Bush and BIAs - cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board

Cali Coug · 10-03-2006, 10:13 PM

I don't know if anyone is following this or not, but this is one of Bush's biggest foreign policy blunders.

BACKGROUND

Bush is scared to death of being subjected to the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC). The ICC is a court that was built to prosecute large criminal acts in violation of international law. We are talking about things like genocide, mass murder, etc. We aren't talking about something like not following the laws for flags on ships. Milosevic was prosecuted in the ICC.

The ICC was formed as part of the Rome Convention in 1996 (I believe). It has over 100 signatories (meaning those nations agree to accept ICC jurisdiction). The US never signed (neither did Iraq).

Bush is concerned that American leaders could be subjected to trial or subpoena in the ICC. Actually, concerned doesn't capture his sentiments. He is petrified.

Most legal experts will tell you that there is little to no chance that the US leaders could be brought to trial before the ICC if they were to sign the Rome Convention treaty and accept ICC jurisdiction.

ISSUE

So just how worried is Bush about this? He has instructed the State Department to get signatory nations to the Rome Convention to sign an Article 98 treaty (also called a bilateral immunity agreement, or BIA) with the US. The BIA treaty basically says that the signatory nation will not ever attempt to bring US citizens before the ICC for trial.

To get the countries to sign a BIA (which, by signing, means the signatory nation is violating international law by disregarding its treaty obligations under the Rome Convention), Bush and the Republican Congress said they would withhold US aid for those nations' millitary operations unless they signed. The money we give them for military operations is expressly earmarked for combating terrorism and the international drug trade. In other words, Bush would rather get a treaty saying we won't be brought before the ICC (of which there is ZERO chance anyways without the BIA being signed) than he would help those countries to fund their part in the war on terror and drugs.

To further compel nations to sign BIAs, Congress passed an amendment to their original act that also conditioned economic assistance for non-military operations on signing a BIA with the US. We now have over 100 BIAs signed.

The problem? Many nations, especially those in Latin America, are looking to other large nations for economic assistance when the US has tried to coerce them to sign a useless BIA agreement that would make the country violate international law. Who are they getting money from? China and Venezuela. We are, unbelievably, allowing China and Venezuela to take an unprecendented amount of influence in Latin America all because of an irrational fear of the ICC. This is really dangerous to our security.

Perhaps the issue is too complicated for people to care. But look into it. You may be surprised what you find.

Here are some links of interest:

http://www.iccnow.org/documents/CICC...ondi%20rice%22

http://www.globalsolutions.org/progr...bias_home.html

10-03-2006, 10:13 PM	#1
Cali Coug Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 5,996	Bush and BIAs I don't know if anyone is following this or not, but this is one of Bush's biggest foreign policy blunders. BACKGROUND Bush is scared to death of being subjected to the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC). The ICC is a court that was built to prosecute large criminal acts in violation of international law. We are talking about things like genocide, mass murder, etc. We aren't talking about something like not following the laws for flags on ships. Milosevic was prosecuted in the ICC. The ICC was formed as part of the Rome Convention in 1996 (I believe). It has over 100 signatories (meaning those nations agree to accept ICC jurisdiction). The US never signed (neither did Iraq). Bush is concerned that American leaders could be subjected to trial or subpoena in the ICC. Actually, concerned doesn't capture his sentiments. He is petrified. Most legal experts will tell you that there is little to no chance that the US leaders could be brought to trial before the ICC if they were to sign the Rome Convention treaty and accept ICC jurisdiction. ISSUE So just how worried is Bush about this? He has instructed the State Department to get signatory nations to the Rome Convention to sign an Article 98 treaty (also called a bilateral immunity agreement, or BIA) with the US. The BIA treaty basically says that the signatory nation will not ever attempt to bring US citizens before the ICC for trial. To get the countries to sign a BIA (which, by signing, means the signatory nation is violating international law by disregarding its treaty obligations under the Rome Convention), Bush and the Republican Congress said they would withhold US aid for those nations' millitary operations unless they signed. The money we give them for military operations is expressly earmarked for combating terrorism and the international drug trade. In other words, Bush would rather get a treaty saying we won't be brought before the ICC (of which there is ZERO chance anyways without the BIA being signed) than he would help those countries to fund their part in the war on terror and drugs. To further compel nations to sign BIAs, Congress passed an amendment to their original act that also conditioned economic assistance for non-military operations on signing a BIA with the US. We now have over 100 BIAs signed. The problem? Many nations, especially those in Latin America, are looking to other large nations for economic assistance when the US has tried to coerce them to sign a useless BIA agreement that would make the country violate international law. Who are they getting money from? China and Venezuela. We are, unbelievably, allowing China and Venezuela to take an unprecendented amount of influence in Latin America all because of an irrational fear of the ICC. This is really dangerous to our security. Perhaps the issue is too complicated for people to care. But look into it. You may be surprised what you find. Here are some links of interest: http://www.iccnow.org/documents/CICC...ondi%20rice%22 http://www.globalsolutions.org/progr...bias_home.html Last edited by Cali Coug; 10-03-2006 at 10:24 PM.