The United States Has Nothing to Fear From the ICC. by Wes Clark

[elleng]

'The Trump administration’s crusade against the International Criminal Court is misguided and will harm long-term U.S. interests.

During my 38 years in the U.S. Army, beginning as a cadet at West Point and ultimately serving as supreme allied commander in Europe, I always took pride in the fact that the U.S. military led the way in upholding the highest legal and ethical standards. We did not torture; we were not to abuse prisoners; we took pains to protect civilians from the collateral damage of war. And in those instances where we failed, we took remedial action.

Now Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, a West Point graduate, is leading a campaign against an international court that more than 120 countries have charged with helping uphold those standards. President Donald Trump himself has threatened economic sanctions against the court’s staff, their families, and those who assist their work when that work touches on U.S. conduct.

This is a tragic mistake. The United States benefits from its leading role in developing and complying with international law and from the institutions that help enforce that law. t is also unnecessary, because U.S. domestic institutions give America the ability to acknowledge its errors and defend its interests without taking actions that place it in the company of rogue states like Burundi and the Philippines, which have threatened United Nations investigators and international prosecutors.

The immediate issue that sparked Pompeo’s attack on the International Criminal Court (ICC) is an investigation into serious crimes in Afghanistan. The gravest allegations concern widespread murder, persecution, and other horrible crimes that the Taliban and their allies have committed against Afghan civilians. The investigation also covers allegations of U.S. detainee abuse in the early years of the U.S. intervention—a charge that is painful, given precisely the long history of U.S. leadership in international law.

The United States has played that leading role not only to protect innocent civilians but also to protect its own military forces. American men and women in uniform benefit from the expectation that all parties to a conflict will respect the Geneva Conventions and customary international law in how they conduct hostilities and treat prisoners.'>>>

https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/07/02/the-united-states-has-nothing-to-fear-from-the-icc/?

[bobbieinok]

1. Something broke in America's soul when W admin approved torture!

I'm not sure we will ever truly recover.

I know there's a long history of cops/military torturing for confession or info. And of torturing Native Americans, blacks

But I believe W's admin was the 1st to publicly declare torture is an approved US policy

Not sure we can get back what we threw away!

[elleng]

2. Yes, that was a big step,

not sure the 'worst' from which we won't recover; been thinking of gingrich era.

[BComplex]

3. Yep. Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld screwed us up pretty badly in that direction.

Tea Party members holding up a purple bandaid making fun of John Kerry's purple heart, doubled-down on that torture meme. Allowing no quarter in the amount of hate that they would show toward humanity or their own countrymen/women, turned the corner in this country.

I attribute it to fox propaganda "news", and rush limbaugh. The republicans will jump on any bandwagon that spews hate: against John Kerry, or any democrats' purple heart; Black Lives Matter; and even wearing masks.

The modern republican party has become a pox on our nation in every way.

[elleng]

5. Yes, tea 'party,' along with f-x, and limpb...

a pox on our nation in every way.

[kimbutgar]

4. Mf45 is against the ICC because once he is out of office they will find evidence that he is a war

Criminal and the Discovery of mass graves of undocumented immigrants and children sex trafficked. And some war crimes in the Middle East that have been hidden because he’s working in collusion with Putin.

[bobbieinok]

6. 2004, when Clark ran, MichaelSavage just couldn't believe any REAL soldier could be a democrat!

He would periodically go on and on about Clark. And his callers would chime in.

Some people nationally were questioning how Clark had handled some of his command duties. Don't remember details. There was just this constant faint question about who and what Clark really was

The full out attack on whether or not a democrat could be a REAL soldier came in the'swift-boating' of Kerry, which among other things called his courage, his truthfulness, and his patriotism into question.

And then those purple bandaids mocking his purple heart that delegates to the GOP National Convention wore.

But we should have been somewhat prepared. In 2000, W was praised for being in the TX Air National Guard, although he was AWOL the last 6 months or so of his enlistment. And he never set foot in Vietnam!

Yet Gore enlisted and spent time in Vietnam. His dad was on a congressional committee over-seeing the military, so as soon as the PTB realized that, they yanked him back to US. Yet his actual 'in country' sevice was never mentioned by the media,. They just cranked out constant stories portraying him as a 'serial liar' (Years later I still heard people refering to Gore that way)

[elleng]

7. Of course, General Clark consistently said that, as required,

he was non-partisan while he served in the Army. When it became necessary (either before or after we recruited him to seek office,) he registered as a Democrat.