# Dear United Nations: **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [July 4, 2002, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-united-nations/117394 "2002-07-04T19:15:33Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Coldfire](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a587f6/32.png) [@Coldfire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Coldfire)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2002, 1:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-united-nations/117394/21 "2002-07-05T01:13:05Z")
Good point, good point. SPOOFE was distracting me with that sorry looking toothbrush again. Or was it the third can of Grolsch? Ah, well. Bedtime. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2002, 10:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-united-nations/117394/22 "2002-07-05T10:30:51Z")
The idea that somehow the present signatories have given their citizens immunity while denying the same thing to US citizens if the US were to join is just plain silly and would only fly with the kind of people who believe the UN already has black helicopters circling overhead and ready to take US citizens away from their families and before the ICC. It is just pure spin by the Administration in an effort to confuse the issue and just shows that if you lie enough, someone will believe it. I am disccussing this very issue in [this GD thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&postid=2247218#post2246864). ---
**Author:** ![Xerxes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/d2c977/32.png) [@Xerxes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Xerxes)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2002, 12:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-united-nations/117394/23 "2002-07-05T12:20:23Z")
> [@](#): > > In realistic terms the chances that any American would be brought before the ICC are close to zero because the US _would_ prosecute and punish any such offense so the ICC would not get a chance to act. I think **Sailor’s** point here is key; it’s only in the event that no action was taken by the accused’s country that the ICC would have any mandate. I think the US has a good record in owning up to and sorting out its own messes when they very occasionally happen. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2002, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-united-nations/117394/24 "2002-07-05T21:17:30Z")
**Xerxes** , can you give such examples? I’m not so sure… ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2002, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-united-nations/117394/25 "2002-07-05T22:19:22Z")
Well, Mi Lai comes to mind. Maybe there are other cases? ---
**Author:** ![Tazma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/3be4f8/32.png) [@Tazma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tazma)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2002, 3:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-united-nations/117394/26 "2002-07-06T03:07:19Z")
Someone much smarter than me has posted some very interesting [thoughts on the ICC](http://www.denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2002/07/ICCJudgeSelection.shtml) ---
**Author:** ![Tazma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/3be4f8/32.png) [@Tazma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tazma)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2002, 3:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-united-nations/117394/27 "2002-07-06T03:09:39Z")
[Read this post too.](http://www.denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2002/07/MoreontheICC.shtml) ---
**Author:** ![lucwarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e19adc/32.png) [@lucwarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lucwarm)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2002, 11:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-united-nations/117394/28 "2002-07-06T11:35:09Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Xerxes \* > \*\* > > I think **Sailor’s** point here is key; it’s only in the event that no action was taken by the accused’s country that the ICC would have any mandate.\*\* There is a Great Debates thread on the ICC, where this point was debunked repeatedly. Let’s suppose that the US accidentaly bombs a wedding party. No doubt many people feel that US soldiers have committed a “war crime.” The US investigates, determines that the incident was an accident, and exonerates the soldiers involved. The ICC can prosecute the soldiers nonetheless, if it determines that the investigation was not “genuine.” Thus if the court is biased or acting in bad faith, the procedural safeguard is basically meaningless since it will inevitably determine that the investigation was not genuine. By the way, thanks for the links **Tazma**. ---
**Author:** ![Estilicon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/848f3c/32.png) [@Estilicon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Estilicon)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2002, 2:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-united-nations/117394/29 "2002-07-06T14:00:37Z")
Supranational jurisdiction is the next thing in globalazation. As far as I know U.S.A has been the biggest promoters of it. If you don’t like the result fuck off. If you don’t like the U.N. get the hell out of it. No one is forcing you to stay. But as long as you are in it you’ll have to respect it’s decissions. The ICC is not a threat to U.S.A after all you are the most powerfull country in the world. The thing that astonishes me is tha an institution that has the potential of being ver usefull for stopping human rights violations is Torpedoed by the land of hope and freedom. With the kind of power U.S.A has it can negotiate force reformations, etc. Instead it decides to stay out of it together with China, Irak and Israel… [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-united-nations/117394.md?page=1)