Replies

How did we cave on the UN court?

Answer after considering the following:

1. We are not a party to the court THANKS TO BUSH and thus, immune from prosecution.

2. We now have a year to try to settle the dispute over peacekeeping (if our proposal is accepted) without having to worry about the unlikely event that some prosecutor will dare try a U.S. military officer. The chance of some overzealous prosecutor actually having the gall to try to prosecute a soldier of a country that is not a party to the court.....especially the U.S.....is extremely unlikely.

3. We have the option to extend the period of immunity if the dispute is not resolved in our favor.

Now, certainly we are being less heavy-handed. But, that does not mean we have caved. It means our strategy has changed. But, I dare you to show me where we are now saying we don't care about our sovereignty and don't want immunity. WE WANT IMMUNITY, but are going to propose it for a shorter period of time so we can hopefully get it to where they will grant permanent immunity before the year is up.

That is YOUR take on the situtation. We have fallen a long distance from "exempt us or shove it", to "well ok, you can bring our people before your court but you have to wait a year or more to being investigations".

What makes you think for one jumpin jack minute, given Bush's history, that he won't cave on our military? He has certainly opened the door for the next President to cave. Just like he left the door open for a broader range of stem cell research.

. We have the option to extend the period of immunity if the dispute is not resolved in our favor.

And if they say the dreaded word... "no"... ???

We really stepped in a tar pit with this UN peace keeping stuff.