U.S. Bans Military Aid to Almost 50 Countries

[He219]

http://news.lycos.com/news/story.asp?section=World&storyId=759349

[Andy]

I think the Bush goverment is carzy! What they think wat they are!

Andy

[budanski]

I think the Bush goverment is carzy! What they think wat they are!

Andy

Yeah, theyre crazy alright. They still manage to be the top supplier in Food aid to North Korea.

Care to elaborate there?

[He219]

Yes, please clarify. Bitte teilen Sie Ihre Meinung mit Uns - auf English!

[Trident-za]

I see my country is one of the banned ones....

I can understand the approach by America, and I think the whole prosecution of American "war criminals" is a bit of a joke.

But I do have a question about the principle of the matter. What happens if more countries (say, another 30 or so) decide that the International Criminal Court does not apply to them either? The whole thing is likely to become redundant very quickly. I mean, purely on the basis of principle, what makes the US special? Why are they immune to international law, and other countires are not?

And, to take it further... what happens if some of these countries decide that the Geneva Convention doesn't apply to them?

[He219]

Youre 86-ed until you grant us immunity, buddy. Hehehe


Based on the information initially available to *******, the countries subject to the suspension of military aid are:

Andorra, Antigua and Barbuda, Austria, Barbados, Belize, Benin, Brazil, Bulgaria, Cambodia, Central African Republic, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Dominica, Ecuador, Estonia, Fiji, Finland, Ireland, Latvia, Lesotho, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Malawi, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Namibia, Nauru, Niger, Paraguay, Peru, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa , Sweden, Switzerland, Tanzania, Trinidad and Tobago, Uruguay, Venezuela and Zambia.

The countries which received presidential waivers are:

Albania, Afghanistan, Bolivia, Bosnia, Botswana, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, East Timor, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Honduras, Macedonia, Mauritius, Mongolia, Nigeria, Panama, Romania, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Tajikistan and Uganda.

[Trident-za]

And another question: what are the criteria used to gain "waivers"? I see that the DRC and Sierra Leonne have received waivers... it surely cannot be for good conduct!! Just curious... it seems odd to me that those 2 countires get waivers, ridiculous actually.

[96B]

Trident you made a very good point about others perhaps deciding they want to join the US in not wanting to be a part of it. Personally, I dont know if I even support our guys being put on trial etc in other countries but I will say that a criminal is a criminal and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

I have not read anything about the article on CNN, MSNBC, or Fox News but perhaps I overlooked it. Does it mean that absolutely no military aid will go to those countries or does it just mean that those countries are subject to be denied military aid if the U.S. decides otherwise?

[He219]

Trident-za wrote:

what makes the US special? Why are they immune to international law, and other countires are not?
And, to take it further... what happens if some of these countries decide that the Geneva Convention doesn't apply to them?

There already are pre-existing international laws that govern the conduct of nations and individuals. Without proper checks and balances the ICC could become a mechanism for political persecution rather than legitimate legal prosecution. To say that the US feels 'immune' from international law is slanderous. Not agreeing to the terms of the establishment for the ICC hardly is a dismissal for the rule of law. Just look at the Courts in Belgium with respect to frivolous lawsuits. A comparison to the Geneva Convention is just plain Nuts!

The current denial of funding is a mechanism to leverage political pressure for recognition of our views. Military Aid and Assistance would certainly be continued in situations of National Interests like the war against coca in Colombia for example. Recognition of our intentions to withold military aid certainly will send a signal to those straddling the fence in the meantime. Look at it this way: Don't expect to get my tax-dollars if you don't respect our views on this issue.

He219

[FallenAngel]

But I do have a question about the principle of the matter. [...] what makes the US special? Why are they immune to international law, and other countires are not?

And, to take it further... what happens if some of these countries decide that the Geneva Convention doesn't apply to them?

I think the US takes the stance that as the "worlds 911 force" that they are entitled to certain privledges. Granted other countries commit thousands of their own troops, but NO where near the scale of the US forces in the world's conflicts. Consequently, the US takes a lot more casualties usually.

It's not saying that US troops would be exempt from being brought up on War Crimes, the US is saying that it can do it ourselves and it does not need an international court.

As for the Geneva convention- I think the US adheres to it pretty damn well for the past 30 years or so considering what we have to put up with. Hell, during the Gulf War, US troops sometimes gave up their own MREs to make sure the floods of Iraqi prisoners were well fed.

Also, another point, maybe the administration just can't afford to waste the resources. Due to the smaller amount of troops today than 10 years ago (Thank you f*cking Pres. Clinton) and the massive "war on terror" we have going on, we have to start managing our money and people to where they will have better impact. ;)

[Trident-za]

He219


I suggest you read your own post above... the one where you said "Youre 86-ed until you grant us immunity". At no point did I say that the US feels "immune". They are, however, asking that they be exempt from prosecution (read the article you linked to). Not sure quite who is being slanderous....

I do agree that the law can used for "political persecution", and it needs to be prevented. Please read my posts again, you should see that I agree with you. This is a cautionary note, as a matter of principle.....

It should be obvious that I never implied that the US ignores the Geneva Convention. Please read my posts again.

[James]

On what scale would the ICC prosecute offenders? If Private Nobody in Iraq or Afghanistan decided to murder a civilian, would he be tried? Or, is the ICC meant to persecute officers and public officials? It seems to me that it is something that might be abused. If anyone has good links for research, please let me know.

[He219]

Trident-za:

I mean, purely on the basis of principle, what makes the US special? Why are they immune to international law, and other countires are not?
First of all (you're 86-ed) was a reference to South Africa's denial of military aid. Don't take it personally, it was a joke. Perhaps I should qualify my statement in general terms saying that it is slanderous to equate immunity from the ICC as a desmissal for the rule of law. The comments were not directed at you, but as a response to the 'basis of principle' you were advancing. I do realize that you are playing Devil's advocate, hehehe.

As a signatory participant of the Geneva Convention we willfully pledge to obide by it's principles. The difference with the ICC is that we are not in agreement with it's conventions especially pertaining to a lack in 'due process of law' as we hold dear in our Constitution. The Geneva Convention applies to countries that endorse it's principles and become willful participants by ratifying it in their own laws. Drawing a parallel with to the two is a matter of Apples and Oranges or Fruit and Nuts!
:hug:
I certainly did not read your posts wrong and can only comment to generalized misperceptions the international community may have with our objections to the ICC as it pertains to the inherent lack of checks and balances that opens the possibility for abuse by 'political persecution'.

p-)
He219

[Trident-za]

Thanks for clearing that up, He219. Good post.

[warchild1/27scout]

geeze. it's our money. if we don't want to give it to somebody we don't even need a reason. it don't matter, we get brow beat wether we give some country money or not. the u.s. gives more aid to more countries than any other country. but then ofcourse some nit wit will say,waaa,you only give so much percent. the u.s. needs to be like daddy world and tell those countries "get off your arse and get a job and flap your wings were cutting that umbilical cord".

[Cpl Stumps]

I can remember that during Somalia a GySgt in the Marines shot a Somali kid with a canister of OO Buckshot from his M-79 because the kid reached into his humvee and tried to steal his sunglasses. The GySgt got 20 years in Leavenworth if I'm not mistaken. The U.S. holds it's troops to some pretty high standards as far as crimes committed during actions or wars. We treat the enemies wounded etc and are as ethical as most can be when your goal is to kill others. Yes I'm sure someone can quote chapter and verse on the bad things we've done, but do we really need to be held against this standard when we police our own quite well. I think what other people say about the ICC being used for political purposes is correct. Didn't somebody file war crime charges in Belgium against Gen. Franks after the fall of Baghdad??