Maybe another clue: US Issues Warning to Europeans in Dispute over New Court @ http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/26/international/europe/26COUR.html The US has warned that its NATO role will change if individual countries do not sign exclusionary agreements with it to protect US soldiers from the war crimes court.
Excerpt: "Secretary of State Colin L. Powell wrote letters to individual European governments dated AUG. 16, asking them to ignore the European Union's request to wait and make a united stand on the issue. He urged them instead to sign separate agreements with the United States "AS SOON AS POSSIBLE" under Article 98 of the treaty that created the court, which the United States says allows nations to negotiate for immunity for their forces on a bilateral basis. " Obviously, when you establish yourself as the world's SWAT team, rushing off to solve all the terrorist and regime changes that politics and oil economics dictate, then your soldiers are a higher profile risk for litigation, especially if they conduct covert actions that fail and then are discovered to be in violation of UN standards of warfare. I am not a pacifist; however, I think when you rush headlong into a state of militancy that you will indeed die by the sword, and demanding exemptions because of your high profile is arrogant bordering on insanity, Napoleonic overreaching. If you preach the rule of law, abide by the rule of law. Fish or cut bait. Walk the talk. Credibility. Accountability. On the other hand, I'm sure that the people organizing our soldiers into combat units for Phase 2, 3, 4, 5 of the war on terrorism are concerned that US soldiers will be the one and only long time combatants, and therefore should have this exemption due to the odds. Again, do we want to be that kind of an empire? Karen
