Newsgroup: it.politica.internazionale
Titolo: Come gli USA aggrediscono la Legge internazionale - Foreign Policy In Focus

Visto le ricorrenti perplessita' sull'applicazione delle Convenzioni di 
Ginevra in Irak da parte degli eserciti occidentali, mi e' sembrato fare 
cosa utile citando un recente documento dell'opposizione americana.
Penso che dovremmo stringerci attorno al Tribunale Internazionale 
dell'Aia, e tendere la mano ai democratici americani come questi.
Am.
Congress and the Bush Administration Deepen Assault on International Law
 By John Gershman | December 10, 2004
 Editor: John Gershman, Interhemispheric Resource Center (IRC)
Foreign Policy In Focus
www.fpif.org
 
Members of the U.S. Congress who oppose the International Criminal Court 
(ICC) continue to use every opportunity to weaken the institution. The 
Nethercutt Amendment (sponsored by Rep. George Nethercutt, R-Wash) 
attached to a recent omnibus spending bill signed into law in early 
December prohibits aid from the Economic Support Fund (ESF) for 
countries that have refused to sign a "bilateral immunity agreement" to 
protect U.S. citizens and certain foreign nationals from transfer to the 
ICC for investigation or prosecution. This attack on the ICC is merely 
the latest in a series of efforts to weaken the norms and institutions 
of international human rights and humanitarian law, an assault likely to 
deepen in a second Bush administration.
 The funds affected by the amendment include support for anti-terrorism 
activities, peace building, democratization, and counter-narcotics 
operations. There is an exemption for countries covered under another 
foreign aid program known as the Millennium Challenge Account, as well 
as an option for the president to waive the Amendment's restrictions for 
members of NATO and major non-NATO allies. However, these waivers are 
not guarantees and would still leave many countries open to arm-twisting 
on the part of the U.S. According to the Coalition for an International 
Criminal Court, the U.S. has already signed over 80 bilateral agreements 
granting immunity from prosecution by the ICC. The use of these bullying 
tactics to demand immunity from prosecution by the ICC in the face of 
continuing revelations of human rights abuses by U.S. personnel in 
Afghanistan, Iraq, and Guantanamo Bay raises hypocrisy to a new level.
 These efforts reinforce the Bush administrationąs efforts to weaken 
international humanitarian and human rights law in the name of fighting 
the łwar on terror.˛ International law faces challenges from 
transnational terrorist networks, tyrannical regimes, and most 
critically, from the most powerful country in the world, a country that 
was one of the original architects of the international legal framework 
that has shaped world politics since the end of World War II.
 The disdain with which terrorists and tyrants hold international law is 
a common staple of political commentary and analysis. It is more 
frightening when the most powerful country in the world strives to 
weaken the architecture of international law as an explicit policy. 
While this assault does not begin with the Bush administration, the 
scale and scope of the assault has increased markedly under its tenure, 
justified as part of the war on terrorism, but part of a broader effort 
to free the United States from the constraints of international law, 
including human rights law.
 In addition to the assaults on international law from the Congress, the 
Bush administration has heightened its efforts to subvert international 
legal constraints on U.S. policy. These efforts are likely to deepen as 
the Bush administrationąs proposed nominee for Attorney General, Alberto 
Gonzales, was the author of a now infamous memo which argued that the 
prosecution of the łwar on terrorism,˛ including the treatment of 
detainees, should be exempt from the guidelines of the Geneva 
Conventions. Itąs important to recall that Gonzalesą infamous memo was 
not merely a response to the Geneva Conventions, but to a U.S. law, the 
1996 War Crimes Act, that prohibited any Americans from committing war 
crimes‹defined in part as łgrave breaches˛ of the Geneva Conventions. 
This illustrates that the Bush administrationąs presumptive nominee for 
Attorney General, does not merely have disdain for the entire edifice of 
international law, but is willing to subvert U.S. law that constrains 
the executive branchąs exercise of military force.
 Since the Abu Ghraib violations came to light, no senior member of the 
military or the Pentagon has been held accountable. Recent reports 
suggest that violations have continued to take place even after the Abu 
Ghraib violations came to light. Most recently, reports from the 
International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and the FBI have raised 
new concerns about U.S. interrogation practices at its detention center 
in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. According to the New York Times (November 30, 
2004) the ICRC reported that U.S. practices were łtantamount to 
torture.˛ The FBI has raised similar concerns in a recent report, and 
continues to argue that the tactics have failed in their primary 
objective‹the extraction of actionable intelligence.
  
Sovereignty Resurgent
 These recent efforts to argue that the U.S. should not be subject to 
the proscriptions of international law fall within a historical and 
broader effort to reinforce and reaffirm U.S. sovereignty in the face of 
efforts to expand the jurisdiction of international law. Legal scholar 
Peter Spiro in a 2000 Foreign Affairs article labeled this movement the 
łnew sovereigntists.˛ Paralleling what the head of the Council on 
Foreign Relation Richard Haas has described as łmultilateralism a la 
care,˛ Spiro argues that the new sovereigntists advocate international 
law ła la carte,˛ and
 At the center of their thinking stands the edifice of sovereignty. 
Sovereignty, in this conception, calls for America to resist the 
incorporation of international norms and drapes the power to do so in 
the mantle of constitutional legitimacy. łBecause the United States is 
fully sovereign,˛ claims Jeremy Rabkin, a professor of political science 
at Cornell University, łit can determine for itself what its 
Constitution will require. And the Constitution necessarily requires 
that sovereignty be safeguarded so that the Constitution itself can be 
secure.˛
 This broad effort to łdefend˛ an American sovereignty under assault is 
better viewed as an effort to oppose social reforms at home and U.S. 
freedom to maneuver abroad. Dismissing international law except when it 
is pragmatically useful is a strategy for maintaining double standards, 
when there is one law for everyone else and one law for the U.S. It is a 
strategy for institutionalizing U.S. primacy. It is a strategy for 
empire.
  
Against Our Nature
 An often-used companion argument to the exceptionalism argument above 
is that international law somehow goes against the grain of contemporary 
American political culture and political realities. Neoconservative 
analyst Robert Kagan argues that the United States believes the world to 
be one where łinternational laws and rules are unreliable and where true 
security and the defense and promotion of a liberal order still depend 
on the possession and use of military might.˛ He acknowledges that 
earlier the U.S. did advocate a greater reliance on international law, 
but that was because it was a rising power, and that international law 
is ultimately a resource for the weak, not the strong.
 But Kagan ignores crucial details in the construction of international 
law in the aftermath of World War II, when the United States was also a 
hegemonic power. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights can trace 
part of its heritage to the Democratic president that President George 
W. Bush is most fond of comparing himself to‹Franklin Delano Roosevelt. 
In his State of the Union address on January 11, 1944, in the midst of a 
great war, Roosevelt presented a list of economic and social rights that 
should be seen as equal in importance to the original Bill of Rights. As 
Cass Sunstein discusses in The Second Bill of Rights: FDRąs Unfinished 
Revolution and Why We Need It More Than Ever (Basic Books), this speech 
was influential in shaping the negotiations over the content of the 
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, negotiations in which Eleanor 
Roosevelt played a critical role. Itąs not power per se that dictates a 
countryąs approach to international law; itąs the choices of political 
leaders and in a democracy (hopefully) the pressure of the citizens that 
make a difference. When our leaders oppose international law as a 
framework for foreign policy, the only hope is for the citizens to step 
forward and demand accountability.
 This year represents the 60th anniversary of Rooseveltąs declaration of 
the second bill of rights, and the 56th anniversary of the Universal 
Declaration of Human Rights. It is time to renew the struggle for 
respect for human rights and international law in the most powerful 
country in the world. Reclaiming that legacy renews the commitment to an 
American and a human tradition. It represents an opportunity to 
construct a new cosmopolitan patriotism, one that sees human rights and 
international law as integral to our security, not an obstacle to it. 
And itąs a fight that needs to begin right here, at home.
 As Eleanor Roosevelt noted at the tenth anniversary of the Universal 
Declaration:
 łWhere, after all, do universal human rights begin? In small places, 
close to home‹so close and so small that they cannot be seen on any maps 
of the world. Yet they are the world of the individual person; the 
neighborhood he lives in; the school or college he attends; the factory, 
farm, or office where he works. Such are the places where every man, 
woman, and child seeks equal justice, equal opportunity, equal dignity 
without discrimination. Unless these rights have meaning there, they 
have little meaning anywhere. Without concerted citizen action to uphold 
them close to home, we shall look in vain for progress in the larger 
world.˛
 (John Gershman 
jo...@irc-online.org
 is the codirector of Foreign Policy 
In Focus, the director of the Global Affairs Program at the 
International Relations Center (
www.irc-online.org
, formerly the 
Interhemispheric Resource Center), and an adjunct professor at NYUąs 
Robert F. Wagner Graduate School of Public Service.)
  
For More Reading:
Status of U.S. Bilateral Immunity Agreements (BIAS)
 Coalition for an International Criminal Court (December 1, 2004)
http://www.iccnow.org/documents/otherissues/impunityart98/BIAsByRegion_cu
rrent.pdf
 For More Analysis From Foreign Policy In Focus:
Pentagon Report Argues Torture is Legal in War on Terror
 By Jim Lobe (June 10, 2004)
http://www.fpif.org/commentary/2004/0406torturelegal.html
Outsourcing Torture and the Problems of łQuality Control˛ 
 By Charles Knight (May 18, 2004)
http://www.fpif.org/commentary/2004/0405torture.html
Bait and Switch? Human Rights and U.S. Foreign Policy
 By Julie A. Mertus (March 2004)
http://www.fpif.org/papers/2004rights.html
Dreams of Empire, Eulogies for International Law
 By John Gershman (March 25, 2003)
http://www.presentdanger.org/frontier/2003/0325empire.html

Court (ICC)
L'ICC non e' il Tribunale Internazionale dell'Aja!
-Stefano

 Am.
ma per favore... ma non vi stufate mai di essere così patetici?
E' possibile che su questo NG si parli sempre e solo di Irak? Le altre 
guerre nel mondo, e sono dozzine, non vi interessano proprio solo perché 
non vi sono gli USA coinvolti? Ma non vi stufate mai di rendervi ridicoli?
Siete tediosi.

 Siete tediosi.
Magari ti rode, ma se l'Irak e' il punto in cui si violano maggiormente 
le Convenzioni di Ginevra (come ad Abu Grahib) da parte di chi le ha 
comunque firmate, ebbene la nostra attenzione si concentrera' li', e su 
l'applicazione di quelle norme.
Am.

Magari ti rode, ma se l'Irak e' il punto in cui si violano >maggiormente le Convenzioni di Ginevra (come ad Abu Grahib) da parte >di chi le ha comunque firmate,
Cosa della quale hai le prove ma non le vuoi mostrare al mondo, vero
fessacchiotto di un Amalric Bond? :)
-Stefano

 
infatti tutte le altre guerre nel mondo rispettano le convenzioni di 
Ginevra vero? In paesi come Sudan, Costa d'Avorio, Cecenia, Burundi, 
Eritrea/Etiopia, Congo, Uganda, tanto per citarne alcuni, le guerre si 
combattono secondo le Convenzioni di Ginevra. Niente rapimenti, torture, 
decapitazioni, massacri di civili, niente di niente.
Trovane un altra amalric.

 Trovane un altra amalric.
Si, ho fatto male a togliere il seguito, 'sull'applicazione di quelle 
norme' per mettere fine alla *nostra* barbarie (quella dell'Occidente 
democratico, se il termine ha ancora un senso)
Am.

 Siete tediosi.
Permetti, con tutto il rispetto non hai colto una delle basi su cui
poggia il sistema democratico occidentale: lascia che chiunque dica la
sua, che dispensi saggezza o distribuisca stronzate non fa alcuna
differenza. 
Lui si sentira' migliore ed esaurira' la sua vis polemica
blaterando in un nulla fatto di milioni di voci discordanti (tra le
quali, certo, la mia e la tua). E se e' tedioso, peggio per lui, tanto
che gridi "forza Juve", "Catilina 'nfame", "Cromwell sei un figo!",
"Yankee go home", non fa alcuna differenza.
-- 
Nadja Jacur
-- 
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - 
http://www.Mailgate.ORG

 Siete tediosi.
Non ci leggere, allora.
(Mica te l'ha prescritto il medico?)

 
Vorrei non farlo. Ma quando scarico i thread di questo NG, vorrei 
trovarci anche discussioni su altro, non solo sull'Irak.

                    Il 26 Gen 2005, 08:24, "gen. George S. Patton jr." <nospam@thanx> ha
scritto:

ROTFL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
sei davvero la monezza della monnezza, gen. Pattum .
--------------------------------
Inviato via 
http://arianna.libero.it/usenet/

"gen. George S. Patton jr." <nospam@thanx> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:41f7c0bf$1...@news.bluewin.ch...

Non per insistere e non è mia intenzione fare polemica, ma non capisco il
tuo appunto:
siamo su un NG chiamato it.politica.internazionale, il che significa che si
parla di POLITICA INTERNAZIONALE ed è chiaro anche dal manifesto del NG che
argomenti di discussione sono anche (e soprattutto, direi) argomenti di
ATTUALITA' di P.I.....dunque:
 la situazione in Iraq non è un argomento attuale?
Cosa c'è di più attuale e che non sia già stato discusso su questo NG o su
un NG più specifico?(tipo it.politica.internazionale.israele)
E' logico secondo me che la maggior parte dei post di questo Ng riguardino
l'Iraq, come d'altronde se ne parli sui media....
Tra l'altro puoi sempre proporre tu un nuovo argomento di discussione o
comunque evitare di leggere i post quando dal subject capisci che riguardano
l'Iraq o aprendoli, scopri che parlano di quello. Semplice no?

 ha
scritto:

e' appurato che senza disegnino il gen. pattum non capisce...


 l'Iraq o aprendoli, scopri che parlano di quello. Semplice no?
Ma poi.. visto che riguarda l'unica superpotenza rimasta (che č decisamente
una bella potenza: militare, economica) e che sembra diventare sempre piů
pericolosa per tutti. Visto inoltre che questa guerra riguarda anche direttamente
noi (vedi per esempio anche solo il discorso petrolio, o il nostro appoggio,
quello del governo cioč) č _ovvio_ che stiamo dedicando maggior tempo a
questo..
cmq, contrariamente a sergio, penso che i disegnini per questo tizio non bastino..

 Congress and the Bush Administration Deepen Assault on International Law
cut...
http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/ENGIOR400252002
...il titolo č:
INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT:
US efforts to obtain impunity for genocide, crimes against humanity and war
crimes
Di solito mi piace pubblicarli per intero, ma questo č esageratamente lungo,
per cui posto solo il link
....naturalmente č vecchio (2002) ma riprende ciň che dice l'opposizione
nella relazione al Congresso.
Ciao

 crimes
C'è da dire una cosa, però.
Non solo gli States, ma anche Russia e Cina non hanno ratificato lo
Statuto...quindi i soliti giochini di potere del tipo "Se non ratifica prima
lui...o prima loro...". Capisci?
E la Russia non ha proprio intenzione di ratificare - o dovrebbe spiegare
troppe cose sulla Cecenia, ma - imho! - anche su come ha risposto ai
terroristi nel teatro a Mosca e nella scuola...(come si chiamava? boh!)
Figuriamoci la Cina, poi!
Negli US almeno si dà voce all'opposizione e l'eco arriva pure a noi (come
si evince dal tuo post, appunto), ma in Russia e in Cina?
Ciao

l'opposizione nella relazione al Congresso.
Bene.  Ora ci diresti se e' diritto degli USA, qualora non riconoscano
l'autorita' di un tribunale, siglare accordi internazionali con i vari
stati in modo che tali stati non consegnino soldati americani presenti
sul loro suolo a codesto tribunale?
-Stefano

lui...o prima loro...". Capisci?
I giochini sono del tipo "non ci fidiamo di un tribunale che puo' agire
senza alcun controllo solo perche' il primo pirla decide di mettere
qualcuno che gli sta sulle palle sotto processo".
-Stefano