U.S. Backs Down From Immunity Demand

abc ^ | 7/10/02

[Digger]

Ole Bubba must stay awake nights wondering why he couldn't get away with his stuff while this president walks all over conservatives & they act like the NOW crowd for Bubba.

[Excuse_My_Bellicosity]

Watch out, that first step is a lu-lu!!

[altair]

Canada's U.N. Ambassador Paul Heinbecker, who requested the open meeting, warned that the United States was putting the credibility of the Security Council, the legality of international treaties, and the principle that all people are equal and accountable before the law at stake.

Interesting spin. The first two are just fine with me. The third has never been and will never be true. The Clintons of the world who are above the law now will still be above the law ICC or no ICC.

[Lancey Howard]

I am surprised and disappointed that this report by ABC, from the United Nations, is taken as truthful on its face by a lot of posters who should know better by now. I even see the names of a few of the same suckers who were jumping up and down a few weeks ago when that silly "EPA-man-causes-global-warming-Bush-admits" report came out. Only to be laughed off the next day by Bush himself.

Of course, I also see the names of a few "liberaltarians" who like to take a break from their DU circle jerk to stop in and bash Dubya on FR from time to time. Yawn.

[Blackyce]

Bush Caves, what a surprise.

[Check6]

W's moral equivalent to "read my lips". They figure the conservatives will forgive him come November. Inevitable slide to the left.

[ibme]

Maybe we should wait to see exactly what happens before we start criticizing GW. Man, you people are so transparent.

When something hits the fan and lands all over your face, you can tell by the smell what happened!

[Blackyce]

What'd you guys expect; he still hasnt ever vetoed anything by the way.

[altair]

A year will give us time to UNSIGN the treaty.

I thought the treaty already was unsigned.

[meyer]

Makes you wonder who's in charge.

Man, I was giving him accolades for his move a week or two ago; now this. This better be a trick. I'm beginning to wonder who is in charge as well.

[Honorary Serb]

America should insist on immunity from the muslim/New World Order ICC! And then we should get OUT of Bosnia and Kosovo anyway, and let the Serbs take back what is rightfully theirs!!!!

[tomahawk]

If this happens, it is a f***ing outrage. This would allow the Eurotrash and UN Leftwhores to put our people in the dock for hurting people in the middle of a war.

[Askel5]

Oh, I'm sure the Pragamatists have it all under control.

[MJY1288]

We will not be apart of the ICC, but this article is about immunity from the ICC in our peace keeping forces around the world. This article by the non-partisen :-) ABC would like to make you think the President is signing on to the ICC but he is not. It's about immunity for our troops so they don't get dragged into their court for political reasons, very simular to the way we were kicked off the Human Rights Commission.

This is not a cave in to the U.N. it's an extension to the debate while placing an umbrella over our troops from politically motivated war crimes charges. If we were to piss off every nation by pulling our troops from areas where we are needed most for peacekeeping missions, meanwhile... at the same time we are asking for their support in fighting our war on terrorism, we would be burning a lot of bridges by withdrawing our troops from around the world (which would result in caotic situations in some cases) and possibly force some of our allies to discontinue their support of our efforts.

This is politics on the world stage... That's all. No cave in just postponing a crisis

[tomahawk]

Bush goes in the dock first, for being in command of U.S. military forces that are continuously killing non-combattants (unavoidable in our war for survival).

[terilyn]

Did any of you read the article or did you just read the headline and the first paragraph:

Read on:

"The new draft U.S. resolution asks the court for a 12-month exemption from investigation or prosecution of peacekeepers and "expresses the intention to renew the request ... for further 12 month periods for as long as may be necessary."

Translate that to: For as long as we're expected to be the police force for the world.

[CyberAnt]

"president already unsigned it"

Really?? When did he do that??

[Frank_Discussion]

Three Data Points to Consider:

1. The abcnews.com report was published at 7:35pm Eastern, when the WH would be slow to respond. A sucker punch, via our wonderful, unbiased media. < hah! > I think a better picture will emerge in the morning, so let's wait.

2. The treaty isn't signed, so we could say winged monkeys must fly out out of the UN's a$$ to capture war criminals, and it doesn't matter.

3. The 12 month immunity thing provides a lot of wiggle room.

As long as GWB doesn't sign the treaty, we can do what the heck we need to "in the field" to fight wars and keep the peace. If the UN is willing to take the looped end of the rope, let 'em - we got a war to fight, and we need the UN off of our backs.

(I Still think we should just leave the UN and watch it blow away...)

[tomahawk]

We don't need Eurotrash or UN permission for an exemption. We should exempt ourselves. That's all.

[rwfromkansas]

Okay, I can stand this. The proposal includes the fact we will renew the ban in the future if necessary.

It doesn't really seem to me like we are backtracking much, as we still are demanding immunity.

I would PREFER us sticking to the old proposal, however. It would have ended the matter permanently and if everyone did not agree, we could stop all peacekeeping missions to bring them in line.

Too bad we did not go that route, but at least we aren't going to support something that will keep our troops POSSIBLY open to prosecution.