ForumGarden

Object to a country placing themselves under the authority of the International Criminal Court?

In this instance the US are threatening to cut aid to Palestine if they go ahead with their application.

If, as the US have often claimed, Palestine have broken international law and acted as or sponsored, terrorism then surely it is in their interest to have Palestine in a position where they can be prosecuted.

If, on the other hand, the US and Israel have acted within the law then the cannot be afraid of any lawsuit that Palestine might try to bring.

What motive does that leave?

Are you referring to this:

BBC News - Palestinians sign up to join International Criminal Court

I would say that the US objects to any action that puts Israel at peril, either real or perceived.

BBC News - UN Security Council rejects Palestinian resolution

The US itself redfuses to recognise the authority of the international criminal court unless americans are given immunity from prosecution - the prospect of finding it's troops in the dock over war crimes is not one the US can allow. Arguably they would be a target for politically motivated charges but that's becsause they interfere far more than most other countries in other nations affairs.

The problem for the US is that Israel is actually guilty of ignoring international law UN resolutions.

It proves the old adage "Might is right"

LarsMac;1470805 wrote: Are you referring to this:

BBC News - Palestinians sign up to join International Criminal Court

I would say that the US objects to any action that puts Israel at peril, either real or perceived.

BBC News - UN Security Council rejects Palestinian resolution


No, it was an article on the BBC saying that the US were threatening to withdraw aid if they went through with the application, unfortunately it now appears to have bee taken down.

Here is an equivalent article from the Israeli side :-

BBC News - Israel freezes Palestine tax funds over ICC bid

Bryn Mawr;1470822 wrote: No, it was an article on the BBC saying that the US were threatening to withdraw aid if they went through with the application, unfortunately it now appears to have bee taken down.

Here is an equivalent article from the Israeli side :-

BBC News - Israel freezes Palestine tax funds over ICC bid


Well in that piece we find,

Joining the ICC could see Palestinians pursue Israel on war-crime charges.
Given the latest developments, I can see why US and Israel would oppose such a move by Palestine.

I am not going to attempt to justify the actions of either country. Just an observation.

Hi! My name is Drake! Any entity that cannot find fault is automatically perceived to be an advocate. The U.S. does not want Palestine to acquire any new friends.

Ps. Neither Anne nor Trude approve of me contributing to any thread dealing with the U.S. so just between us my name is Drake.

High Threshold;1470830 wrote: Hi! My name is Drake! Any entity that cannot find fault is automatically perceived to be an advocate. The U.S. does not want Palestine to acquire any new friends.

Ps. Neither Anne nor Trude approve of me contributing to any thread dealing with the U.S. so just between us my name is Drake.


I think they just take exception to your blaming EVERYTHING on the US.

LarsMac;1470831 wrote: I think they just take exception to your blaming EVERYTHING on the US.


Well, they did invent coca cola, baseball caps, wall to wall WMD's and drive-by shootings. I guess they're not all bad, eh?

High Threshold;1470836 wrote: Well, they did invent coca cola, baseball caps, wall to wall WMD's and drive-by shootings. I guess they're not all bad, eh?


You have far too much time on your hands.

LarsMac;1470829 wrote: Well in that piece we find,

Given the latest developments, I can see why US and Israel would oppose such a move by Palestine.

I am not going to attempt to justify the actions of either country. Just an observation.


As I said, if Israel believes that it has not committed any war crimes then why would that bother them - it would give them an opportunity to exonerate themselves.

Bruv;1470838 wrote: You have far too much time on your hands.

Bryn Mawr;1470841 wrote: As I said, if Israel believes that it has not committed any war crimes then why would that bother them - it would give them an opportunity to exonerate themselves.


What, exactly would it mean for Palestine to join the ICC?

Palestine's ICC bid could mark turning point - Middle East - Al Jazeera English

Given the track record the ICC has in prosecuting war crimes, it seems to me that this would be little more than a political gesture, and the end result would be a lot more wasted resources.

The original crime against the Palestine people was committed by the Arab States in 1948.

Bryn Mawr;1470841 wrote: As I said, if Israel believes that it has not committed any war crimes then why would that bother them - it would give them an opportunity to exonerate themselves.


That's it in a nutshell.

High Threshold;1470854 wrote: That's it in a nutshell.
As I see it, the ICC is just another rehashed UN - and that doesn't have any teeth either. As has been demonstrated before, if America doesn't agree with the UN's rulings, it just ignores them.

FourPart;1470856 wrote: As I see it, the ICC is just another rehashed UN - and that doesn't have any teeth either. As has been demonstrated before, if America doesn't agree with the UN's rulings, it just ignores them.


Yes. But if I were to say it I'd be accused of being an "anti-american".

Remember when the U.S. were campaigning for their invasion of Irak on the basis of fabricated proof of WMD's? Germany and France (in particular) sent Rumfeldt packing with his tail between his hind legs. So the Americans started calling and threatening to pull their UN membership, saying it didn't have enough teeth to actually do anything. Ignoring the outrageous irony of that business for a moment (Ga-faw!) did you notice that the anti-UN rhetoric died down? I know you're not going to ask me why that was. Are you?

FourPart;1470856 wrote: As I see it, the ICC is just another rehashed UN - and that doesn't have any teeth either. As has been demonstrated before, if America doesn't agree with the UN's rulings, it just ignores them.


We are a sovereign nation. Like other nations can and should work in our best interests. Not like we are the only country which ignores the U.N. and goes about its way.

Better yet, the U.S.. China, France, United Kingdom, Russian Federation can stop any or all punitive actions against other nations.

Only takes one vote.

I am to lazy, and don't care but surely somebody has complied a list of nations which ignored the U.N.

tude dog;1470866 wrote: We are a sovereign nation. Like other nations can and should work in our best interests. Not like we are the only country which ignores the U.N. and goes about its way.


Sovereign Nation, huh? That must be where the Sovereign Citizens mentioned in the other thread come from.

High Threshold;1470859 wrote: Yes. But if I were to say it I'd be accused of being an "anti-american".

Remember when the U.S. were campaigning for their invasion of Irak on the basis of fabricated proof of WMD's? Germany and France (in particular) sent Rumfeldt packing with his tail between his hind legs. So the Americans started calling and threatening to pull their UN membership, saying it didn't have enough teeth to actually do anything. Ignoring the outrageous irony of that business for a moment (Ga-faw!) did you notice that the anti-UN rhetoric died down? I know you're not going to ask me why that was. Are you?


I would not accuse you of being anti-American. The entire business of the Iraq invasion was based on lies, All Lies.

FourPart;1470867 wrote: Sovereign Nation, huh? That must be where the Sovereign Citizens mentioned in the other thread come from.


Oh gee

It gets complicated, but in this country the Federal Government is sovereign. A citizen cannot sue the Fed without the Fed permission.

States have sovereignty.

On the international level I expect my government to represents me and I my fellow citizens best for our best interests, even if that means sending the U.N. far away from our shores.

tude dog;1470876 wrote:

Federal Government is sovereign. A citizen cannot sue the Fed without the Fed permission.

States have sovereignty.




I need some more info to work that one out.

tude dog;1470876 wrote:

It gets complicated, but in this country the Federal Government is sovereign. A citizen cannot sue the Fed without the Fed permission.

States have sovereignty.


Isn't that the definition of a Dictatorship?

tude dog;1470876 wrote: Oh gee

It gets complicated, but in this country the Federal Government is sovereign. A citizen cannot sue the Fed without the Fed permission.

States have sovereignty.

On the international level I expect my government to represents me and I my fellow citizens best for our best interests, even if that means sending the U.N. far away from our shores.


Oh, almost forgot

Sovereign Citizen

People make up a lot of stuff.

FourPart;1470879 wrote: Isn't that the definition of a Dictatorship?


No

Nothing dictated.

We choose to give this to our government. At the same time we make exceptions.

tude dog;1470884 wrote: No

Nothing dictated.

We choose to give this to our government. At the same time we make exceptions.


Who is this "We" ?

A lot of individual American citizens spread across the North American continent ?

Against a collection of highly sophisticated Political Parties with dubious histories ?

Who is kidding whom ?

Bruv;1470885 wrote: Who is this "We" ?




I'm gonna say the Constitution. You know the "We the People" thingy.

LarsMac;1470831 wrote: I think they just take exception to your blaming EVERYTHING on the US.


EVERYTHING? I don't even know what that means. I haven't blamed them for Berlusconi, Bob Denard, Idi Amin, apartheid, the battle at Balaclava, the death of Jomo Kenyatta, the failure of Joshua Nkomo to become president, the taxi wars in Jo'Burg, the deterioration of the water fountain in Valletta, my kitchen sink backing up this week, or the fact that Sweden lost the junior league match against Slovakia yesterday. So, what does this EVERYTHING mean? How can I be accused of something as absurd as that?

AnneBoleyn;1470886 wrote: I'm gonna say the Constitution. You know the "We the People" thingy.


That intangible, abstruse, esoteric Constitution do you mean ?

(I looked all them words up)

Bruv;1470909 wrote: That intangible, abstruse, esoteric Constitution do you mean ?

(I looked all them words up)


Oh Christ! :yh_rotfl

tude dog;1470876 wrote: Oh gee

It gets complicated, but in this country the Federal Government is sovereign. A citizen cannot sue the Fed without the Fed permission.

States have sovereignty.

On the international level I expect my government to represents me and I my fellow citizens best for our best interests, even if that means sending the U.N. far away from our shores.


A country either signs up to an organisation and agrees to abide by its rules and decisions or it does not sign up - you don't sign up and then pick and choose which decisions you abide by which is what the US appears to want to do.

Has someone got a full list of nations that hasn't signed up for this?

ICC facts and charges | Middle East Eye