I am not aware of any cases against US soldiers in Europe. What is the allegation?
Dana Heald, Tim writes: > The idea of the US joining the court but being exempted was started during > the Clinton years. I prefer the current stance, it's wrong, period. It is > wrong for everyone, but we are watching most of Europe give away their > sovereignty daily to the EU now, so why would it hurt them? I mean look at > the cases already being brought against US soldiers and politicians in the > EU (Belgium maybe?). They have a law that allows people to prosecute "war > criminals", well now general franks and the president are already being > charged, as is the local politician that started the idea. > > Yeah sounds really smart. > > Tim > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Dana Tierney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, July 07, 2003 12:49 PM > To: CF-Community > Subject: Re: US threatens Caribbean Countries > > > I was alive in the 70s. My questions is, why exempt the US? If it is that > wrong, it is that wrong for everyone. Or perhaps there need to be > safeguards (for everyone). I think there was a consensus that whats his > name needed to be tried for what happened in Bosnia... what we are saying > right now is we can do this kinda stuff and not be punished. Makes it sound > like we plan to do this kinda stuff if you ask me. > > Dana > > > Jerry Johnson writes: > > > Dana, > > > > Were you alive at all in the 70s? > > > > Did you hear anything that came out of the United Nations during that > period? > > > > they were so anti-American, it seemed as though every single ill in the > world was cause for a resolution against the US. > > > > If I had any say in the US government, I would not give that entity _any_ > power over US citizens. > > > > Just my thoughts, > > Jerry Johnson > > > > >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/07/03 11:41AM >>> > > > without our money. It's a decision on your part. How is what we are > doing > > > in this instance wrong. morally or legally? Should we not expect some > > > return on our investment? > > > > The US isn't saying "be nice to our local interests" which might be a > > reasonable quid pro quo. It's saying "the law against genocide does not > > apply to us." Apart from the arrogance of the position, it makes one > wonder > > why the US thinks it is at risk of being charged with war crimes... > > > > Dana > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=5 Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in ColdFusion and related topics. http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
