U.S. Amends Plan to Ensure War Crimes Immunity

[NNN0LHI]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=564&ncid=716&e=15&u=/nm/20040623/ts_nm/un_court_usa_dc

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - The Bush administration is attempting to avoid defeat of its U.N. resolution seeking an exemption for U.S. soldiers from international prosecution by offering to extend the measure for one final year only.

Faced with mounting criticism of U.S. abuses of prisoners in Iraq (news - web sites), the United States on Tuesday proposed to amend a Security Council resolution on the International Criminal Court after it became clear it did not have enough votes.


Instead of pressing for an open-ended renewal of the resolution, first adopted in 2002, U.S. officials said they would not press for a renewal after June 2005.


On Wednesday, the 15 council members discuss the issue again, with diplomats speculating the compromise may have softened the opposition enough to give the United States the minimum nine votes it needs for adoption.

more

[Spazito]

1. What in the hell is the US planning to do that makes them so...

desperate to get this immunization against war crimes??? There can only be ONE explanation, they plan to continue to commit war crimes. This is appalling, imo. Whether it is an open-ended immunization or a time-limited immunization is moot. Bottom line: Don't commit war crimes and if you do, you suffer the consequences!

[TahitiNut]

6. This regime lowers the standards of morality and legality to toilet level.

Nothing is more consistent in the behavior of DimSon and the Busholini Regime than their constant lowering of standards. They repeatedly measure their behavior, not against the best standards, but against the (often straw-man) lowest possible standards, both legal and moral.

When they proclaim an "improvement in the economy" they do so using benchmarks that're the lowest in decades. August 2003 marked the lowest levels of employment in 60 years. Yet, this administration claims a 'success' based on mediocre improvements from that point. It's a bit like brutally mugging a victim and then, as the victim's health improves under the care of family and friends, taking credit for providing "health care."

While this regime loudly complained about the mere filming of US POWs - fully clothed, fed, and unmolested - they proclaim their own right to strip, assault, molest, threaten, and abuse others ... all based on an extreme and specious definition of 'torture' that lowers the standards to sheer barbarism and blaming the victims themselves for not being "the right kind of people"!!

The examples of taking credit for 'exceeding' standards of the lowest and basest kind imaginable while holding others to higher standards are legion in both DimSon's individual case (TANG anyone?) and throughout this criminal administration.

[Edmond Dantes]

8. Perhaps the issue is not "what they intend to do" but, rather

"what they have already done"?

I fear we do not yet know the full torture story. Remember that we haven't seen all of the Abu Ghraib photos. And what unphotographed atrocities might the US have committed?

[Spazito]

9. Unfortunately, they had "immunity" from what they did at Abu Graib...

with respect to the International Courts because of a previous UN resolution. That immunity, however, does protect them from prosecution by the United States itself as reflected in US Code Title 18, Section 2441. The previous UN resolution I referred to expires June 30th of this year and that is why the US is desperate to get an extension. Again, why the desperation???

[TahitiNut]

12. I disagree.

Neither Iraq nor Afghanistan are "peacekeeping missions." They are invasions, and not even "preemptive" ones - as shown by the lies about the purported threats.

[Spazito]

13. Ahhhh, good point! I stand corrected, gladly!

Thanks for this!

[whosinpower]

2. After 2005

There will no longer be a UN if Bush is re elected.

I hope they tell them - NO IMMUNITY FOR YOU!!!!! ( like Seinfeld's soup nazi! )

[displacedtexan]

3. Hmmmmmm... Just enough time

to beat a path out of Dodge!


Edited to include:

Did you read any of the comments?

Scathing anti-Bush*!

Here's an example...

CONS AVOIDING STORY LIKE PLAGUE
by: wasteland_of_the_tree (M/Crawford, TX) 06/23/04 09:40 am
Msg: 3333 of 3354
8 recommendations

This must seem like an out of control Wack-A-Mole game to them. The more they defend shrub - the more shrub does that needs to be defended.

[FloridaPat]

4. Bush could be on trial when he looses in November. I would

even pay to see that!

[TahitiNut]

14. I'd love to see the Federal Marshals arrest him as Kerry says "So help me

... God" next January. Such a scene would go a long ways to restoring my faith in our nation.

[GoBlue]

5. Just say NO

eom

[Spazito]

7. Whoo Hoo, the crap compromise isn't working!!!

U.S. Still Lacks Votes on Immunity from Global Court

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - The United States apparently failed to win crucial backing on Wednesday for a compromise U.N. resolution to exempt U.S. soldiers from international prosecution, diplomats said.

aced with mounting criticism of U.S. abuses of prisoners in Iraq (news - web sites), the United States on Tuesday proposed to amend a Security Council resolution exempting U.S. personnel from prosecution by the International Criminal Court to get the needed support.


Instead of pressing for an open-ended renewal of the resolution, first adopted in 2002, U.S. officials said they would not press for a renewal of the measure after June 2005.


But on Wednesday, key diplomats said no nation had changed its stance in the 15-member council, raising the possibility the Bush administration might withdraw the measure.

more

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=564&ncid=716&e=15&u=/nm/20040623/ts_nm/un_court_votes_dc

[ItsThePeopleStupid]

10. the article has been changed

it just says US withdrew the resolution, and nothing about another resolution extending immunity for a year.

I guess this means they didn't succeed, even for a year extension, as Spazito's article says, and they've given up. (I feel like a Kremlinologist.)

[struggle4progress]

11. Great!

<snip>
"The United States has decided not to proceed further with consideration and action on the draft at this time in order to avoid a prolonged and divisive debate," said James Cunningham, the U.S. deputy ambassador. "We are dropping action on this resolution."


Washington in the past has threatened to veto U.N. peacekeeping missions if the resolution giving it immunity from the new International Criminal Court were not adopted. Cunningham would not comment about whether it would carry out the threat this time.
<snip>