home

Immunity v. Foreign Aid

by TChris

Countries that refuse to immunize Americans from prosecution in the International Criminal Court are feeling the wrath of the Bush administration.

The United States has … cut aid to some two dozen nations that refused to sign immunity agreements that American officials say are intended to protect American soldiers and policy makers from politically motivated prosecutions.

As usual, the Bush administration’s heavy handed approach to diplomacy is making the country less secure.

In testimony before Congress in March, Gen. Bantz J. Craddock, the commander of American military forces in Latin America, said the sanctions had excluded Latin American officers from American training programs and could allow China, which has been seeking military ties to Latin America, to fill the void.

"We now risk losing contact and interoperability with a generation of military classmates in many nations of the region, including several leading countries," General Craddock told the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Ecuador has lost $15 million since 2003. Home to one of the largest American military bases in Latin America, Ecuador “has become increasingly important as a staging ground for American surveillance of everything from the cocaine trade to immigrant smuggling.” Imposing sanctions on Ecuador risks reprisal in the form of booting the American military out of the country.

What does the US gain in exchange for the immunity agreements the administration is trying to extort? Not much.

Many legal scholars say it is unlikely that Americans would ever face the court because its focus is on the most egregious of war crimes, like systematic genocide, and the court is intended to try cases from countries where the judicial systems are unable or unwilling to handle such cases. There are also safeguards that would give the United States' own military and civilian courts jurisdiction over Americans.

Could it be that the president wants to protect himself from war crimes prosecutions?

< UPDATED: Frist and Intelligent Design | Strange Priorities >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Re: Immunity v. Foreign Aid (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:32 PM EST
    I thought it was American politicians, diplomats, soldiers, and people participating in UN and NATO peace-keeping expeditions. Is it really all Americans? -C

    Re: Immunity v. Foreign Aid (none / 0) (#2)
    by pigwiggle on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:32 PM EST
    “the sanctions had excluded Latin American officers from American training programs”
    And this is a bad thing? Perhaps you can tell me what the feds get in return for training Latin American officers.
    “Imposing sanctions on Ecuador risks reprisal in the form of booting the American military out of the country.”
    Promise?
    “What does the US gain in exchange for the immunity agreements the administration is trying to extort?”
    US citizens should not be subject to a court constructed by anyone other than US citizens.

    Re: Immunity v. Foreign Aid (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:32 PM EST
    I'm not sure US military operations in Ecuador are vital to our national security, and we might be better off if they were kicked out of that country. They are there as part of the WOD ("war on drugs") not as part of any legitimate military activity. The history of US involvement in Latin America suggests to me that all parties would be better off with a lower level of US involvement in their affairs. As far as your suggestion that the ICC will not engage in politicized prosecutions, again I respectfully disagree. The history of prosecutors offices everywhere suggests that they are often staffed by politically ambitious climbers who sometimes care less for the merits of a case than whether they can build a name prosecuting a "big name" defendant. I think the risk of politically motivated prosecutions is real. Thanks for bringing this to our attention, however.

    Re: Immunity v. Foreign Aid (none / 0) (#4)
    by pigwiggle on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:32 PM EST
    “As far as your suggestion that the ICC will not engage in politicized prosecutions, again I respectfully disagree.”
    Interesting point; with all the negative coverage prosecutors get around here I’m surprised our hosts would proffer such a grand stage for their misdeeds.

    Re: Immunity v. Foreign Aid (none / 0) (#5)
    by DawesFred60 on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:32 PM EST
    Well why not?..do you think i want to go to prison in Mexico? for saying bad things?..this is a real joke, And if i was Bush i don't think i would want to be, before any judge in some Alien court system. i mean come on people its all part of the one world movement, and its fun to watch people fall for it. and let us not forget the coming world tax system, if i don't pay my one world tax? would i be cut up into 200 part and sent to prison in 200 so called counties?..this one is as good as the great mate debate down under! oh yes listen to what the good old boy Newt Gingrich said about how you will all live in the coming years, and the fact is he just told you the truth about fighting this war on so called terrorists for 75 years. oh yes forget all social benefits and the only freedom! you will only know is the mass graves made by your own government. oh yes newt also has pic's with saddam, get what i mean?

    Re: Immunity v. Foreign Aid (none / 0) (#6)
    by swingvote on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:32 PM EST
    Personally, I don't care what excuse Bush uses if it involves cutting our overly generous foreign aid packages. Nor do I particularly oppose this administration's move to keep us out of the International Criminal Court. It's a dumb idea and one we should all oppose. The fact that it's first indictee was not Yasser Arafat is proof that it is hardly a non-partisan court.

    Re: Immunity v. Foreign Aid (none / 0) (#7)
    by BigTex on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:32 PM EST
    Could it be that the president wants to protect himself from war crimes prosecutions?
    I appriciate that I'm in the minority here, but is it necessary to continue to take gratuitious cheap shots in the form of speculation here? Facts sure, more power to you for airing them out, it takes an amount of courage to consistantly challenge the administration based on facts. That's one reason I keep coming back, to get facutal arguments supporting what often is the other side. When the usual suspects do it that's to be expected, but when the actual bloggers do it only deteoriates the blog and makes it less of an influence. From everyhting discerned here it seems that TL wants this blog to be a respectable blog for liberal issues. I post these comments not to be destructivly critical, but rather to point out that the usual level of professonalism and high quality blogging here has markedly dropped.

    Re: Immunity v. Foreign Aid (none / 0) (#8)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:32 PM EST
    When americans commit crimes in other countries they should be tried by those who they committed the crimes against. Just like america tries foreigners who commit crimes here. War crimes should be tried in int'l war crime courts. If bush or any other president commits atrocities like milosivic did, and their own country won't try them, then send them to Hague, ce la guerre. America is supposed to set ideals, not be above them. As far as foreign aid goes, I suggest we just stop giving/selling arms, especially since they keep getting turned on us. Besides, food is cheaper and makes for better friends.

    Re: Immunity v. Foreign Aid (none / 0) (#9)
    by DawesFred60 on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:32 PM EST
    The world in a really unjust place. sailor and graphicus both of you do not get it at all do you? all foreign aid is about the deal and what is bush and this non government about but the deal. and say a place that is out-of-the way, like Ecuador it is vital for control of a area, not for the reason of helping people but for the deal that will make a-lot-of-money for some business or for some special guy or girl of some powerful family, the ideals of justice is as dead as the mideast gods; all people of this earth are nothing but prostitutes for the ideals of tyrannical and suicidal one world ideals. in other words foreign aid makes money for a few guys who control this empire.

    Re: Immunity v. Foreign Aid (none / 0) (#10)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:32 PM EST
    PW-
    And this is a bad thing? Perhaps you can tell me what the feds get in return for training Latin American officers.
    Not a bad thing at all but not for the reasons you imply. The feds get plenty in return, unfortunately it usually comes back to haunt them, at the very least. The School of Americas, the largest terrorist training camp in the world, was started in Panama in 1946. In 1984 SOA was kicked of Panama and moved to Ft. Benning GA. where it stands today. It was 'officially' closed in 2001 and reopened as WHISC (Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation) in an attempt to whisk out the horrid connotation that SOA had acquired. It trains and has trained South and Central Americans to fight our dirty wars; torture and guerilla warfare are main items on the menu. Similar training of foreign soldiers took place in Afghanistan with Osama, and the MEK in northern Iraq. Is this a bad thing? Ending the training programs will never happen, they have bipartisan support. Moving them out of countries that are pissed at us because we play by different rules that we impose on them, well no problem, we just move the training programs somewhere else. International training of terrorists (not the freedom fighters from the SOA), exporting them into the world, and putting the terrorists away to make America safe are the most effective talking points for the Bush administration; they seem to work, making us more afraid. The GWOT allowed for the passage of the Patriot Act, an Act that weakens our civil rights in order to protect us. Naming Enemy Combatants, bulging gulags where no due process exists, and to top it off NO ACCOUNTABILITY to a international court of law. Not a bad thing? Good question.

    Re: Immunity v. Foreign Aid (none / 0) (#11)
    by pigwiggle on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:32 PM EST
    "Not a bad thing at all but not for the reasons you imply. ... The School of Americas, the largest terrorist training"
    That is exactly what I meant to imply.

    Re: Immunity v. Foreign Aid (none / 0) (#12)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:32 PM EST
    Justpaul, just out of curiousity, what percentage of our budget do you think goes toward our overly generous foreign aid? And how do you think it compares with other wealthy countries?

    Re: Immunity v. Foreign Aid (none / 0) (#13)
    by swingvote on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:32 PM EST
    J.B., Don't try to play a numbers game with me on foreign aid. I'm quite up to date on the percentages, and anything above zero is too much. I don't care what other countries are spending in foreign aid or how it compares to what we as a country spend. There is nothing in the constitution that empowers the government to give our money away.

    Re: Immunity v. Foreign Aid (none / 0) (#14)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:32 PM EST
    Wow! jp writes
    Don't try to play a numbers game with me on foreign aid. I'm quite up to date on the percentages ...
    Answer the question; if you are so up to date on the stats, please inform the rest of us.

    Re: Immunity v. Foreign Aid (none / 0) (#15)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:32 PM EST
    is it necessary to continue to take gratuitious cheap shots in the form of speculation here?
    That's not a cheap shot...that's a legit question. Bush launched a war of agression, which has implications he must certainly be aware of, just as he was aware of the significance of the Geneva Convention and the War Crimes Act of 1996 with respect to maltreatment of prisoners.

    Re: Immunity v. Foreign Aid (none / 0) (#16)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:32 PM EST
    Perhaps you can tell me what the feds get in return for training Latin American officers.
    Listen to the General - it keeps the Latin American officers out of the Chinese training programs.
    US citizens should not be subject to a court constructed by anyone other than US citizens.
    Please. US citizens abroad are all the time subject to non-american laws and non-american courts. (I have seen American tourists who apparently thought they could do what they wanted to with impunity, though, and that the marines would come and save their asses. Not.)
    It's a dumb idea and one we should all oppose. The fact that it's first indictee was not Yasser Arafat is proof that it is hardly a non-partisan court.
    Justpaul, a simple question. Why should Americans be allowed to commit war crimes? You know what they say, if you don't break the law, you have nothing to worry about. Yasser Arafat wasn't subject to the court because it only deals with war crimes committed after it was established in 2002.

    Re: Immunity v. Foreign Aid (none / 0) (#17)
    by swingvote on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:33 PM EST
    Mar, Did I ever say that U.S. citizens should be able to commit war crimes? This inability of so many here to have a discussion based on what people have actually said rather than what you like to believe they have said because it fits your pre- (and ill-) conceived notions is why this place is so often nothing more than a liberal version of Free Republic. As for Arafat: He was running a demi-state that committed terrorist acts against it's neighbor Israel on an almost daily basis and which lacked a functioning court system able to bring people to trial fairly, as witnessed by the routine extra-judicial murders of those accused of collaborating with "the enemy". He was also closely involved with the Al Aqsa Martyr's Brigades and the militant wing of Fatah. He could have been indicted within days of the court going into session, for the first bombing or shooting either of these groups carried out. Never happened. Why is that? Sailor, What's the point of providing links and stats to you when it's so obvious that you don't read them and have no interest in anything but issuing the daily rant. As such, it's hardly worth my effort, especially since I've made it clear that any aid is too much aid. We can't buy friends, and trying to do so is an insult to those we wish to have better relations with. I know that the Democratic platform has always been more money for everything, but it hasn't worked in the foreign relations department and never will.

    Re: Immunity v. Foreign Aid (none / 0) (#18)
    by Che's Lounge on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:33 PM EST
    International Commerce is essential for our survival (and everyone else's for that matter). IMHO our methods of commerce create more enemies than friends. We can't buy friends No, but we can make friends by sharing our knowledge and wealth with them. It benefits everyone but those who never drive themselves.

    Re: Immunity v. Foreign Aid (none / 0) (#20)
    by BigTex on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:33 PM EST
    And do what with the cash instead?
    How about sink it into teacher pay? Or enact a preventative and major medical national health care? Or spend it on items that will wean us off of foreign oil, and most of oil for that matter, so we can keep most of our money and enact one of the above?

    Re: Immunity v. Foreign Aid (none / 0) (#21)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:33 PM EST
    Big Tex- You have my vote, but alas the teachers lobby is rather weak at the moment, as are the greens, and alternative medicine's. Good luck in raising funds, perhaps you can lie in your campaign speeches.

    Re: Immunity v. Foreign Aid (none / 0) (#22)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:34 PM EST
    Did I ever say that U.S. citizens should be able to commit war crimes?
    I was pretty clearly implied. First you said the international court is a dumb idea and one we should all oppose. Then you critized the Palestinian court system for not being able to try Yasser Arafat. So, what (international) mechanism to handle alleged war criminals do you propose then, in cases when the national system doesn't work?