Posted on 06/23/2004 5:04:14 PM PDT by BriarBey
I don't disagree with you on his understanding of the left, it's actually what best powers him in my mind. I do still listen to him now and then, if even for a short time, just not as often as I once did.
Did you miss the story about how we're trying to get the wording changed?
I'm sure you did, but you just go right along with your rantings.
ok people look up Kewlhand`tek i have been here ages. I may not vote for badnarik, dont know much about him, in fact up until last week I though gary nolan was the candidate. I am just beside myself over this issue, even if its a one time event especially for the abu gharib gaurds It STILL IS NOT RIGHT. I may just write a letter to Bush(like he will read it) and still vote for him.
U.S. Rewords a Resolution on Immunity for Its Troops
By WARREN HOGE
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/23/international/23NATI.html?ex=1088568000&en=05d0331a2974eff4&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE
Published: June 23, 2004
NITED NATIONS, June 22 — The United States circulated a reworded resolution among Security Council members on Tuesday evening to try to overcome broad opposition to its effort to keep its troops immune from any prosecution by the International Criminal Court.
The measure, introduced last month and then withdrawn, would extend such protection to American soldiers participating in United Nations-approved peacekeeping forces. The current expiration for such immunity is June 30.
Advertisement
That same day, next Wednesday, Iraq regains sovereignty and the mostly American force there becomes a United Nations-mandated one. The United States is pressing hard for a vote beforehand.
This is the third year in which the United States has sought the exemption, and though there were three abstentions last year and several more expected this year, American diplomats in May said they felt confident they could obtain support for a "technical rollover" of the measure.
The Bush administration says the protection stops people from using the court to bring politically motivated war crimes prosecutions against Americans abroad.
Last week, Secretary General Kofi Annan called on the Security Council to turn back the American move, saying it was "of dubious judicial value" and particularly objectionable in the aftermath of the prisoner abuse cases in Iraq.
Mr. Annan said that passing the measure would discredit the council, the United Nations and the "primacy of the rule of law," and he appealed to the 15 members to maintain the common purpose they had shown earlier this month in voting unanimously on a resolution affirming the arrangements for transferring power in Iraq.
That appeal caused several nations to rethink their backing of the original resolution and of their reluctance to be seen as defying the United States.
The version that American diplomats circulated on Tuesday dropped language in the original proposal that expressed the intention to renew the one-year exemption each July 1 for further 12-month periods "for as long as may be necessary."
Mr. Annan had protested that the clause would perpetuate United Nations approval of what was meant to be a temporary emergency departure from international law.
The new language pledges that this request for a one-year exemption is the last.
James B. Cunningham, the American deputy ambassador, said the ambassadors would consult with their governments overnight and that the United States would wait to hear how the compromise was received before deciding whether to put it to a vote.
Richard Dicker, director for international justice at Human Rights Watch and an opponent of immunity for American troops, expressed doubt that the compromise would change enough minds. "I wonder how one reconciles support for even one year's exemption with the very strong words of the secretary general," Mr. Dicker said.
But Abdallah Baali, the Algerian ambassador, said he thought otherwise. "A number of countries have been looking for a gesture from the Americans," Mr. Baali said, "and this could be that gesture."
We are already EXTREMELY upset about our guys from Abu G. being tried for anything AT ALL. Those prisoners were merely humiliated and nothing more. Our guys don't deserve what they are getting. Makes me want to cry...so yes when I hear they are being turned over to a World Court like Hitler I come unglued. You people know alot and that is why I am asking. Not to be attacked but to hear the truth.
just take it easy and see how it all plays out. there are alot of diplomatic moves going on. to be honest, if this means the US will never allow peacekeepers under the UN banner - that's great.
Now THAT we can agree on.
And they're ALL being floated by the very same people right here on this forum.
their conduct as military people, was out of line. their frat house behavior, the picture taking, that cannot be allowed. of course, its not torture or murder, but its not acceptable either.
I can't believe Bush would do such a thing.
I don't want to believe it either....BUT I also don't fully trust any polititian...so that is why I came running to FR. to find out what the heck is goin on. Course you always have those so filled with hate they look for any reason to attack. Even a simple question from someone who heard this and it scared them.
You dont trust ANY politician?
You DON'T trust Bush?
its OK, several people provided the link with the real story for you.
look, FR is an open forum, you have to have a thick skin here.
You DON'T trust Bush?
Only so far. Not 100%....things are to crazy.
Do you trust anybody 100 percent?
Did you expect to trust Bush 100 percent?
Did you expect to agree 100 percent with every single thing he did?
Grow a thicker skin and don't automatically beleive what Savage has to say.
JMO, I've listened to him a couple of times and IMO, he makes conservatives look bad.
Everytime you hear something that's either way out of sync with what you think Bush would do, or sounds too horrible to be true, just wait a little for the facts to become clear, or for an explanation of the facts.
What it really comes down to is Bush or Kerry, and I think everyone on this thread has probably disagreed with something Bush has done or said, but we've got to stick behind this very decent and honorable President, or live with the consequences...JOHN KERRY!!!!
The U.S. will continue to seek bilateral agreements that grant protection from the court, according to Cunningham. The U.S. has negotiated accords with 90 nations that have agreed not to refer accusations against U.S. citizens to the court.
U.S. Ends Bid for Protection From War Crimes Tribunal (Update1)
See #57 and then you can apologize to President Bush.
Too late.
The sky has already fallen.
I know coffee cup annon, but this time it was actually dead coffee. As in old coffee beans.. LOL
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.