h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

"that's what soldiers are for. They chose to die, so let 'em, that's what they're paid for"

Ooh, *basic* error. Soldiers are not paid to die. They are paid to KILL. Just think about the difference for a moment.

H.

Assuming the US troops don't burn down a village or drop an atom-bomb on a primary school (and I assume they won't. Call me a naive fool ) then, actually, it's not a bad deal.

At the end of the day, the US has backed down. One day they may even see some sense on the issue.

"Assuming the US troops don't burn down a village or drop an atom-bomb on a primary school in the next year (and I assume they won't. Call me a naive fool ) then, actually, it's not a bad deal."

What I meant to say

They have burned down villages before. And there has been trouble with rape and child abuse among peace keeping troops(from different countries) so I guess I don't feel so secure.

"The US has behaved badly in the past, but is *not* comparable to Pol Pot, who starved and worked half his own country to death or Stalin who murdered millions for their political beliefs or because they didn't agree with him. As for Adolf Hitler, jeeze even the Vietnamese would probably say you were being daft there"

Pol Pot (2.5 million) and Stalin (probibly over a million) both killed fewer civilians than the US have since the wwii. Hitler was perhaps a bit extreme. But my bias is based not on the pure math of the situation, but the way that the US commits murder, torture and mass destruction around the globe, and then takes a moral high ground suggesting that it's the bastion of freedom, democracy and right Christian thinking. And does so purely for money and greed.

That's what gets to me most, that they don't at least try and hide it. They just say something about freedom and democracy, it seems the American people will accept anything as long as you use those keywords.

"But my bias is based not on the pure math of the situation, but the way that the US commits murder, torture and mass destruction around the globe, and then takes a moral high ground suggesting that it's the bastion of freedom, democracy and right Christian thinking. And does so purely for money and greed."

Well, first off, I would guess that your findings are down to speculation rather than fact (no, I'm not saying it didn't happen, but why should I trust committed anti-americans any more than the US government?). Also, these crimes are committed by "different" US governments. So lumping the current US administration alongside the Nixon/Kissinger years is a bit silly. Like laying into the current French governments actions because of what they did in their "overseas departments" in the post-war years.

The dictators I mentioned killed their millions in one regime. Also ,they did it deliberately. I'd imagine some of those "US killed" people were actually killed by right-wing goon squads who worked for regimes that were only US-supported. That's some responsibility, but not US-carried-out.

But the US trained the death squads; wrote the manual of procedures; backed them with US troops, weapons, intelligence and money; kept their states afloat at the expense of popular governments; just because the US is too precious about it's own blood to spill it doesn't mean the actions of your hired hands aren't still your responsibiliy.

As for the 'one regime' bit, i'd say the 3.5-4 million dead in the Reagan /Bush years counts. As does the larger toll in the Nixon years, or the Truman / Eisenhower period. But ultimately it makes no difference who's the President - that's not the regime, the name plate on the white house may change, but it's the same political elite, the same governmental structure, the same backroom boys, the same staff in the CIA, and the same de facto regime.

"As for the 'one regime' bit, i'd say the 3.5-4 million dead in the Reagan /Bush years counts. As does the larger toll in the Nixon years, or the Truman / Eisenhower period. But ultimately it makes no difference who's the President - that's not the regime, the name plate on the white house may change, but it's the same political elite, the same governmental structure, the same backroom boys, the same staff in the CIA, and the same de facto regime."

Again, is that speculation or have you any concrete proof that there is a clique of nutcases doing all this who always remain in the Pentagon and the White House.

My whole point was that you said "America" (note: the country not a gang of shadowy hawkish cold-warriors) was as bad as Hitler or Stalin.

"but the way that the US commits murder, torture and mass destruction around the globe, and then takes a moral high ground suggesting that it's the bastion of freedom, democracy and right Christian thinking. And does so purely for money and greed."

Also, you say this as though this is somehow exceptional. Nazi Germany and the USSR also claimed the "moral high ground". Everyone does. There has never been a murderous regime or dictator who said "We hate freedom and we want to kill anyone who stands against us".

To take the moral high ground and say "we will destroy you because we are right and you are wrong", however misguided, is at least not hypocritical. To say "we are against killing and dictatorships" and then installing murderous dictators is. That's the only point i was making.

If you want to know the names of the carrer terrorists in the US, read the Christic Institute files and the Church Commision report, and the SOA watch briefs.

"Again, is that speculation or have you any concrete proof that there is a clique of nutcases doing all this who always remain in the Pentagon and the White House."

I'm not saying I have extra evidence but government agencies don't change their staff/leaders with administrations. The exceptions being emtreemist nations that "get rid of" anyone from previous administrations. Cronies tend to stick around.

oh lordy. I have created another What is wrong with Americans thread. I really didn't intend to.
Sorry.

I will do my best to give my opinion with out rambling on your original question Kelli. Though there are several reasons out there the one i seem to give most creed to is:

The ICC is a international and highly political organization. The US does not want it's soldiers to be judged on partison grounds by a member or members of this organization that habour anti-american views. If this seems implausable to you just look at some of the threads on h2g2 where yank bashing seems to be invogue.

I don't really know what the proposed composition of the ICC will be, or what kind of mandate will be required to intitiate a trial. Could anyone tell me?

It seems more than a little paranoid of the US to me, to assume that the whole ofthe international community is going to turn on their citizens for 'political' reasons. And if it did occur, if the bulk of the worlds governments believed that the US was doing something terribly wrong, then aren't the odds on they, yes they are doing something wrong?

Any information on the constitution of the court would be greatfully recieved.

http://www.un.org/law/icc/statute/99_corr/4.htm

Specifically:

Article 36
Qualifications, nomination and election of judges

1.Subject to the provisions of paragraph 2, there shall be 18 judges of the Court.

(...)

3.(a)The judges shall be chosen from among persons of high moral character, impartiality and integrity who possess the qualifications required in their respective States for appointment to the highest judicial offices.

(b)Every candidate for election to the Court shall:

(i)Have established competence in criminal law and procedure, and the necessary relevant experience, whether as judge, prosecutor, advocate or in other similar capacity, in criminal proceedings; or

(ii)Have established competence in relevant areas of international law such as international humanitarian law and the law of human rights, and extensive experience in a professional legal capacity which is of relevance to the judicial work of the Court;

(c)Every candidate for election to the Court shall have an excellent knowledge of and be fluent in at least one of the working languages of the Court.

(...)

7.No two judges may be nationals of the same State. A person who, for the purposes of membership of the Court, could be regarded as a national of more than one State shall be deemed to be a national of the State in which that person ordinarily exercises civil and political rights.

8.(a)The States Parties shall, in the selection of judges, take into account the need, within the membership of the Court, for:

(i)The representation of the principal legal systems of the world;

(ii)Equitable geographical representation; and

(iii)A fair representation of female and male judges.

(b)States Parties shall also take into account the need to include judges with legal expertise on specific issues, including, but not limited to, violence against women or children.
(...)

As for initiating a proceeding see
PART 5. INVESTIGATION AND PROSECUTION
Article 53 (Initiation of an investigation) et seq.
http://www.un.org/law/icc/statute/99_corr/5.htm

The removed posting 96 is mine. Read http://www.un.org/law/icc/statute/99_corr/4.htm
to find out what it said while I consider complaining about the removing of the posting ...

That is just the point flinch. it would not be the "whole" of the international communitie.