Larry, I wasn't disagreeing with you to begin with, but you have twisted yourself into a cognitive pretzel trying to create a debate. Go to flame if you are so hard up to fight with me. Stop trolling here trying to provoke.

"You suggest that the ICC could hold the UN accountable. Fine. Who holds the ICC accountable, the UN? That would be a circle-jerk. "

Nowhere did I say that "The ICC[as concieved of currently]" could hold the UN accountable. I said a "Credible ICC[international criminal court]" could hold the UN accountable. Go back in my post and look it up.
I have already stated that I find the current conception of the ICC not credible. I have already stated that the UN would have to be held accountable to the ICC, NOT the other way around.

Again, you are trying to set up a bunch of fake statements to attribute to me. Try listen to what I actually say. I'll make the same offer I have always made (and you have always failed to rise to, and we both know why)- I will pay you $20 through Robert if you find where I said that the current conception of the ICC COULD and WOULD hold the UN accountable. Put up or shut up.

There are plenty of cooperative multinational agreements that have NOTHING to do with the UN. Even ones the Bush adminsitration likes. An ICC should be one in my opinion, and if enough of the world heavyweight western nations sign on, they could insist that the UN submit its personnel to the authority of the ICC (they DO like their multi-billion operating budget provided by the west, rigth?). Thus UN folks would show up in an ICC court to be held accountable for, say, corruption and incompetence, and sent off to some little jail in some ICC participating nation to rot for a few years. I hear Billy Bob in alabama has an empty bunk in his cell.

Not to mention, those UN employees still retaining their citizenship of origin would be accountable naturally if their state of origin was an ICC participant.

Davin L.