Cleaning up such places is a great idea, and proper military action is beneficial as well. However, an invasion is a different story. Even michelle noted that an iraq-style invasion is not in order.  Invasion of a country causes casualties on both sides, and depending on the reason for the invasion this may be appropriate. Other cases such as our invasion of iraq quite the opposite. If you are against inhumane acts just take a glance at the death toll on both sides of the iraq war.

So we want to stop the genocide in Sudan? Let's make the appropriate actions before we charge in guns blazing. Maybe after our efforts won't work and we will have to capture the man, but that is a last resort if even a resort at alll through invasion.

It is not the responsibility of the U.S. to go in to any country unilaterally and do ANYTHING, be it a moral obligation or otherwise.  Unless you are willing to go abroad and help enact the changes you're proposing to make, you have no right to make those demands.

Something most Americans don't seem to understand is that it's not "our military" that is being used when we sit back in our comfy recliners and say "We need to help those poor people in whatever country."  Rather, it's our family members.  It's our friends.  It's people we love and want to see safe.

You, Diane, have no right to ask that my friends and family go to some country you've never been to and risk or sacrifice their lives for some people you don't even know.  And even *if* you're from the country you're asking to save, why aren't you lacing up your combat boots to go over and help?

It doesn't take bravery to propose putting someone else's life in harm's way to save people you don't know.  This is a job for the U.N.  They have laws.  Let the U.N. work out how many troops should be dispatched from each member country.  The U.S. is not required to be the world's police.  We have our own problems to deal with.

The U.S. has no moral authority when it comes to human rights since it practices the most insidious form of genocide that exists against its own people.

Women killing their own children to the tune of over 52 million and thousands more each day through abortion is the grossest form of genocide imaginable.

We need to clean up our own house before we claim we really believe in any such thing as human rights.

Give the possibilities, to be born an American is one of the greatest fortunes that anyone can have.  Our Constitution and our abilities to seek wealth (material, intellectual and or spiritual) have given us lifestyles and economic prosperity unmatched around the world.
I believe that to truly believe in human rights and human dignity then these beliefs do not stop at family and friends or at the US border. 
But, as has been said and seen many times over the millenniums, freedom is not free. It must be protected at any cost and promoted everywhere or we permit aggressors to conquer the world and make it in their image, whatever that may be. To maintain our freedoms and try to help others around the world secure their freedoms I support actions in those efforts.  In particular, I believe it to be a crime to hold others against their will as some dictatorial countries do.  The test of freedom should simple be that the inhabitants of a county should be able to leave at will.The US promotes these efforts at the UN, but the UN does not support freedom over dictatorship even when many lives are lost and cruelties are proven. So I support unilateral action to help others secure their freedom when conditions warrant so that citizens of a country can chose their own way of life.
In support of these beliefs I was in the military a long time ago and I would join again, right now, if they would take me.

Diane

Couple of simple questions.

1. Have you read the ICC's Rome Statute and what's your opinion of its legal merit. This is not a question of politics.

http://www.icc-cpi.int/Menus/ICC/Legal%20Texts%20and%20Tools
/Official%20Journal/Rome%20Statute.htm

2. Given your moral views how do you justify the US's position not to be a signatory.

regards

Rob

Hi Rob,_______________[The software on this site does not recognize the paragraph html from my Mac so I'm using the underline to try to create space.]______________________________________I have not read the article, as sent by you because it does not go to ICC; it goes to facebook - to protect my computer from viruses I do not use or go to facebook. _____________________________________My views on life are simple: All human life is sacred (with one exception*), and should be defended.  Those that commit crimes against others should be punished, with punishment equal to the crime.  *People who kill others should be put to death as they have corrupted moral values that cannot be undone - they have no regard for human life. ____________________________________________But I have read the position of the ICC on their website at http://www.iccnow.org/?mod=romeratification.____________________________________  Rob, this is a sovereignty issue.  The US is not going to subjugate itself to an international court, and I agree with that position.  As with the moral and ethical corruption at the UN we should not take a chance and allow any other body to decide what is right and wrong, when we have led the world on many related matters._________  Also, ratification by the US, would cause severe harm to our own legal system and render our courts, even the supreme court, useless on these matters. 

Diane, I take issue with 3 things you've said (well, 4 when you count that you want to send my friends and family into a country to fight for people I don't know.)

1 - You said in a private message to me that we should just use the CIA to arm and train the oppressed, thus keeping the military out of the situation.  Clearly you don't learn from history.  That's the exact mess that led to the uprising of groups like Hamas and Al Quida.  Did you not see Charlie Wilson's War?  We armed those groups "to help the defend themselves" from the Soviets.  Now look what has happened.  We butted in where we clearly shouldn't have and our own weapons are being used against us.

2 - Taking unilateral action is detrimental to our nation's reputation, as can be seen by the global attitude toward the US after we unilaterally invaded Iraq.  Being a peaceful nation does NOT mean imposing our beliefs on other nations unilaterally.  To keep our reputation, we need at least SOME global consensus.

3 - The US has NOT always been the enforcer of world freedom.  We did not get involved in WW II until AFTER we were attacked.  Until then, we chose to stay out of a war that was clearly not ours.

Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it, and these are segments of our nation's history we can't afford to repeat.

Mark.

Mark,_______________________Please post the private message I sent to you so that we can all see what you are referring to._____________________________________ I will then respond.___________________________Diane

Apologies Diane,

I hadn't checked the link and wasn't aware that it had a relationship to facebook.

Here's the direct link to the Law where it can be accessed in PDF Format.

http://www.icc-cpi.int/Menus/ICC/Legal%20Texts%20and%20Tools/Official%20Journal/Rome%20Statute.htm.

I hope we can engage on this topic, because I would like to present and argument for signing based on the law.

The site your visited is a coalition of 2500 NGO's who are showing support for the ICC. The reference I have provided is the law (I hope)

I think one of the fundamental problems of discussions and commentaries about international law is that the focus is on preconceived ideas based on either political views or media stories without necessarily having an awareness of the actual law.

I'll leave you with some of my thoughts and I hope to hear your view on the actual law. There are many words and opinions, but the only words that really count and deserve scrutiny are the ICC's Rome Statute.

I cannot find anything in the law that a nation of integrity would fear from this law.

108 Countries have already made this commitment to international peace and security. I have to ask, why are they not concerned with a threat to their soveriengty. Two notable allies of the US, England and Australia have ratified. Bill Clinton actual became a signatory. So the argument of soveriegnty may not be a strong as you think. Do you have any specifics.

Here are some extracts fro the law, in case I have given you another bad link:

Article 1
========
The Court
An International Criminal Court (‘the Court') is hereby established. It shall be a permanent
institution and shall have the power to exercise its jurisdiction over persons for the most
serious crimes of "international" concern, as referred to in this Statute, and shall be
"complementary" to "national" "criminal" jurisdictions. The jurisdiction and functioning of the Court shall be governed by the provisions of this Statute.

Article 5
========
Crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court
1. The jurisdiction of the Court shall be "limited to the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole". The Court has jurisdiction in accordance with this Statute with respect to the following crimes:
(a) The crime of genocide;
(b) Crimes against humanity;
(c) War crimes;
(d) The crime of aggression.

I am going to make a critical assessment of  your feedback. I hope you'll take me on and provide evidence to back your statements.
 
I am frsutrated by the effectiveness of the UN but its a broken wheel that needs fixing. Internationally its a good thing that we have a forum of all nations.

We shouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water.

It's easy to say there is moral and ethical corruption but you should provide at least some examples to help illustrate your point. That way we all get an education.

Its a strong statement - cause severe harm to our legal system. Again no supporting evidence. Remember 108 other countries and Bill Clinton did not hold these concerns.

In my opinion, Peace will only happen when leaders are prepared to accept legal (not political) regulation. If all life is sacred then backing yourself to live under this law is surely the morally correct decision.

I am coming from the view that politics (divisive by its nature) is a significant part of the problem. We should be striving for Hope and Unity not Fear and division. Just as in democracy we honor the separation of powers and give law its appropriate independance so should we consider laws independance on the international stage. That's the real potential of the ICC.

When you read the law I hope you'll see its potential to provide a strong non-political focus on some real problems. Then its up to us and the media to keep the politicians honest in front of the law. Keep the examination of atrocity under the gaze of law alone.

Thanks for your response and have a great day.
I hope we can continue the discussion.

Rob

Rob,_____________________ I do not wish to debate commonsense - the UN does not enforce its on resolutions; it puts ambassadors of countries that break rules and commit crimes on committees that make rules and pass judgement on crimes. The ICC would decide (a) The crime of genocide;
(b) Crimes against humanity;
(c) War crimes;
(d) The crime of aggression.A crime in one venue might not be a crime in another - take the Taliban or women's rights radical Islam, for example. Please reread what I said.___________________________
I have nothing else to add.____________________ Diane

Responding to Mark because he has not posted my message to him____________________________"Diane, I take issue with 3 things you've said (well, 4 when you count that you want to send my friends and family into a country to fight for people I don't know.)"____________________________ DIANE SAYS, Mark, Please reread my last message - my position is on human rights for everyone.  As far as I know most men and women in the military feel the same way. ________________________________
(MARK) "1 - You said in a private message to me that we should just use the CIA to arm and train the oppressed, thus keeping the military out of the situation.  Clearly you don't learn from history.  That's the exact mess that led to the uprising of groups like Hamas and Al Quida.  Did you not see Charlie Wilson's War?  We armed those groups "to help the defend themselves" from the Soviets.  Now look what has happened.  We butted in where we clearly shouldn't have and our own weapons are being used against us." _______________________________ DIANE SAYS, I have no idea what you are talking about. I said nothing about the CIA or anything remotely related. _______________________________
(MARK) "2 - Taking unilateral action is detrimental to our nation's reputation, as can be seen by the global attitude toward the US after we unilaterally invaded Iraq.  Being a peaceful nation does NOT mean imposing our beliefs on other nations unilaterally.  To keep our reputation, we need at least SOME global consensus."___________________________  DIANE SAYS, The president decided to go to war against Iraq because he was told by many nations and the intelligence community that the 9/11 terrorists were trained in Iraq and that Iraq had WMD. Less you forget, the president's primary responsibility is to protect the USA.  His goal was to prevent another attack.  In the process he freed the larger Shitte population from severe Sunni oppression that included State supported terrorism, genocide and severe brutality.________________________ There was a 'global consensus' against Iraq in several UN resolutions but, as we have all come to know, the UN never acts to enforce its resolutions.  In the end we did not impose our beliefs on others (other than the right to freedom for all the people of Iraq) and most are very grateful. ________________________________  
(MARK) "3 - The US has NOT always been the enforcer of world freedom.  We did not get involved in WW II until AFTER we were attacked.  Until then, we chose to stay out of a war that was clearly not ours".______________________________DIANE SAYS,  I never said enforcer. I said defender.  To defend can take many forms, both active and passive.  The world has changed greatly since WWII as has our wealth and abilities.  In earlier times we tried to defend others more passively because of the scale of human life put at risk and the logistics involved. Now that we have the ability to help defend the human rights and freedoms of others using weapons that put fewer lives at risk we are more likely to try to help those in need. ______________________________  
(MARK) "Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it, and these are segments of our nation's history we can't afford to repeat." __________________________ DIANE SAYS, I agree.  FREEDOM IS NOT FREE.  SUPPORT IT AND DEFEND IT FOR ALL OR WE TOO WILL EVENTUALLY BECOME SLAVES OF OTHERS.
Mark.

Very well, Diane, though I can't figure out why you'd post something in private that could have been posted publically in the first place.  Here is your post:
___________________________________
I have as much right as anyone to voice my thoughts. My desire to help others is not restricted to family and friends and Americans; it extends to all humans. And I do not need to be a zealot to show anyone I care. The US has always been the voice of freedom and support around the world and frequently voices this opinion at the UN, but the UN is unwilling to help those who are held against their will - not allowed to leave the countries they are held captive in - then treated in sub-human ways. As a veteran I chose to join to protect my country and to help others around the world secure their freedoms. Now I am much too old to join up again but truly wish I could. Semper Fi.
_________________________________

Upon reading it again, I see I confused part of your PM with the post of someone else talking about the CIA.  My apologies for that.  It doesn't change the facts in my post, though.

Also, it doesn't do anything for the credibility of your argument to make statements like "I do not wish to debate commonsense."  If you wish for others to see things your way, you will have to accept that your views are NOT common sense. They are your opinions.  Feel free to support your opinions with as many facts as you wish, but calling your opinions "common sense" shows poor debating tactics.  It certainly doesn't make me want to agree with you.

Replying to Diane: (I can see I'm going to have to start calling you out on your poor debate tactics.)

DIANE - "Mark, Please reread my last message - my position is on human rights for everyone.  As far as I know most men and women in the military feel the same way."

MARK - This poor debating tactic is called "Argumentum ad numerum, or the attempt to prove something by showing how many people think that it's true." On top of being logically irrelevant, it's the exact opposite of what my friends and family in the military have told me.  They believe they joined the military to protect *OUR* nation, or in many cases, just to get help paying for college.  Of course, my argument is just as irrelevant in this case as yours because even if we knew a thousand people in the military, it's still just the opinions of a bunch of people. Consensus doesn't prove anything.

DIANE - "The president decided to go to war against Iraq because he was told by many nations and the intelligence community that the 9/11 terrorists were trained in Iraq and that Iraq had WMD."

MARK - I'm going to need a reference for the idea that the president thought the 9-11 terrorists were trained in Iraq because A) The training for flying planes was done right here in the U.S. and  B) Al-Qaeda training camps were in Afghanistan, NOT Iraq.  Furthermore, the amount of evidence AGAINST there being WMDs in Iraq was far greater than the evidence FOR there being WMDs there.  That was long before we invaded Iraq. Pres. Bush and his crew decided to go with the ideas of a low ranking CIA officer's premise that aluminum tubes found heading for Iraq were for a uranium enriching centrifuge, despite many, more qualified experts advising to the contrary, using supporting facts to say so.  Bush willfully ignored that information and invaded Iraq, even though Iraq clearly posed no threat to the US.

DIANE - Less you forget, the president's primary responsibility is to protect the USA.  His goal was to prevent another attack.

MARK - Which would have been far better accomplished by concentrating our military effort in Afghanistan looking for Al-Qaeda and Bin Laden, NOT in Iraq.  I'll say it again, it was well known that Al-Qaeda was NOT in Iraq.

DIANE - In the process he freed the larger Shitte population from severe Sunni oppression that included State supported terrorism, genocide and severe brutality.

MARK - You're jumping the gun.  This is not over by a long shot.  A LOT of people died needlessly in the invasion.  Where there was very little terrorist activity in the actual country of Iraq before the invasion, there's now much.  You're also now seeing retaliatory violence on the part of the Shiite population.  You don't seem to understand the environment of that part of the world.  History has proven that there will never be peace.  Whoever holds the military power will be the oppressors.  History has proven it time and again and that's exactly what we're starting to see among the Shiites.

DIANE - There was a 'global consensus' against Iraq in several UN resolutions but, as we have all come to know, the UN never acts to enforce its resolutions.

MARK - I'm not going to waste time proving the above statement wrong.  Clearly if the UN *NEVER* enforced its resolutions, it wouldn't exist.  Such extreme statements diminish your credibility.

DIANE - In the end we did not impose our beliefs on others (other than the right to freedom for all the people of Iraq)

MARK - Really?  So the fact that fast food restaurants are opening up all over Iraq is just coincidence?

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/04/21/1050777195239.html

The fact that we imposed a government based on our own isn't imposing our beliefs?

DIANE - and most are very grateful.

MARK - So that's why they throw shoes at Bush?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7782422.stm

DIANE - I never said enforcer. I said defender.  To defend can take many forms, both active and passive.  

MARK - I prefer passive, which could EASILY take the form of supporting the Rome Statute.  You seem to be against the statute, and appear to prefer the active role of butting in to the operations of other sovereign nations on the premise that the UN is too corrupt to be of any value.  The vast majority of UN members did not agree with the Iraqi invasion.  History tells us they were right.  We went in practically unilaterally and now not only have the world angry with us (which puts strain on the relationships with our allies) but it also INCREASES the chances for another terrorist attack.  Let's get something perfectly clear.  Terrorists aren't attacking the U.S. because we're rich or fat or free.  They're attacking us because of our country's policy of "invade and stay."  Why do we still have military bases in Germany, Japan, The Philippines, Morocco, Algeria, Mali, Ghana, Brazil, Australia, Poland, Czech Republic, Ouzbekistan, Tadjikistan, Kirghizstan, Italy, France etc, etc? (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=5564 )

DIANE - The world has changed greatly since WWII as has our wealth and abilities.  

MARK - Yes, our wealth has greatly diminished.  The US is in more debt that ever, and it's getting much worse.  Maybe you've heard mention of a recession recently?  All the more reason to stop spending trillions of $$$ over seas and bring our troops home.  If we don't take care of our own house, there won't be a house left to care for.

DIANE - In earlier times we tried to defend others more passively because of the scale of human life put at risk and the logistics involved. Now that we have the ability to help defend the human rights and freedoms of others using weapons that put fewer lives at risk we are more likely to try to help those in need. 

MARK - Once again, potentially shifting the balance of power from one group of oppressors to another.


DIANE - FREEDOM IS NOT FREE.

MARK - Your neighbor's house was not free either.  Did you buy it for them?

DIANE - SUPPORT IT AND DEFEND IT FOR ALL OR WE TOO WILL EVENTUALLY BECOME SLAVES OF OTHERS.

MARK - That's the most absurd statement made on this blog yet.  Under what premise would the U.S EVER become the slaves of some other group of people by bringing our troops home and strengthening our own defense capabilities, propping up our own economy and enacting free and friendly trade with all nations, despite their political views?

You, Diane, have a serious hero complex, and the fact that you're willing to endanger the lives of my friends and family to feed your ego frightens me to my core.

Mark,___________________________I have no debating skills and do not wish to further this 'debate'.  ________________________________FYI: Here is a link to references that show 9/11 was connected to al-Qaeda.  http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=muhammad+atta+biography&fr=yfp-t-501-s&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8  ____________________ Here is a link that shows Iraq was thought to have WMD http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=iraqi+generals+say+Hussien+had+wmd&fr=yfp-t-501&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8______________________________ Here is a link that shows the location of the al-Qaeda training camp in Iraq._________________________ We obviously have different views of the world. 

Oops. Here is the training camp link : http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0geu.EEDrxJTAsBPGlXNyoA?fr2=sg-gac&sado=1&p=al%20qaeda%20training%20camp%20in%20northern%20iraq&fr=yfp-t-501&pqstr=al-qaeda%20training%20camp%20in

Diane, doing a Yahoo search and then posting the results of said search as evidence for your position is lazy at best, brutally closed minded at worst.  You've shown that you have no interest in learning about the subject at hand, only in attempting to make people see things your way, even if that way may be wrong.

I shouldn't take the time to wade through your links, since it's supposed to be YOUR job to support your views with actual documentation, but since I'm genuinely interested in this subject, I'll take some time to read through a few of the links referenced in your search.  I'll document my findings below.

On your first link, I've already said many times that 9/11 was connected to Al-Qaeda, so I don't really need to read that link.  It's well known that Al-Qeada *from Afghanistan* were linked to 9/11.

On the second link, you really need to read what you post before posting.  The very first link, titled "Bush may have been misled by the information he had, but he did not lie" included the following:
"But within Hussein's war council, the story was very different. In December 2002, Hussein called his generals together for a surprising announcement: Iraq did not possess WMD."

That was Dec. 2002, months before the invasion began.

The second link in your "WMD" search link begins with 2 paragraphs that start as such:
"In early 2004, a team of journalists found strong evidence that former reporter Jack Kelley fabricated substantial portions of at least eight major stories and lifted nearly two dozen quotes or other material from competing publications. The results of the investigation were published March 19, 2004. This story was among those cited."

Basically, I can't trust anything in that story as being true, according to USAToday, because the reporter was found guilty of fabrication.

So, I'm tired of weeding through nonsense about WMDs in Iraq.  I'll move on to the last link, AlQaeda training camps in Iraq.  Once again, you were lazy and just posted search results.  I know how to do my own searches, and can certainly find better information than you've provided.  At any rate, here's what I found:

The first link, titled "Al Qaeda Training Camps in Basra" is footnoted as such:
"I am not sure if the police chief got it right, 80% of Basra residents and the neighboring provinces are Shiite, there is no way that Al Qaeda can exist in this area, there are many militias in Basra itself, saying Al Qaeda is the easiest way to prevent any police confrontation with the other groups."

So, the link casts serious doubt on its own story. 

The second link DOES say there's an Al Qaeda presence in Iraq, and clearly states that it was created AFTER the 9/11 attacks.  Even IF Al Qaeda was there before the Iraqi invasion, it was only VERY briefly, and certainly not long enough to warrant an attack on Iraq.  The majority of terrorists would have still been in Afghanistan.

Most of the other links are reports of Colin Powell's statements, which many have been proven to be based on false information.

So, one must ask one's self... "if the information I base my position on is so easily discredited, why do I so staunchly cling to it?"

Hi Diane,

When you express an opinion on these site you do hope to have an impact on others. That's why we all take the time to express our views. Why else?

DIANE SAYS : I have no debating skills and do not wish to further this 'debate'

You don't need debating skills, but you should have the courage of your convictions and make an effort to support and defend your views.

It looks like you have been called out on some points. Its your responsibility to your ideals to follow up. Don't you think. Not run away. 

In relation to my question and this applies to anyone that is interested.

It's simple and it is a question that actually requires an opinion in part:

1. Read the law and comment honestly on its merit.
http://www2.icc-cpi.int/Menus/ICC/Legal+Texts+and+Tools/Official+Journal/Rome+Statute.htm

2. (This requires some reference to the law or other sources) Explain how this law impacts on a countries soveriegnty and national legal systems. 

At least have the integrity to give more than "commonsense" as a response.

This law has so much potential. My challenge to everyone is to prove otherwise.

One cannot expect to answer that challenge unless one reads the law. It's not a difficult document. Even if you look at the first 12 pages, I'd be happy.

Mark, I appluad your efforts and the dignity of your responses.

Peace and Security for all.

Rob

It's true that America in particular and other countries have sent billions of monetary aid to African nations as well as our expertise in agriculture, farming, and technology and yet, most of Africa is as poor as ever.

Maybe we ought to stop sending them foreign aid and let them handle their own problems on their own terms eh?

My Dad's people were from the Cherokee Nation living in the Hills of Tennessee.  They escaped the Death March along the Trail of Tears are still living not far from East Sparta, the origin of the Klu Klux Klan.  My Father passed for Black to get a job as a Pullman Porter on the railroad.  My Father and my Uncle got into fight with White a boy;they hit him in the head and thought they killed him;they left the area in the middle of the night and never went back.  They even missed my Grandfather's funeral, not realizing, the boy was only knocked out;  thirty years later he returned to bury his my aunt.

To read more about the Cherokees of Tennessee:

 http://www.smokymtnmall.com/mall/cindians.html

When I lived in Meridian, Mississippi and the Choctaw Reservation, located in Philadelphia, about 35 miles away, was in the process of coming into their own.  Chief Billy Martin secured a contract with Delco a subsidiary of General Motors and got every Choctaw that wanted to work, a job.  He opened the Silver Star Casino and never looked back.  The proceeds from the Casino is distributed to every Choctaw living on the Reservation.  Living conditions, life expectancy, quality of life, and every other aspect of life has improved over the last 20 years.
 
To read more about the Mississippi Band of Choctaws go the Link listed below:

http://www.choctaw.org/

I beg to differ with you on this one.  I am all for women's issues and this one revolves around a woman's right to choose, which is a health-care matter.  It's the right to choose, that is the core issue.  No one has the right to deny my right to choose.  Soldiers murder more innocent children in the name of freedom and democracy than ABORTIONISTS.  www.factcheck.org

Hi Elaine,

Your pushing your agenda over the top of a real opportunity for world peace.

Consider making it a separate issue.

For world peace the issues are Focus and Unity. You are adding to the problem, not helping.

Don't you value peace.

Rob

How much energy is required to sign a document.

Have you read the laws of peace and security.
They govern 108 countries at present. That;s substantial.

http://www.icc-cpi.int/Menus/ICC/Legal%20Texts%20and%20Tools/Official%20Journal/Rome%20Statute.htm

Don't you think that it would help America's recovery in the long run by daring to challenge world leaders to sign this magnificent legal document.

Imagine this happening ahead of the G20 Summit.

Peace and prosperity. That's got a nice ring to it!

We live in a global community. What good is your house being in order, if the rest of the world is in turmoil.

Imagine if article 2 of the ICCs Rome Statute was enacted say in 2002.  You'll need to read the Statute.

(I think that means that all UN members would become obligated by this law - legal help please. Or perhaps imagine that all nations where signatories)

Doesn't that mean that international law could have been used to resolve the Iraq problem by laying charges against Sadam Hussien?

Doesn't it also mean that the law would have been broken by both Israel and Hamas. Remember the elegance of law, that it tends to ignore degrees of action?

How about China's relationship with Tibet?

Does the Taliban escape these laws?

Aren't we, as a global community still able to defend Peace and Security by consensus? Quite rightly not leaving it all up to America.

I can't recommend highly enough. Please take the time to read the laws.

http://www.icc-cpi.int/Menus/ICC/Legal%20Texts%20and%20Tools/Official%20Journal/Rome%20Statute.htm

Sure we will have conflict but why not deal with them in a United Forum in public.

A simple signature to prove that the pen is mightier than the sword.

Peace for all. Right now.

The pen is not mightier than the sword.  Legal documents and an agreement to put the world under one single blanketing document is not the answer.  I believe it is naive and blind to think that there is some type of harmonic convergence that would be created via a legal document.  Any binding legal contract is only as good as the intent and due diligence of the parties to that contract.  Hell, breach of contract is so commonplace that all this type of venue would create is more of the same - but more complicated, spaghetti tort system that exists here in America on an international level.  There's where we should be focusing our energies - internally - tort reform in our own country.  Not the perpetuation of a flawed tort system that bludgeons and balloons even further on the international arena!   

Hi MC,

If we are to ever achieve world peace, a difficult proposition perhaps, it would be underpinned by a document. At some point a definition would be required.

It's almost seems like you would do anything to resist an effort for peace (or perhaps that's your ego your defending).

Have you read the ICC's Rome Statute. That's so important if we are to have a real debate. You need to argue that the words are flawed first. That's the value of law as a foundation, it tries its best to be a specific as possible. That's why you need to separate law from politics and corruption.

Failing to separate the two means we risk throwing the baby out with the bath water. Politics corrupts justice.

If you accept the words of the Statute as a good legal definition we will have made progress and we can move on to the real issue which is politics and enforcement.

Embrace Peace, it won't kill you.

Rob

More significant than 12 helicoptors and less of an effort would be for the US to join the 108 countries who are signatories to the  ICC's Rome Statute.

The Statute ( words for peace carefully crafted by legal experts)
http://www.icc-cpi.int/Menus/ICC/Legal%20Texts%20and%20Tools/Official%20Journal/Rome%20Statute.htm

The Current Signatories

http://www.icc-cpi.int/Menus/ASP/states+parties/The+States+Parties+to+the+Rome+Statute.htm

And secondly for us all to demad the UN acts against the expulsion of aid to the Darfur Refugees.

This Sudan leader needs to be brought to justice asap.

We risk missing the greatest opportunity for world peace, given Mr Obama's unique position, the timing of the ICCs arrest warrant against a state leader for war crimes and the vacancy for the US as a signatory to this wonderful legal framework for the peace and security of all humanity.

Focus on the law as a priority not the incidentals. A good law administered justly will do far more for so many people than 12 helicopters.


Peace for all.

Up until 1973 the entire civilized world didn't think it was stupid to protect human life.

No one questioned one of the main premises upon which our country was founded-the right to LIFE-meant only those who couldn't be exterminated through a court order.

But I guess somehow, magically, the enlightened masses determined that was a complete hoax and really, developing human beings aren't really human at all even though that's how every living person started out.

No the stupidity lies in the fact that the unborn are the new slaves. The group that isn't human according to law so they have no rights.

Who do you think the next group of slaves will be under this premise? Get ready because it may just be radical feminists.

Mr.  Obama,

Stop trying to pass your irresponsible (Pelosi version) spending agenda.  If you're going to spend money on pig odor...you can save human life, please stop this tragedy.  Take money out of the liberal congress's agenda, which gives themselves another raise and use it where lives can be changed or saved.  I am so dissapointed in your choices, I can not believe I voted for you. 

Focus!

The law is not the problem. The Issue is just enforcement and removing politics from issues that are the domain of law.

Atrocities occur law must justly respond.

Your right that it's an age old problem that laws are abused. That's why we need a united approach to weed out false interpretations/and misuse of law. The words arre strong enough, are we is the question.

If people at all levels aren't held accountable to law how then do we best deal with greed, power, abuse. Remember you need an instrument that transcends generations. Law is the best option in my opinion. All that's left is to find the right words.

Look at us. Using words to define a position. If we resolved to continue the debate until we could find a common standpoint, that view would be expressed in words. Then if we had authority we would make that law. Law is the answer to definng the standards that we agree to live by. 

Good laws strongly defended can meet any challenge.

Peace for all. Right now.

It's not my treaty it belongs to 108 countries around the world who are obliged to live by this law.

And i don't get your point. The law prohibits one body imposing measures that intefer with birth rights of another.

Did I miss something.

You're not missing anything, Rob.  G.C. was fishing for a way to discredit the Rome Statute.  In doing so, she misinterprited the line she quoted as meaning the law made it possible to impose measures to prevent birth within a specific group of people, rather than what it clearly means, which is the prevention of imposing said measures.

G.C. is here pushing an agenda, and by doing so, destroying her credibility in the process.

Not onlyy misinterprited but also (intentionally or not) misrepresented.

If she took the time to consider the potential embodied in the intent of the law she would release it could be an asset to her cause.

Law allows you to drop all the baggage and provides a very specific focus on the real issues , the acts of atrocities.

This law cares not for the politics. It's potential is embodied in our willingness to unite and show support for it.

What I don't understand is, why wouldn't you support the law whilst you continued your other campaigns. Seems to me, the goals are common. Peace and Security.

To argue against the law is to argue for atrocity. How could that position every win.  Particularly, if we all supported the words of the law.

Read the law everyone.

Peace for all

"I am a feminist , a second wave feminist"

As was my late wife and as am I to the extent that I can fully support, yet never fully understand due to my inherent accidental gender, your cause.  Hidden (or perhaps not) in your words are accusations that this accident of birth irrefutably separates.  I categorically disagree.

What boys?  Which boys?  I used to be a boy (I think I've earned the right to be called a man) and I fail to see why the "girls" are the only ones who serve (according to what I hear from you).  Perhaps it is I who misunderstand, but I still find more divisiveness than unity in your missives.

Green Unconscious - I have heard all your moaning and groaning - what do you propose be done?  Do you have any suggestions to combat all these problems you so fervently detest? Or do you just like complaining to complain?

Again what harm in a simple signature. President Obama consider signing the ICC's Rome Statute.

The issues you raise belong to a past administration. There is a new leader in town and Americas stocks (not financial yet) are rising.

I still like the idea of Peace AND Prosperity (see other posts).

Good health and peace to you all.

I don't think the law can be applied retrospectively to signatories.

However no reason to hold an enquiry to see how their actions would have been affected by the law. It could prove a strong deterrent for future leaders.

Our best opportunity is to seel strong enforcement and enactement of Article 2.

If you get a chance read the ICC statute it really does provide a great starting point for world peace.

Green C.

The benefits received by our military has nothing to do with going in to a foreign country unilaterally, conjuring up fony reasons for an invasion nor proves that Iraq was a threat to the U.S.

You don't go making up reasons to deploy the military just because you don't like their benefits.  Our military is here for the *protection of OUR nation.*  That is all.

In addition to the lives lost, also remember the billions and billions of dollars lost to the invasion and clean up effort.

9-11 happened because *WE* are occupying territory that Arab nations don't want us occupying.  It's called "blow-back."  It's in the 9-11 commision report.  Read it.  Bin Laden sent more warnings than any politician would ever admit, that he was going to attack the U.S. if we didn't remove our troops from their holy land.

If we'd just kept our noses out of the business of other nations, 9-11 would just be another day.

Hi Elaine,

Sounds a little biased. What impact did your forebares have on the american indian and slavery. Was that done in a peaceful manner.

Europe has decades of savagery etc..

The issue is we have yet to find a solution to a human problem. How to resolve conflict without violence.

Just for a moment dare to dream.

First read the ICC's Rome Statute. Realize the fact that 108 countries are governed by this law. Don't confuse a legal question with a political one.

Further, imagine if we could get every countries leader to either sign up or, in public, defend the decision not to sign.

Take a moment, be positive, and consider, is it possible?

Your position offers no solution and most probably is adding to the continuing dilemma.

One man once said, I have a dream ... now his brother is in office. Not bad for a couple of descendants of Africans. BTW they both seem like outstanding humanitarians to me.

Peace, embrace it. It won't kill you.

Rob 

Rob:

Notwithstanding the fact that the United Nations is a huge corrupt bureaucracy made up of anti-Semites and anti-Americans which has done little to nothing for world peace and therefore, anything coming out of it should be scrutinized with extreme caution as far as the U.S. is concerned, here are some of the reasons countries have not signed on to the ICC taken from Wikipedia.org:

Wikhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States_Parties_to_the_Rome_Statute_of_the_International_Criminal_Court

United States: Objections to ratification have included that it violates international law, is a political court without appeal, denies fundamental American human rights, denies the authority of the United Nations, and would violate US national sovereignty. The position of other states

[edit] China

China has opposed the court, on the basis that:

The government of India has consistently opposed the court. It abstained in the vote adopting of the statute in 1998, saying it objected to:

Other anxieties about the court concern:

Nonetheless, a member of the Rajya Sabha upper house and Indian Supreme Court advocate called in 2008 for India to join, saying India did not have the resources to deal with terrorism and communal violence on its own.

Pakistan has supported the aims of the International Court and voted for the Rome Statute in 1998. However, Pakistan has not signed the agreement on the basis of reservations.

In addition, Pakistan (which is the world's largest supplier of peacekeepers) has, like the United States expressed reservations about the potential use of politically motivated charges against peacekeepers.

Elaine:Ever notice how much worse things get whenever the US gets involved?
Life under Saddam was no picnic, but he didn't kill a million people every six year and make refugees of thousands more. 
Think the Israelis might look a little bit harder for a political solution if the US weren't sending them billions of military aid every year?
Perhaps our darker brethren are as bloodthirsty as you appear to suppose, but don't you think they might slaughter each other a little less efficiently if US corporations weren't arming them?

Hi again Elaine,

Firstly putting aside your personal observations of the UN's biases, I too am frustrated by the void between the  potential for good effect and the UN's real effectiveness. Ahhh buearacracy.

It just goes to show, as in financial matters, regulation is required in governance.

The UN faces a current test of its integrity right now in Darfur.

Sudan is not a signatory to the ICC's Rome Statute. It was the UN in 2005 that gave the ICC jurisdiction by referring the problems in Darfur to the ICC.

I cannot see any moral arguement that the UN can hide behind in terms of its requirement to immediately protect the people of Darfur and bring the president of Sudan to court. They started this current round of crisis and if they are to hold any integrity, the UN must follow through, now.

On appeals.
Part V111 Article 81 provides for appeals.

I have, I hope, been consisted in my view that we should separate law from politics.

What is your opinion of the law, putting other matters aside for a moment?

re the United States of America. I like united.
=================================

The article although it unfortunately says that today bipartisan support is not to sign, It also says that Bill Clinton did take the initiative and sign but did not ratify. Bush reppealed.

The objections in my view are weak. If you preach peace and freedom you must be able to back yourself otherwise how can you set the example for others.

Peace will not be a gift. The words of the Statute are, in my opinion, valid.

The unanswered questions for the US, given a change in leadership are

1) what does the current leader and population think of the law (putting politics aside)  and
2) would they back themselves to uphold it. I'd like to think they would.

For the US we have not heard from the new administration.

Re: China:
========
What nation should have soveriegnty to break this law. That position is not morally defensible, suggesting other agenda.

I had to look up Complementarity. I could not find it in the Statute. Perhaps it's either a Wiki or Chinese term of reference.

"Complementarity in social psychology is defined on the basis of the interpersonal circle (Carson, 1969), according to which, interpersonal behaviors fall on a circle with two dimensions, namely dominance (i.e. dominant-submissive) and warmth (i.e. hostile-friendly). It states that each interpersonal behavior invites certain responses of another interactant. The behavior and the response it invites are said to be complementary (Horowitz, Dryer, & Krasnoperova, 1997) when friendly behavior begets friendly behavior, and dominant behavior begets submissive behavior. When people fail to give the invited response, it is said to be a non-complementary interaction. If the first person's behavior invites a reaction from the second person that matches the second person's goals, then the second person is satisfied; otherwise, the second person is frustrated (Dryer & Horowitz, 1997)"

Another weak argument to put ones own outcomes ahead of the international communities collective well being.

World Peace will only ever be possible when countries and their leaders accept international law. 

The law doesn't seek to resolve internal/International conflicts it seeks quite clearly to prosecute against atrocities.
The Chinese Government (not its people) should comment on Article 5. It is quite specific.

The solution to Chinas concern for the authority of the UN Security council can be resolved by placing the ICC statue under the authority of the Security Council. As long as the law stays in tact.

The prosecutors scope of authority is governed by the law. It is followed by a court hearing. If political mischief occurs it should be easily challenged at law. Another weak argument showing lack of confidence to back oneself against the law.

India - another shameful response. But At least some of their politicians have show the value and need for unity against terrorism. That unity could be expressed by signing and creating a single focused effort to route out terrorists. How many ICC statutes have the terrorists broken.

But I am seeing a pattern here. Countries that do not sign have ideals but no conviction to back themselves.

Pakistan are living through the consequences of their decision. Terrorism a real threat. Reservations do not make for unity.

Reservations weaken and divide.

Consider using your energy for peace and security.

"Keep the bastards honest" seems for some reason appropriate to sum up whats missing.

Peace for all

Rob

Hello Green Consciousness,

"The reason we should not give up soveriegnty ever is then we give up democracy"

Absolute assumption and paranoia. We all live on one planet. Making international treaties of peace and security that specifically seek to address atrocities is an act of good international character.

How could that impact on a democtratic nations rights to self govern. And if the idea doesn't live up to its potential , jump ship like Bush did. Its a low risk strategy that just might work. What's the alternative, seems like battern down the hatches and everyone for themselves. Spiritually as individuals we are poorer if we cannot care for others plights.

Look around you. Read the law. Remove the politics when is comes to dealing globally with atrocities.

Peace for all could mean peace for you.

Green C, uuummmm... what?  You said:
"How many attacks on the US do YOU need before you defend. Please don't tell me we asked for it.  That argument is just stupid and insulting."

I'm not even sure where to start with this, so I'll try lining it out one at a time.

1 - You can't seriously think that the Iraqi invasion had ANYTHING to do with 9-11.  It is 100% not up for debate.  There were *NO AL QUIDA* in Iraq.  What we did first after 9-11, invading Afghanistan to look for Bin Laden, was ALL that should have been done.  We had the world on our side and probably would have had plenty of help if that's all we would have done.  The Iraqi invasion was a completely different premise.

2 - Did we ask for it?  No.  Did we provoke it?  We absolutely did.  Just like we put the blame for a murder on the murderer, we should also put the blame of the 9-11 attacks on those responsible.  However, also like a murder, it's very rare that murders just "happen."  In most cases, the murderer has motive which has been provided by the one murdered.  If you think we didn't provoke the attacks, you haven't read the 9-11 commission report.  It clearly states that the attacks were a result of "blow-back" resulting from American foreign policy that resulted in our occupation of land where we were not wanted.  How would you feel if China sent troops to the U.S. to "protect their interests?"  I wouldn't stand for it, and neither did Al Quida.

3 - The argument is only stupid and insulting to those that haven't taken the time to read the history.  We don't think we deserved to be attacked, but as Al Quida saw it, they had been under attack from America for years.  Let me make this clear... WE HAVE NO RIGHT TO IMPOSE OURSELVES ON ANY SOVERIGN NATION.  We went in to help those nations defend themselves from the Soviets, and then never left.

As for the idea that we should train people to defend themselves, I would only agree to that statement *IF* it were sanctioned by the U.N.  Why be a member of the UN if we're just going to do everything unilaterally anyway?  Yes, I think the UN is corrupt, but we should work to expose the corruption, not just ignore the UN and play the world's police.

When you take up arms and perform the duties I see you recommending our troops perform, only then will I be ready to listen to you.

Hi GreenC

READ the LAW.

"As a woman, the slavery of women in the Islamic patriarchies is a threat to my rights and women everywhere.  Honor killing has come to the US now.  Ignore threats and suffer the consequences."

Doesn't Article 7 of the ICC's Rome statute address your fear legally and without requiring people to take up arms.

Honor Killing is a crime against humanity because it is a "widespread and systematic attack
directed against a civilian population (women are a part of a civilian population) " that results in murder.

Perhaps a minor amendment to be more specific but still a good existing starting point.

The law becomes the gathering point for all nations. Its not racial. Its not political (paranoia and history may suggest otherwise - but it doesn't have to be political in the future) . It has no hidden agenda.

By all means take them on but do it with clear focused unshakeable unity based on simple specific law.

You say you are satisfied that the US was correct to intervene in the Middle East but bush failed the people of Gaza by not supporting the UN resolution for a ceasefire. Fortunately that is no longer valid as we wait for the new Presidents views.


Here's the ICC - extract
==============
"Article 7
Crimes against humanity
1. For the purpose of this Statute, ‘crime against humanity' means any of the
following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack
directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack:
(a) Murder; ... "

Raise the UN to its potential. Adopt laws of Peace and Security and join the UN to see that they are upheld. Arrest Bashir to demonstrate that no one is above internationally agreed laws of peace and security.

Make it real.

Rob: Get off your ICC soapbox.

I'll be surprised if Obama supports it because by doing so he will lose some of the power and authority he possesses as president of the U.S. given to him by the U.S. Constitution and as the meglomanic he is, I can't see him giving up any power..

Hi Elaine,

Its the Laws soapbox I'm on, not the brand name.

I have hope and faith that the words of Obama come from his soul. If that's so, at the right time, he will support a law to end atrocities, in some form.

In my opinion, his greatest opporunity exists now.

Isn't it the US that talks up peace, integrity and having a role as noble world leader.

This law does not invade your nations soveriegnty unless your policy is to perform attrocities to achieve your goals. Time to back yourself by becoming a signatory.

You should take the time to read the law and comment on your opinion of its value as a law for peace and security, independant of your other concerns.

If we are ever to have peace it will have to be by international agreement based on words. I'm just suggesting the words already exist. All that's missing is YOU.

If you can't have Hope and Unity all your left with is Fear and division. And that's the weapon of choice for the terrorists that threaten our world.

Peace is everyones responsibility.

Peace for all

Rob

"You will only listen to me when I take up arms - fine.  Then make sure  none of my tax money is used for the for military and i will listen to you when you become a woman."

That's it?  That's your reply?  I made multiple points addressing incorrect statements in your original post and the is all you can say?  You just lost any credibility you ever hoped to have.

If those issues are important to you, then you should be spending your time writing to your state and federal representatives rather than writing here to a bunch of people who disagree with you.  If you're concerned with the UN's lack of action, writing about it here isn't going to change anything.

Hi Green C,

By you not responding my work is done. You have run out of arguments to convince me to support your views.

My hope (not fear) is that I have encouraged you to consider the value of law as one of your tools to achieve better real outcomes across the globe.

Law is specific and real. It has no bias. That's for the politics.

Law is  something that used properly has great potential. Think about the separation of powers. The three arms of democracy. Law stands apart. That's one of our democratic strengths.

In a global community the ICC could evolve into this role.

I have indeed listened and been respectful. Not sure you are showing the same curteousy. You are to willing to push out assumptions (all false in this instance - I have no hidden agenda) as truths. Truth and integrity are important and should not  be played with by frustration. 

When you allow your frustration to turn into personal attacks you weaken your position.

These comments are meant to help you, not hinder.

It's when people say enough words, that conflicts escalate. That's the same human behavior that precedes war.

I prefer legal non political solutions that apply to everyone. Idealistic, political solutions do not have the ability to transcend generations much less political change.

The temptations of power and greed are timeless so the solution must be timeless.

Real possible actions (if they get support) could be:

1. One signature by President Obama to the ICC's Rome Statute (the law of peace and security). Read the law and assess it before you judge.

Time: 10 seconds - When: Before G20 Summit in April

2. One speech by Obama urging all international peoples to urge their nations to sign up before the G20 in April.

Time: 1 Hour: When: Before G20 Summit in April

3. UN must Arrest Al Bashir. They gave the court jurisdiction. When leaders are held accoutable , peace becomes possible.

Time : Not long depending on UN being responsible and doing the "right" thing. When: Now

Peace and be patient, persistent and polite and you'll get more support in the long run. Example Barrack Obama.

Rob

To Mark,

I happen to believe in the proposition of law as a solution with great potential, particularly given the Darfur situation and the UN's role .

If I can encourage passionate people to take a moment and consider law as an option, then its worth the effort.

Peace for all  - Now.

You've certainly done that here, Rob  I didn't even know about the Rome Statute before joining the conversation.  I'm glad to have learned about it.  I haven't had time to read it over completely, but what I *have* read seems to be a huge step toward defining specific acts that will be considered detrimental to basic human rights, and outlawing those acts.

I have to agree with your position that it makes no sense to be against the Rome Statute, at least as I've read it so far.  If you're against what's going on in Darfur, why would you be against the Rome Statute?

Thanks Mark,

I believe that if you base your views on good clear foundations they have more hope of impact and will challenge and guide less mature propositions to a stronger position.

If the laws premise is correct, then it will meet all challenges successfully. In the case of the Rome Statute I believe the intent of of its words are specific and noble. 

We are now 2, lets make it 4 then 8 ...

Kindest regards

Rob

 

G.C., this is the poor debating tactic called strawman.  For your post to hold any merit at all, you're going to need to go back and show everyone where Rob or I said Iraq "did not invade Kuwait, and did not commit genocide."  You'll also need to show where either of us said that the "US is responsible for Hamas and Al-Qaeda."

Continue on by showing where we said "the US is the only arms dealer in the world" and "that there was no organized Resistance to the Russians before US involvement and that the northern rebels were unarmed."

When you have to resort to strawman to help your argument, it's a sure sign you have nothing left.  This is the lowest of the low in debate.  Anyone who would care to read this entire page can clearly see your claims are pure fiction.

It will probably also irritate you to no end to learn that I'm on the right side of moderate.  I consider myself a conservative.  If I *HAD* to choose a political party, I'd say I'm a Libertarian.  By that very definition, I believe in individual liberties.  That being said, I believe that each person is responsible for ensuring their own liberties.  My ancestors fought (and some died) for the liberties I now enjoy.  No one came from another country to fight for the freedoms I have... and I refuse to send my children off to fight for freedoms of a group of people I don't know.  If you want to send your children off to die, go right ahead, but you have no right to demand the same of me or my children.  By doing so, you're imposing on my liberties, which is oddly ironic.  You want to endanger the lives of OUR military men and women for the lives of people you don't know.

Yet another hero complex, I fear.

Hi Diane,

You dissappoint.

"Beautifully said" . Where is your integrity.

How is it appropriate for you to acknowledge false accusations. Have you not read all comments. 

You'll struggle to find where I have made any of the statements that GC has attributes to Mark and I.

What sort of person supports lies to defend their position? 

A further challenge for you. Defend your integrity with more than "common sense" and "beautifully said". Could you make specific reference to GC's false statements.

Despite the challenges of discussions, I know without doubt that you and GC would both like to see less harm in the world.

I Just happen to believe that strongly supported and enforced laws is the way. 

Dare to imagine...

Now I will speak for myself, if I may.

Sadam Hussien should not have been left in power. If all nations were signatories to the Rome Statute then this matter could have been dealt with legally and with global support.  At law Hussiens treatment of the Kurds would have seen he or his government arrested. If he did not comply the signatories (in this theoretical case - all nations) would be required to ensure his arrest. With the benefit of hindsight, compare the two scenarios. Which one do you prefer?

Re GCs concern for Islam fundamentalists (I have not entertained a discussion on this topic). GC's example would be a crime under the ICC's law. No bias, religious hatred, political views. Just a crime that must be investigated and those responsible brought to law. From what I have seen in the media, particularly in Pakistan, Islam extremists are a real threat to Peace and Security. There actions of beheading, whipping and terrorism are all violations of the Rome Statute. Unity under the ICC is a better defence because it brings a non political focus on attrocity. Fear and division are the weapons of terrorists. Asking that all nations should consider the ICC's Rome Statute is about unity.

I'll ignore the Hamas reference. That's just GC trying to get another point accross. Read all my comments and that is my defence.

I believe the US is our greatest hope for world peace. If America will have the courage of her convictions and sign the ICC's Rome Statute and then join the international community to call out all atrocities before this great law, we could be on the verge of a real effort for world peace. PEACE and (future) PROSPERITY are at our doorstep. End fear and division and replace it with Hope and Unity . GC have you read the law yet?

I have a great deal of respect for the US and particularly the new US President and gentleman Barack Obama.  Mr. Obama is such a fine speaker that its not beyond the realms of possibility that he could be the catalyst and rally all people to insist that their governments also sign.

To both you ladies, happy to debate any topic you like. It's a little hard when you refuse to continue the discussions though.

Read the law. What is there to be afraid of. Truth and Justice. Isn't that the American Way.

These are my words, no hidden agendas. Just my views. That's democracy.

Peace to all (that includes you GC)

Rob 

G.G., you keep implying that the Rome Statute will somehow result in a loss of sovereignty for the U.S.  What part of the Statute requires the signing state to relenquish its sovereign status?

The U.S. has been a member of the U.N. since 10/24/1945.  What loss of sovereignty have we suffered as a result of our membership?

These are 2 questions you absolutely MUST answer if you have any hope of your positions being considered reputable.  You can't keep insisting the US will lose sovereignty without support such wild claims.  Granted I haven't read every word of the Rome Statute yet, but so far I have not found anything that supports your claim.

Hi Mark,

Thanks for taking the time to read this great law.

It's elligence is that it is not my words, GC's words or your words. Its our words if we choose, carefully crafted by legal expertise.

If nothing else it is a great starting point for the words of peace and security.

Anyway, to your question.

I think that's what is meant by the saying "the devil is in the detail". In other words its difficult to get a 100% law and the unscrupulous will seek their advantage there (in the detail).

My example is how does a soldier fairly defend oneself and fellow soldiers when his enemy hides in the civilian population.

Fortunately this is addressed as a criminal act in

8.2.b.(xxiii) Utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military
operations;

But again we confront a weakness when the country is not a signatory.

None the less if we behave honorably we can correctly label that country publically as criminals and our soldiers dignity will hopefully be intact.

This is becoming a favourite saying. " Don't thtow th ebaby out with the bath water". This law has so much potential.

If GC would read the words she will see that it supports her causes. Use it in your dialogue GC.

It's fair to stay getting signatories is the challenge. 108 Countries have stepped up. There is no impact on soveriegnty. It does require all countries to sign to have full affect.

Rather than submit to the devil though, imagine if we could achieve all major countries as signatories. What then for women's suffering, level playing fields, civilian populations and soldiers.

It seems to me a great number of humanity would benefit and only a handful would be discomforted.

Hence my plea... read the law (not you Mark - I hope you have seen its potential), make it part of our language. Bring it to focus on atrocity and demand all leaders signup or publically defend their rationale. The media could help here if they did feed so heavily on the death and destruction.

Peace for all (it will always include you GC)

Hi Jared.  Being intimately involved in the movement for reviving nutrition in our food supply, I'm familiar with Codex.  I also know a bit about its creators... and their roots it pre-holocaust Germany.

I'm strongly opposed to Codex, and have been pleasantly surprised that the US has not joined thus far.  I'm not sure I follow your logic, though.  How do you draw the connecting line from Codex to the Rome Statute?  From what I've read of the Rome Statute, it could actually be used to protect a country from the evils of Codex if interpreted and applied properly.

Mark.

Hi Jared,

Read the post carefully.

The UN, not the US has a moral responsibility to act in Darfur. (see the link)

The only action I'd like the US to take is to read and hopefully sign the Rome Statute and then publicly challenge all countries who do not sign. 

That should take president Obama less than an hour. The media and the public can hound the other countries that don't sign. So cost and time are minimal compared to the potential benefit.

Who knows, in the long term these actions may ultimately help reduce the defence budget allowing funds to be reallocated nationally.

As Mark has made us aware, we need all nations to sign.

Peace for all. (I know I am sounding like a broken record. I just like the song)

Rob