.... ooooops..... I just got a message from (neo)Control. He says we're starting to edge close to a couple of Opsec areas, and to knock it off.
Maybe we should just send out black helicopters full of troops from the New World Order Army to kidnap anyone who has read this thread? Just to be sure. I'll handle the A-M's, you take care of N-Z.
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The measure, introduced last month and then withdrawn, would extend such protection to American soldiers participating in United Nations-approved peacekeeping forces.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."
-------------------------------------------------
And
There was an article on this posted at today's nationalPost. It ends with the following:
IOW, the administration apparently feels the blanket immunity from the UN is irrelevant, given these bilateral treaties. HOWEVER, I would feel more comfortable if our ambassador to the UN would forcefully reiterate that : 1. it is a gross insult to national sovereignty to claim that a nation is bound by a treaty it specifically rejected-that goes against the UN's own bylaws re: sovereignty; 2. that our laws state that the US Constitution is the supreme law over US citizens ; and 3. Any attempts to bring US citizens before this tribunal, by ANY country or countries, will be considered a hostile act which the US will retaliate against with all means at its disposal, NOT excluding war.
We must make it clear to the scum of the earth that we are willing to see large numbers of their soldiers die , if that's what it takes to have our national sovereignty respected.
--------------------------------------
And
U.S. Ends Bid for Protection From War Crimes Tribunal (Update1)