, female or trans-gendered) is sickening to me. Thus it is not suprising to me that you don't GET it about how Jews are made to feel just because they were born to a specific ethnicity. My spiritual beliefs are NOT in agreement with that religion, or any patriarchal religion. Because so many Jews grew up with the stigma, the prejudice, the sense of being "the outsider" when all the kids sang Christmas carols at school, pushing the church-state border aside, we maintain a sense of being the outcast. For many, this slight has lent itself to empathy for other marginalized groups. That explains why many Jews are prominent progressive/left thinkers.
Occasionally I agree with you, and I do believe I saw you pointing out something facturally wrong to someone on the anti-Israel (since that is what it was) thread. Coud we turn the clock back 60 odd years, I might not have thought creating a Jewish state in the Middle East was a particularly good idea. Of course I wasn't born at the time, either. So much of human history has involved the forced migration of one group or another, or a dominant colonizer seizing land. I do not feel Israel should be singled out for that status as our own nation is at least as guilty. This is what I mean about UNIVERSAL JUSTICE. It's awful to me that the nation that grants itself immunity in the darkest of deeds gets to arbitrate how the alleged World Court will or can function.
Thank you for your contributions, although we generally do not share common ground.
Thanks for the detailed response Sioux. I've been thinking of your posts, and value your passion and perspective.
You seem to be basing much of your criticism on that 400+ thread, and the outrage it exposed. There are a few things about that and other Israeli threads that are unique. The flotilla issue itself is unique, but beyond that there is the fact that any article that is critical of Israel brings out the Zionist/Israeli apologists who incite much of the vitriol and bloat the threads into the hundreds. Whereas, a thread on Drones will have few, if any, defenders to battle against. Many times I will be reading a thread, and if I find myself agreeing to the general thrust of the comments, I will not post, unless I feel I have something different to add the discussion. But, when I run into an Israeli apologist, I can rarely hold back. Just like many here will attack Obama apologists.
We all have our hot-button issues. For me, it's civil-liberties, Israel/Palestine, progressive politics and tactics, U.S. empire, and the environment.
Of course there are a few here who are anti-semitic. I don't believe they are legion.
Higgs Boson (the elusive particle, itself)
I have found anti semitic sentiments on cd posts when it comes to israel. I don't have the energy to go through it all. but you must have seen it, because it has been so blatant that some have even called them out on it.
I call it hate speech, myself. And i feel like i am swimming through the gulf of mexico after taking a swim through the toxic emotional intensity in that particular 'neighborhood'.
It is the vitriol that really causes me to skip the posts, often, on articles regarding israel. It feels like the flip side of the tea partiers, quite frankly. The level of venom is qualitatively different than the responses to any other subject. And that includes the ecocide which is threatening life on the planet itself.
And by the way, when people call for violence against BP executives, i feel offended by that as well. But i can tell you, i brace myself, when wandering into the territory of posts about israel. And have chosen to skip it for my own mental health.
Some of the posters, if i were to be in a room with them.....I would need to leave and run into the woods and remind myself that nature heals. It has quite frankly, caused me to feel ill. Yes, i take responsibility and skip a lot of it. Because it becomes redundant and often lacks creativity....
And indeed, the Aipac issue. It is one part of a much larger picture. It is offensive and obvoxious and i am the first to be outraged and sickened by israel's actions. I have been for many years and spoken out and done a lot of actions. i walk my talk and have taken more flak than i care to get into. And i have no sense of affiliation with the 'state'.
I am well aware that part of the anger is the facetious victim card that israel plays, while being the oppressor. Of course. How obvious is that. I have published articles on the subject. And that we expect more from those who suffered years of oppression and genocide themselves. Naturally. I don't support a Jewish state, to be honest. Nation states are a throwback. And i don't see it helps jews at all. It is idolotry. I resent the hell out of it, personally and have hoped it self destructed. I have been beyond pissed off.
Imagine what is feels like to need to hear they are acting in my name....
Sorry for the rant here, hb. However, when all the worlds problems are seen as focused on israel, and the u.s. is an innocent victim who just has a friend that works against our best interests, i find it hard to believe that posters here are that myopic and naive. And i was accused of being a troll for ? Not using hate speech in my condemnation. I noticed also, that the term 'troll' is only when someone has the audacity to support israel. But not when zionist jews are accused of taking over the u.s. government. That was acceptable.
O.k. Rant over. And it isn't really directed at you, believe me. I appreciate your posts, in fact. I just felt the need to speak my truth in an authentic voice.
Peace,
rita p.s. if anyone wants to bash me, then so be it.
I agree definitely there has been anti-semitic posts on the various Israel threads.
At the same time, they generally are called out. I try to call out the ones I see, that haven't been called out by other people.
As your posts point out, the vitriol directed at Israel, isn't unique despite what SR claims. The BP threads were no different.
"I noticed also, that the term 'troll' is only when someone has the audacity to support israel."
It isn't that a particular person supports Israel. It is when that person ONLY ever posts on Israel threads, engages in post and run tactics, and everything that that person posts is just parroting of the Israeli government line.
Thanks rfloh,
And i now understand the 'troll' concept. Although i was accused of being one last week - for the reason i gave you.
I think you hit the nail on the head, as you did in your essay "When Do We Stop Sitting Shiva for the Holocaust". Playing on one people's tragic history to justify creating a tragic history for another people is mind-boggling.
Joe
"Imagine what is feels like to need to hear they are acting in my name...."
I imagine it feels similar to watching the u.s. empire destroy the world in my name.
The Jewish people/Jewish state question baffles me. I can understand the Jews wanting a nation---the long history of persecution and diaspora are reason enough---but why go about it the way they have? At the very start, they kicked out the Palestinians. Couldn't they have given them equal rights as citizens---or even given them dual citizenship in a two state solution? And now, after all the wars and misery, all they really need do for peace is to return to the 1967 borders. But instead, the people of Israel elect a right-wing government bent on expansion and persecution. How can they annex the Golan Heights and expect to ever have peace with Syria? How can they build walls and settle in the occupied territories and expect a peaceful solution to the problem? My only answer is that they don't want peace. That the good people of Israel are propagandized by a complicit media, just like the people here are.
Anyway, thanks for the long response and kind words.
H.B.
So imagine what it is like having the u.s. empire destroy the world in my name,too. Then add israel claiming to act in my name as well!
Sorry, i couldn't resist! ;-)
Peace.
Some posts are childishly anti Jewish. They inflate the role of Jews in the world. I believe some of the posts are deliberately placed there to discredit criticism of Israeli policies.
Joe
well-said, JoeClientelle.
it can go both ways, indeed.
that said -- i have known very close jewish friends over the years, and consider many of my best or most memorable times with them. they ARE a good people, imo, no better or worse than others. but like any people, when bad leadership (such as for example how churches drone on about "god and salvation" that ends up leading people to wars) comes in - they are just as prone as any to commit atrocities that even their own people ought to have known are wrong because it was done to them.
there were quite some instances when very close jewish friends of mine and I had discussions about these things -- and I never shirked from telling them that I thought :
"Israel - your own israel is now behaving just like the nazis towards the jews - yes it is done in the name of security from existential threats and all that -- but it is STILL just like what the nazis did"......
and they agreed...and felt it was another reason that they themselves earned the hatred of others because of that "exceptionalism".
some opined that "this exceptionalism of jews -- don't believe it -- it's a myth..."
so - yes - one does have to have a clear enough conscience - or at least try to arrive at it as much as one can - NOT to lose the sense of clarity between ATrocious , criminal behavior of people and their governments - FROM the PEOPLE who are not ALL "like that".
it applies whether it is about "america" and americans, or jews and israel, or arabs and their states and islam, or chinese and their "communist party", or brazil and its parliament.
THE USA has no credibility.
rather than as the "world police" for ICC - the USA should be the MAIN defendant in charges from the ICC or any such organizations.
it is the USA that SHOULD be POLICED by all the world, regardless of their differences.
what is really needed - if it comes down to MILITARY power - such as that "needed to police the world" - is
countries should be contributing in an international "police" force to show ITS presence WHEREVER The USA puts its nose IN..and let the USA try to confront ALL the participating countries through their contributed forces.
what does it really take? (we are presuming here the basis of the discussion : "policing")
russia can afford 10,000 personnel
china can afford 4 times that
iran can afford 10,000
indonesia can afford 3 times that
brazil can afford 10,000
venezuela can afford 10,000
italy can afford 10,000
turkey can afford 20,000
etc...
what's the USA going to do ? rattle sabers at ALL of them at once?
bare its fangs and claws?
the USA as ICC "police enforcer?"
PERISH the thought!
you don't go and ask the biggest and main Creator of HAVOC everywhere to police ITS OWN Disastrous work...all it will do is CREATE MORE HAVOC.
as an important Turkish intellectual said very recently:
"THE USA goes everywhere and creates HAVOC -- and we , the people of the regions have to pick up the pieces all the time".
the world doesn't NEED policing by the USA.
it's the USA that needs to be POLICED by the world. INCARCERATED to REMAIN within ITS own borders and not an inch more! and if it wants to do business with others -- POLICE IT SOME MORE!
This idea is like letting the Israelis investigate the murders aboard the Turkish aid ship which was attacked in international waters. They give the worst criminal perpetrators civic awards, or something like that. Sooner or later peoples of the world are going to be sick of the US and Israel, and when enough of them band together hopefully heads will roll. If it doesn't end up in a nuclear Armageddon...
No, it's more like allowing big banks and Wall Street to self regulate. We can all see how well that worked out.
It seems to be all the same types who think they have a license to steal. "Laws and regulations are for the common (poor) people". Our congress is a better prime example, I guess.
Agreed, teddy.
Joe
Until Bush's and Obama's administrations are indicted and prosecuted, I see little reason for United Statesians to obey laws they find inconvenient.
Any potential esteem and significance the court may have aspired to will be gone if the US has any part in its operations. The court will become totally politicized to give impunity to America while bearing down hard on others. What a way to destroy a valuable asset in opposition to genocide and egregious activities by rogue governments.
You have got 2 be kidding me - the court that's supposed 2 be 4 world justice is
going 2 allow the biggest criminal violator 2 run the show or exercise force 2 do the courts' bidding - hopefully this is just a ploy 2 get the U.S.A. 2 sign on & join in with the rest of the other 111 nations & then prosecute them...
If the world is now globally connected in all ways - how can nations duck the rules of law - the mass majority of nations should win out over a select few...
The international community of nations' can not allow this 2 happen & the publics' outcry should be so "LOUD & CLEAR" so as it does not happen...
Everything America has touched it has destroyed - various nations can not allow this
2 happen - EVER...
Good article as usual, Glen Ford. I did not know that every indictment for war crimes has been against an African. That fact alone illustrates that the court is not about justice. It is an odd sort of justice system that requires you sign on in order to be held accountable.
"It's hard to emphasize how happy countries are to see us here," said State Department legal affairs official Harold Koh. - What an adolescent and narcissistic statement. What is he, the Prom Queen?
Joe
us LEADERSHIP - whenever it goes abroad thinks it is CINDERELLA....or Sleeping Beauty...
when in fact it is not only seen AS, but IS, the EVIL STEP MOTHER in sleeping beauty ......who can't stop asking :
"mirror , mirror on the wall, who is the fairest of them all? "
ALWAYS expecting :
"YOU, my beautiful USA"
and then goes on a tantrum when the answer goes "not YOU"...
Yes, and sadly you are right. When the USA lost the "glass slipper" to Brazil, ( for the Olympics,) I was really surprised by the
uproar!
Every nation has a date of its myth for Inspiration," but some have not acknowledged that time and dates move
on, and that there is also an "Expiration."
Police the world? We can't even police our own corporations. Since WWll, our government has become an unpredictable "rogue state" with little regard for international law, and is generally recognized as the greatest threat to world peace today. We have engaged in serial wars ever since the 1940s. The US has consistently refused to ratify international agreements (such as the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights, with good reason -- we disregard human rights.) The US does what it wants.
What some other countries find amazing is a fact that doesn't raise an eyebrow even among US progressives: Since our welfare "reform" was implemented, the infant mortality and maternal mortality rates among America's poor have shot up, surpassing those of most Third World nations, while the life expectancy of our poor has been on a fast downhill slide. This, in a country that supposedly has the best health care on Earth. In most countries, access to health care is regarded as a fundamental human right right. Not here.
A nation's policies show us its of sense of justice. Consider what we show. Our prison system makes the old Soviet Gulag look puny. It's no secret that whether or not you're sent to prison depends on your economic status more than your crime. Income disparities have soared while class mobility has just about disappeared. In response, our government has poured billions of dollars into corporate welfare while wiping out aid to the poor. This shows how the US would act on the international court. Justice?
These policies show the world how Americans perceive "justice". They show that the US is not well-suited for a position on the ICC.
The biggest terrorist nation as "world law enforcer"? What is this...some sick joke? The only law the US enforces is the one that suits it.