Oz Government War Crimes Pact Rebuff To U.S.

December 3

The Howard Government has baulked at a contentious US request that it promise not to hand over Americans accused of war crimes to the International Criminal Court.

In what amounts to a rare diplomatic rebuff to the Bush administration, the sensitive US request has been quietly gathering dust within the Canberra bureaucracy for more than two years without an answer since it was first revealed by The Australian in August 2002.

The Government's in-principle support for the US's request in 2002 wilted when faced with the realisation that it would undermine Australia's support for the ICC.

www.news.com.au...

So, maybe Johnny and Dubya' are not as close buddies as it appears.

Sanc'.

edit:title

[edit on 2-12-2004 by sanctum]

At this time in Bush's presidential carrer, I have a feeling that more and more countries will follow in point. There are so many countries that are just frustrated with Bush and his bullying. It wouldnt suprise me if we (the USA) were standing alone in this pile of crap that Bush got us into.

Kid', what i would like to know is what 'accused Americans' are being held in Australian jurisdiction?

Sanc'.

Originally posted by sanctum
Kid', what i would like to know is what 'accused Americans' are being held in Australian jurisdiction?

Sanc'.

Good point. Im not an Aussie, so I hope this isnt to far off the mark, but I think this is more of someone trying to make a point. I dont think any American soldiers are in Australian jurisdiction. The troops in Iraq are either under British or American command, so I dont think it would really be possible for Aussie gov to hand over any American soldiers. With that being said, I want to iterate something. I love Australia! I had the chance to go whil on westpac in the Navy in '93. Its beautiful, the people are friendly, and for a single guy like I was at the time, you cant beat the girl to guy ratio, its something like 4:1 girl to guy! I dont know if this still holds true, but thats how it was in 93

Well now that Winston has finally had his testicles drop, he might find the nerve to ask Bush to repatriate our countrymen from that concentration camp they call Guantanamo Bay?

Originally posted by Psychoses
Well now that Winston has finally had his testicles drop, he might find the nerve to ask Bush to repatriate our countrymen from that concentration camp they call Guantanamo Bay?

Good point Psychoses. However, i think not.
I wonder if Phoney Blair will do the same, and stand up to Bush...again, i think not.

Sanc'.

Well I'll be the first to admit Hicks is a bit of a lost cause, but ASIO actually cleared Habib of terrorist involvement when he initially applied for his Visa.

I think it's a bit rich that Bush want's U'S soldiers to be above the law but one of our own is locked for the duration!

Originally posted by Psychoses
Well I'll be the first to admit Hicks is a bit of a lost cause, but ASIO actually cleared Habib of terrorist involvement when he initially applied for his Visa.

I think it's a bit rich that Bush want's U'S soldiers to be above the law but one of our own is locked for the duration!

I agree. David Hicks is very suspect, however i feel Habib is caught up in the 'scheme' of things.
See Hicks photo evidence. No such evidence regarding Habib.



Sanc'.

I think another point worth considering under Mr Bushes proposal is what his stance is on mercenaries, or "contractors" as they are now known. I know it is illegal under Australian law for an Aussie to "work" as a mercenary, but we are allied in a war with a country that is using hundreds of them.

Are they too classed as "U.S soldiers, or are they out in the cold on their own?

Originally posted by Psychoses
I think another point worth considering under Mr Bushes proposal is what his stance is on mercenaries, or "contractors" as they are now known. I know it is illegal under Australian law for an Aussie to "work" as a mercenary, but we are allied in a war with a country that is using hundreds of them.

Are they too classed as "U.S soldiers, or are they out in the cold on their own?

Sorry Psychoses, I have no idea. But if Aussies were doing so, it wouldn't be on Australian soil.

Sanc'.

Well, I think people are reading more into this story than there is. Politically, Howard can't move. If he denies the request, he embarrasses Bush, if he agrees to it he embarrasses Aus.

No response is the best response. Bush shouldn't have put Howard in this postition to start with, but I am sure that there is an "understanding" in place wrt the ICC.

Similarly, the Aussies in Gitmo aren't in limbo. The US has, I'm sure, provided Australia with whatever evidence there is and the circumstances of their capture. If and if OZ wants these guys back, we would give them up in a heartbeat. Howard knows it's better to let them sit rather than start a big publicity row at home over a couple Aussie taliban.

As to the "mercenaries", keep in mind that these are private contractors working for private businesses and Iraqi ministries, they are not part of the US ORBAT. So calling them mercenaries is a little misleading.

I understand what your saying about Howard being stuck. Over here he has been accused of being to "close" to Bush.

With Gitmo, it's my understanding that the American and British captives have been removed from the facility thats why I raised the topic. It's being reported here that Hicks lawyer has stated that the legal proceedings are far from fair and has raised doubts as to these Aussies getting a fair trial.

I didn't intend to be misleading by calling the contractors mercenaries, but considering that some of the individuals depicted in the Abu Gahrib torture incident were contractors, I saw that these people wear fatigues and carry weapons so just assumed that they could in fact be labelled as mercenaries.