USA punishing countries for not signing!!!!

salute to those great countries having courage even though they are weak :k:

U.S. cuts funding to 50 nations

WASHINGTON (CNN) – **The United States has made good on its threat to punish countries that have not signed an agreement exempting American military and other personnel from prosecution in the International Criminal Court, declaring some 50 countries ineligible for U.S. military aid. **

The countries include Colombia and six nations scheduled to become NATO members next year: Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia and Slovenia.

Those countries that recognize the ICC and have not signed an “Article 98 agreement” by Tuesday’s deadline now face a cut in military training funds and help with arms purchases from the United States.

The new restrictions involve $47 million in foreign military financing and $613,000 in military education and training, State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said Tuesday.

The cut in funding falls under the 2002 American Service Members Protection Act, passed to reflect U.S. opposition to the war crimes court amid fears of potentially politically motivated prosecution of U.S. personnel.

Boucher said 35 of the countries have been receiving U.S. military aid, but most of the money has already been spent for this fiscal year.

However, those countries will face a ban on aid for fiscal year 2004 if they have failed to sign an agreement before the new fiscal year begins in October.

The other countries that are now ineligible for U.S. military aid are: Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Belize, Benin, Brazil, Central African Republic, Costa Rica, Croatia, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Fiji, Lesotho, Malawi, Mali, Malta, Namibia, Niger, Paraguay, Peru, Serbia and Montenegro, Samoa, South Africa, St. Vincent and Grenadines, Tanzania, Trinidad and Tobago, Uruguay, Venezuela and Zambia.

Colombia has been one of the largest recipients of U.S. military aid, receiving $98 million this year.

Prwsident Bush has issued waivers to more than 20 countries.
Boucher said all but $5 million of this year’s allocation for Colombia has been spent, but the remainder is now frozen. However, he also noted that most U.S. aid to Colombia falls under counternarcotics assistance and is unaffected by the new regulations.

“As we proceed with this, we’ll look at individual programs as well and decide whether they need waivers,” Boucher said. “But our hope is to continue to work with governments to secure and ratify Article 98 agreements that protect American service members.”

Several countries, including all NATO allies, are exempt from the new regulations, as are what the U.S. considers “major non-NATO allies”: Argentina, Australia, Bahrain, Egypt, Israel, Japan, Jordan, New Zealand and South Korea.

U.S. President George W. Bush has issued waivers for 22 others, some of which have signed, but not ratified, an agreement.

Under the new legislation countries that are parties to the ICC, but have signed an article 98 agreement, still need a waiver to avoid a cut in funding. Gabon, Gambia, Mongolia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, and Tajikistan are parties to the court, but were given a waiver by President Bush.

Afghanistan, Djibouti, Democratic Republic of Congo, East Timor, Ghana, Honduras, Romania, Albania, Bolivia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Botswana, Macedonia, Mauritius, Nigeria, Panama, and Uganda received temporary waivers for having signed, but not yet ratified the article 98 agreement with the U.S.

Since the treaty setting up the court was passed last year, other countries that have signed public Article 98 agreements with the Bush administration protecting U.S. personnel from the court are Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bhutan, Cambodia, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Georgia, India, Israel, Madagascar, the Maldives, the Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Micronesia, Nauru, Nepal, Nicaragua, Palau, the Philippines, Romania, Rwanda, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Togo, Tonga, Tuvalu, and Uzbekistan.

At least seven other governments have signed agreements but have asked not to have them publicized. Several other countries have not signed agreements but have verbally agreed not to hand over U.S. personnel to the court for prosecution.

The July 1 deadline has prompted a number of the agreements. About 25 countries have signed in the past four months, and about half of those signed in the past few weeks.

Boucher said the U.S. is still pressing countries that have not signed agreements to sign.

$47 million whup dee do! Martha Stewart lost that in one days trading. This is worth a thread?

Note: Only put up threads that have values of $1B or more.

hmmm....why even have the ICC then if people can get away with war crimes. I thought the leader of humanity and justice would want to see justice done everywhere in the world. No matter what race or nationality.

Mr. Matsui, 47 million can buy a lot of stuff in the countries on the list. It can also help the corrupt politicians there to buy villas in south of France. I can see why some countries are reluctant to go along, but then again, only yesterday the Africans were asking 20,000 strong US Military presence in war savaged Liberia. After the Americans bring peace there, these countries also want the right to sue them in Hague. The world seems to think that Americans are stupid.

I would say that the US should stop military aid to all countries (except may be to Israel) altogether.

Exactly, make the defense industry lose even more contracts.

It's sad.

What I don't understand is that there is also a rule written into the ICC treaty stating that all crimes must first be tried in national courts. So what is Bush so worried about?!

This isn't news. Think for a minute. How well have the Serbian trials gone? They are pure BS. Gonna tell me that those are altruistic, apolitical, and fair? And those really are some bad guys!

The ICC, as a concept, is nice. It gives the warm and fuzzy feeling of Justice for the little man.. but that is an illusion. This whole deal will only serve as a subterfuge for the popular cause of the moment. There is a big difference between that and Justice. As it stands, the Court's intended functions are hazy, its administration even more so. This is a gamble with no clear benefit. I say that because if it backfires more will be lost than the Court itself.

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by spoon: *
This isn't news. Think for a minute. How well have the Serbian trials gone? They are pure BS. Gonna tell me that those are altruistic, apolitical, and *fair
? And those really are some bad guys!

[/QUOTE]

very true indeed. Serbian war crimes went into court no doubt but vanished maybe the next minute??? or okay maybe next day... ??

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Matsui: *
$47 million whup dee do! Martha Stewart lost that in one days trading. This is worth a thread?

Note: Only put up threads that have values of $1B or more.
[/QUOTE]

Its worth if u see India has signed that too..

many countries stood against so much US pressure like Peru, Mexico and others when US tried its economic bribe to get second UN vote for going war against Iraq..

The issue with the ICC and the US is not fear of the top ranks being prosecuted. Those people would laugh and say nice try. Who can extradite the president or defense sectretary of the United States?? Maybe once they’re out of office and an opposition party is in power? not likely, if they set the precedent it can happen to themselves later.

So, the worry here is with regards to the common soldier on the ground - the NCOs and low grade officers. Now I ask you, is there really any need for the ICC to pursue this? The US always deals with their own offenders. Some of you may disagree on cases, but they do, and even if they didn’t would it really matter? These low echelon incidents are strays; that is, it is not institutional so outcome or no, the foundation remains pure.

Instead of trying to prosecute GW, Rumsfeld, Kissinger, Andrew Jackson, et al.. name a star. Think about it. Does that star give a damn what you call it. It’s pointless, but, hey, if it amuses you…

The ICC would be a political farce, as the Belgian Courts are.

The situation in Liberia is an excellent example. While the UN might wish to offer Taylor some sort of amnesty to expedite his departure and to avoid further bloodshed, if the War Crime trials are not tied to the UN, then no one could negociate his departure, and he could be left in power only to cause further trouble.

Let's face it, the spate of lawsuits lately have been politically motivated, not true justice.

It is better that these countries learn to stand on there own feet.

Becuase if they carry on rellying on America then they can be expected to be treated no better than a slave.

The US is terrorist state funding terror and chaos in many nations columbia, venuzuela, iran just to name a few. Its soldiers commit untold crimes from Japan to Iraq if it is so concerned about justice and world peace as they all was crow on about they have nothing to hide or fear right, Wrong they know very well the crime they commit and this is the very reason they blackmailing everyone else to give them immunity from an international law they will ignore as long as it not in there intrest like they always do anyway :nono:

If it is so evil and stupid. Why have 60 nations ratified it? The legal theory is sound and competent. The thing that gets the American government upset is that their soliders that run over children in iraq with a tank, dont get a medal. They get 10 to 20 for murder.

Oh please. All of you who think that this is not newsworthy need to look at yourself and decide what your price is.

I think it is very commendable that some country leaders had the courage to take a stand.

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by CM: *
If it is so evil and stupid. Why have 60 nations ratified it? The legal theory is sound and competent. The thing that gets the American government upset is that their soliders that run over children in iraq with a tank, dont get a medal. They get 10 to 20 for murder.
[/QUOTE]

I think an exageration there CM. Rather sarcastic also.

I think all agree? Children deserve the best that life can offer.

Know what else? Some of those American soldiers you callously disregaurd are killed everyday...and they are also someones child.

Lets not get into a numbers game. Lets not compare horrors. Lets not take sides over who's death is more important or more unjustly deserved.

Death is always unjust to the dead and those that love them and it isn't a number or a statistic and it hurts.

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by AvgAmericanGirl: *

I think an exageration there CM. Rather sarcastic also.

I think all agree? Children deserve the best that life can offer.

Know what else? Some of those American soldiers you callously disregaurd are killed everyday...and they are also someones child.

Lets not get into a numbers game. Lets not compare horrors. Lets not take sides over who's death is more important or more unjustly deserved.

Death is always unjust to the dead and those that love them and it isn't a number or a statistic and it hurts.
[/QUOTE]

You have to relize that "defending ones owm home" is not considered killing it is considered "self defense" and does not deserve a punishment at all. If fact it is highly commendable.
What happened on 9/11 was very wrong. But what is happeing now is simple brutality by the US forces and Iraqis have the right to defend their homeland at with "any means necessary." Iraqis never attacked the US.