U.S. Delays World Court Exemption Plan

[Robbien]

Associated Press

UNITED NATIONS - The United States delayed consideration of a resolution calling for a new exemption for U.S. troops from international prosecution for war crimes.

"All I know is that it's been deferred and will be taken up in due course," U.S. deputy ambassador Stuart Holliday said Tuesday, noting the current exemption doesn't expire until June 30.

A U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Washington wants to concentrate now on getting the Iraq resolution adopted and denied that it was short of votes to pass the exemption for U.S. peacekeepers.

. . .
Richard Dicker, director of the International Justice program at Human Rights Watch, said the United States was forced to put off a vote because Security Council members were acting in support of the court. "This ill-conceived resolution is running into a firestorm of opposition," Dicker said. "They don't have the votes and they're as much as saying so."

http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/mld/ledgerenquirer/news/...

[Spazito]

1. Yessssss!!

The message has been sent clearly, don't put it on the table!

[2Design]

2. This has something to do with his deadline of june 30th for turnover

there is a game plan.....trying to avoid being caught as war criminal.....

without the exemption and with usa in charge......there must be some consequences we don't even know about....

[bemildred]

3. Of course not, no problem with the votes.

We just need to focus on other things right now.

[FleshCartoon]

4. Timing is everything.

How convenient.

[ConcernedCanuk]

5. "They don't have the votes and they're as much as saying so"

.
.
.

Hmmmm

Guess the US has to find a way to bribe and threaten a little more.

Give 'em time.

give 'em time . . .

(sigh)

[leesa]

6. Why can't they just flat-out reject it?? They have the strongest case in

the world. We have proven in spades that no one can be exempted from these rules and punishments.

[dusty64]

7. I can't imagine why

they'd have trouble getting this through.

[dArKeR]

8. UN defers vote to spare US from war court

By Irwin Arieff

United Nations - The Security Council has indefinitely delayed plans to take up a United States draft resolution shielding American peacekeepers from prosecution by a new global criminal court, a US diplomat said on Tuesday.

The resolution, which human rights groups argue is especially inappropriate so soon after the Iraqi prisoner abuse scandal, had been expected to come to a vote in the 15-nation council last on Friday and again on Monday.

But the vote was called off on Friday after China's UN envoy said he had no instructions from Beijing, and Monday passed with no word on rescheduling.

http://iol.co.za/index.php?click_id=3&art_id=qw10855035...

How much will the American citizens have to pay for Bush's deal with the dirty immoral Communist Chinese bastards?

[Dover]

11. From your article:

...The United States announced last week they wanted it signed, sealed and delivered by Friday. But it is running into a rising tide of opposition," he told Reuters.

'It will be taken up in due course'
Among the 15 council nations, at least four - Brazil, Spain, Germany and France - are expected to abstain. In addition, Benin also may abstain and Romania has said it wanted to abstain unless this would result in the resolution failing.

Two years ago a similar resolution was passed unanimously but last year three nations abstained.

The court, the first permanent global war crimes tribunal, was set up to prosecute the world's worst atrocities, such as genocide, mass war crimes and systematic human rights abuses.

The United States, under former President Bill Clinton, was one of 135 nations to sign the 1998 treaty creating the court.

But the Bush administration rescinded the signature, fearing the court could be used for politically motivated or frivolous suits against US troops serving on foreign soil.

None of the US prisoner abuses alleged in Iraq are eligible for prosecution by the court.

The American draft would exempt "current or former officials" from prosecution or investigation if the individual came from a country that did not ratify the treaty creating the tribunal.

[goforit]

9. LOL!!!!..............I just wonder!!!

[Don_G]

10. I Don't Understand

Ya think our Commander-In-Chief can't hold his Pretzels in front of the UN?

[Dover]

12. Excellent info on this at NOW web site. Last Friday's show covered this.

On last Friday's NOW with Bill Moyers (May 21),
Scott Horton, President of the International League for Human Rights leant a great deal of clarity to how this story has been unfolding and what the administration's attitudes and legal actions have been regarding the Geneva Conventions.

http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/horton.html

[Spazito]

13. The bus cabal is desperate to have the handover by June 30th..

and the protection from prosecution for war crimes ends June 30th. Darn, just another coincidence I'm sure.

[Tellurian]

17. with this flood of new information...

...the US has lost it's excuse for needing protection from the ICC because of frivolous claims. The prisoner scandals can hardly be called frivolous and should by all means be prosecuted.

...The ousting of Chalabi has definitely been a setback to the timing of the June 30th takeover forcing Bush to fall back and regroup.

...The timing of the signing of the CCI agreement on June 30th. There are no coincidences in life.

[Spazito]

18. Yep, if they can't complete the faux turnover by June 30th...

they will still be the "occupiers" and subject to prosecution of war crimes under the Geneva Conventions once their protection expires June 30th. There has to be a sense of panic at the top.

[Tellurian]

19. Yes, Spaz...

I'm quietly smiling at the visualization of Bush squirming between the rock and the hard place..although, just hearing the terror alert has just been ratcheted up to orange, could this be a signal to insiders the Bush clan are about to unleash a major catastrophic event, once more plunging us into distraction and chaos?

[Spazito]

20. bush is in a lose/lose situation, imo, if an attack occurs...

it will prove he is incapable of protecting US citizens. If they try to say they stopped an attack or attacks, they will have to prove how with more detail than they have provided previously as their credibility with the US public is plummeting. They have cried wolf once too often and this latest "alarm" has no details of any kind just like all the others.

[Tellurian]

21. Gore will be calling for the Bush Team's resignation tonight..

I want to make sure I have a straight understanding of the strategy in play now, if you can..

I understand the ramifications of 6/30 ICC Court/the Iraqi handover/The Pats Act. The next puzzle piece.. If Bush is Impeached or resigns after 6/30 he will be vulnerable to the ICC court?

I hope Gore during the course of tonight's speech has the tenacity to prempt the forcasted terrorist attack by assessing blame to Bush ahead of time if it happens again.

[Spazito]

23. On the ICC, it can only take action if a country refuses to prosecute...

themselves. If bush were to resign or be impeached (both I think are highly unlikely)and the democrats were to win the election then it would be the Kerry administration that would be responsible for prosecuting the offenders. If they chose not to and there is credible evidence of war crimes then the ICC can come into play. The protection against war crimes resolution only protects the US from prosecution by other countries, not from within the US itself. If the UN resolution that was just pulled is not passed by June 30th, it is war crimes committed after that date that can be charged and prosecuted by other countries, that's my read on it for what it's worth.

[Tellurian]

24. thanks for the clarification, Spaz..

appreciate your taking time for the explanation.

[Spazito]

25. You're very welcome!

[Mandate My Ass]

14. We only need to torture a few more people...

C'mon.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

15. In other words, we're making them show their cards.

Just like last time.

[Athame]

16. Get back up there!

[yellowcanine]

22. "Nothing to see here folks. Keep moving. It is not a setback! Stop

saying that! We do too have a plan!"