![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
And less genocidally-inclined. Not any better inclined towards certain world leaders, though - from both sides of the pond.
According to the Beeb,, even the concessions made aren't enough for Shrub and his little gang of pig-ignorant motherfuckers. "But he added that the US would continue to seek agreements for all its nationals on foreign soil to be immune from prosecution."
Hmmm.
I'm fairly responsible. Anybody who knows me will tell you that I'm not a violent man. I don't seek out confrontation and I don't get into fights. By the argument that world leaders are conceding, it is therefore unfair that I be subject to criminal law. After all, it's mainly intended to restrain and punish very different people from myself, and the main risk to me is from mistaken or malicious prosecution. I therefore hereby apply for exemption from UK law. Makes perfect sense, surely? Indeed, I'm sure that the US government would have no problem exempting me from US law on my next visit.
Individual nations or groups of nations deciding against being involved in, and not to sign up to, certain agreements is frustrating, but in general they can reasonably do so. Actively seeking to torpedo the structures the rest of the world is trying to build is more than a little antisocial. The rest of the world worked long and hard to find ways to bring justice to people who thought they were beyond its reaches. People like Dubya (and, unfortunately, the British judiciary) are the enemies of this process. We can, unfortunately, look forward to many more war criminals and bloodthirsty dictators dying comfortably of old age in thier beds, because unfortunately there doesn't seem to be the political will to pursue them, except where this will serve to justify past military or governmental action. And I'd just like to single out the Frogs for some opprobium, too, because I haven't forgotten about Fernando Pereira and the Rainbow Warrior, even if everyone else has.
At this point, of course, I have to mention that US government policy is to oppose the court entirely for all US citizens, and not just for military personnel, and what their supposed proximate reason for this is.
Henry Kissinger.
There are a fair few people that the ICC would want to talk to if it were given a free hand and ready resources, and there's a general consensus that Hank would be one of them. So are we talking about the pursuit of a longstanding policy goal, or the cynical protection of an old crony? A bit of both, I imagine.
I leave the last words to an old flatmate : "Isn't it funny how people say they'll never grow up to be their parents, then one day they look in the mirror and they're moving aircraft carriers into the Gulf?"
According to the Beeb,, even the concessions made aren't enough for Shrub and his little gang of pig-ignorant motherfuckers. "But he added that the US would continue to seek agreements for all its nationals on foreign soil to be immune from prosecution."
Hmmm.
I'm fairly responsible. Anybody who knows me will tell you that I'm not a violent man. I don't seek out confrontation and I don't get into fights. By the argument that world leaders are conceding, it is therefore unfair that I be subject to criminal law. After all, it's mainly intended to restrain and punish very different people from myself, and the main risk to me is from mistaken or malicious prosecution. I therefore hereby apply for exemption from UK law. Makes perfect sense, surely? Indeed, I'm sure that the US government would have no problem exempting me from US law on my next visit.
Individual nations or groups of nations deciding against being involved in, and not to sign up to, certain agreements is frustrating, but in general they can reasonably do so. Actively seeking to torpedo the structures the rest of the world is trying to build is more than a little antisocial. The rest of the world worked long and hard to find ways to bring justice to people who thought they were beyond its reaches. People like Dubya (and, unfortunately, the British judiciary) are the enemies of this process. We can, unfortunately, look forward to many more war criminals and bloodthirsty dictators dying comfortably of old age in thier beds, because unfortunately there doesn't seem to be the political will to pursue them, except where this will serve to justify past military or governmental action. And I'd just like to single out the Frogs for some opprobium, too, because I haven't forgotten about Fernando Pereira and the Rainbow Warrior, even if everyone else has.
At this point, of course, I have to mention that US government policy is to oppose the court entirely for all US citizens, and not just for military personnel, and what their supposed proximate reason for this is.
Henry Kissinger.
There are a fair few people that the ICC would want to talk to if it were given a free hand and ready resources, and there's a general consensus that Hank would be one of them. So are we talking about the pursuit of a longstanding policy goal, or the cynical protection of an old crony? A bit of both, I imagine.
I leave the last words to an old flatmate : "Isn't it funny how people say they'll never grow up to be their parents, then one day they look in the mirror and they're moving aircraft carriers into the Gulf?"
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif){kind=small}