logo 
spacer
  

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

If you have an opinion, you should share it! Register Now!

America's Debate hosts the best in news, government, and political debate. Register now to take part in the most civil and constructive debate on the Internet. Join the community, and get ready to be challenged!

Click here to start

> Sponsored Links

Register to remove these ads!

> Welcome to the America's Debate Archive!

Topics that have had no new replies in the last 180 days are moved to the archive.

New replies are not accepted once a topic is moved to the archive, and new topics cannot be started in the archive.

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> ASPA, Should it be abolished?
Renger
post Jul 29 2005, 11:04 AM
Post #1


******
Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 379
Member No.: 5,226
Joined: July-5-05

From: Amsterdam, the Netherlands
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Socialist



QUOTE
The first legislation adopted by the US Congress, in August 2002, is known as the American Servicemembers' Protection Act (ASPA). This legislation, known as the "Hague Invasion Act" contains provisions restricting US cooperation with the ICC; making US support of peacekeeping missions largely contingent on achieving impunity for all US personnel; and even granting the President permission to use “any means necessary” to free US citizens and allies from ICC custody in The Hague. The legislation, however, contains waivers that make all of these provisions non-binding, yet the Bush administration has not utilized these waivers and continues to pressure countries around the world to conclude bilateral immunity agreements – or otherwise lose essential US military assistance.

In December 2004, Congress subsequently adopted the Nethercutt Amendment, as part of the US Foreign Appropriations Bill. This legislation is far more wide-reaching than ASPA and authorizes the loss of Economic Support Funds to all countries, including many key US allies, which have ratified the ICC treaty but have not signed a bilateral immunity agreement with the US. While the President has the authority to waive the provisions of the Amendment, it poses the threat of broad cuts in foreign assistance, including funds for cooperation in international security and terrorism, economic and democratic development, human rights, and promoting peace processes.
The first legislation adopted by the US Congress, in August 2002, is known as the American Servicemembers' Protection Act (ASPA). This legislation, known as the "Hague Invasion Act" contains provisions restricting US cooperation with the ICC; making US support of peacekeeping missions largely contingent on achieving impunity for all US personnel; and even granting the President permission to use “any means necessary” to free US citizens and allies from ICC custody in The Hague. The legislation, however, contains waivers that make all of these provisions non-binding, yet the Bush administration has not utilized these waivers and continues to pressure countries around the world to conclude bilateral immunity agreements – or otherwise lose essential US military assistance.

In December 2004, Congress subsequently adopted the Nethercutt Amendment, as part of the US Foreign Appropriations Bill. This legislation is far more wide-reaching than ASPA and authorizes the loss of Economic Support Funds to all countries, including many key US allies, which have ratified the ICC treaty but have not signed a bilateral immunity agreement with the US. While the President has the authority to waive the provisions of the Amendment, it poses the threat of broad cuts in foreign assistance, including funds for cooperation in international security and terrorism, economic and democratic development, human rights, and promoting peace processes.
http://www.iccnow.org/documents/USandICC/ASPA.html


In Europe, and in particular the Netherlands, this legislation has been looked at as a dangerous precedent. Everybody in the world knows that the U.S. is the only superpower left in the world and that it should be one of the most important participants in struggle for justice in the world. Yet with this legislation it looks like the U.S. is placing itself above one of the most important international institutions of the world.

My question for debate is:

Should this U.S. legislation (ASPA) be abolished as soon as possible or should it be upholded?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

  
Go to the top of the page - Simple Version Time is now: January 29th, 2022 - 10:07 AM
©2002-2010 America's Debate, Inc.  All rights reserved.