Any German Translators out there? Article on US pressure to

force other countries to vote for Us to have extention of amnesty for war crimes. If someone can translate, it would be a great help. Thanks. http://www.welt.de/data/2004/05/21/280811.html

Awesome town!

The USA want to force immunity for Americans In the security council the controversy over the sense of USA sharpens itself too New ones York    with the demand for immunity for Americans opposite the international criminal court (ICC) released the USA again a controversy in the security council. Confirmed on Friday UN diplomats. Washington threatens like already before two years with the departure of his troops of discord missions, if since 2002 two the times for in each case one year confirmed special arrangement for Americans is not again always extended and thus practically. The immunity would apply also to in the Iraq of operating US military. Germany, France and Spain as well as further that altogether 15 member countries of the advice are in view of the US procedure decided to refuse to a resolution submitted by Washington over the special arrangement their agreement it were said. These countries interspersed that before the tuning a public debate was fixed. It should take place still on Friday evening, on requests Americas however on Monday was shifted. In diplomatic circles was called it, the USA wanted in the meantime bilateral conversations with critics in the security council to hold and support for their position recruit. Human rights activists requested the UN not to grant to the US military immunity again in relation to international prosecution. In view of abusing Iraqi prisoners do not concern it to grant the USA "with war crimes a special treatment" explained the organization human to Rights Watch. US diplomats had submitted the resolution on Wednesday. They gave to understand that Washington would have to withdraw troop contingents for discord missions in the case of refusal its. Of it also the employment of a discord troop would be in Haiti concerned, which on 1 June was to begin. UN diplomats pointed out that with acceptance of the resolution for now third the time a "people customary law" and thus a durable US immunity would develop. "however no country dares, openly against it to be correct", said a UN diplomat. The opponents of the US resolution counted first on up to six abstentions "as signal of the Unwillens". However at least seven abstentions are necessary, in order to bring a resolution for case.  dpa

On edit - very rough!

This is a computer translation, not a human, so caveat emptor...

The USA want to force immunity for Americans

In the security council the controversy over the sense of USA sharpens itself too

New ones York    with the demand for immunity for Americans opposite the international criminal court (ICC) released the USA again a controversy in the security council. Confirmed on Friday UN diplomats. Washington threatens like already before two years with the departure of his troops of discord missions, if since 2002 two the times for in each case one year confirmed special arrangement for Americans is not again always extended and thus practically.

The immunity would apply also to in the Iraq of operating US military. Germany, France and Spain as well as further that altogether 15 member countries of the advice are in view of the US procedure decided to refuse to a resolution submitted by Washington over the special arrangement their agreement it were said.

These countries interspersed that before the tuning a public debate was fixed. It should take place still on Friday evening, on requests Americas however on Monday was shifted. In diplomatic circles was called it, the USA wanted in the meantime bilateral conversations with critics in the security council to hold and support for their position recruit.

Human rights activists requested the UN not to grant to the US military immunity again in relation to international prosecution. In view of abusing Iraqi prisoners do not concern it to grant the USA "with war crimes a special treatment" explained the organization human to Rights Watch.

US diplomats had submitted the resolution on Wednesday. They gave to understand that Washington would have to withdraw troop contingents for discord missions in the case of refusal its. Of it also the employment of a discord troop would be in Haiti concerned, which on 1 June was to begin.

UN diplomats pointed out that with acceptance of the resolution for now third the time a "people customary law" and thus a durable US immunity would develop. "however no country dares, openly against it to be correct", said a UN diplomat. The opponents of the US resolution counted first on up to six abstentions "as signal of the Unwillens". However at least seven abstentions are necessary, around a resolution for case to bring  dpa

Mostly good, my closest interpretation in a couple cases where the wording was weird. A few spots where I simply am not sure.

With the demand for immunity for Americans in the International Criminal Court (I think), the US sparked a renewed controversy in the Security Council. This was confirmed by UN diplomats. Washington is threatening, as it did two years ago, to remove its troops from UN peacekeeping missions if the special arrangement for Americans is not extended again.

The immunity would also be in effect for the US military forces in Iraq. Germany, France, Spain, and others among the fifteen council members have decided to refuse a Resolution introduced by the US about the arrangement. (This is secondhand information.)

These countries noted that before the decision was made a debate would be held. The debate was supposed to take place on Friday evening, but was postponed to Monday because of a US request. In diplomatic circles, word has it that the US wants to lead bilateral discussions in the Council in the meantime to shore up support for its position.

Human rights advocates requested that the UN not renew the US military's immunity to international criminal prosecution. In view of the mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners, the US should not receive special treatment regarding war crimes, explained the Human Rights Watch.

US diplomats submitted their resolution on Wednesday. They indicated that Washington would pull its contingents out of US peacekeeping missions should the resolution fail to pass. This includes a unit of UN troops that will be in Haiti starting on June 1.

US diplomats pointed out that with the resolution ... something I'm not sure of ... and through that a lasting US immunity would develop. "However, no country dares to speak out against that," said a UN diplomat. The opponents of the US resolution counted six abstentions as a signal of opposition. However, seven abstentions are necessary to pigeonhole a resolution. (Not sure about the last sentence...)

You beat me to it but your translation is so smooth! :) and what with my rusty German I'm almost scared to post my suggestions but here goes... (Dirk, Karenina, etc, please be gentle)!

I think paragraph 3 says that those countries insisted that a public debate was necessary before proceeding to a vote.

Germany, France and Spain and the 15 member countries of the Council opposed the US demand and insisted that public debate was necessary before proceeding to a vote. That should have taken place Friday evening, but at America's request, the debate has been moved to Monday.

And here's for the last paragraph

Diplomats pointed out that accepting to renew this resolution for a third time would practically make it common law which would give the US permanent immunity.

No country dares to openly vote against it said the diplomat- there could be as many as 6 abstentions to show strong indignation but at least seven abstentions are required to keep the resolution from being adopted.

Especially that last paragraph. :)