# International Criminal Court **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 2, 2003, 7:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/international-criminal-court/185738 "2003-07-02T07:25:50Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![OliverH](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/278dde/32.png) [@OliverH](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OliverH)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2003, 1:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/international-criminal-court/185738/21 "2003-07-02T13:13:45Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Neurotik \* > \*\*Um, no he didn’t. His description of the genocide rule is completely accurate. > \*\* No, it isn’t. > [@](#): > > \*\* > If you plan an attack and you know that there is a strong possibility of civilian deaths, even if the attack is on a legitimate military target, and a civilian dies then you will be prosecuted for genocide. \*\* False on all accounts. The statute speaks of **excessive** casualties a nd you don’t just ‘will be prosecuted’, but the proper authorities will have to decide that a trial is warranted. > [@](#): > > \*\* > Seems like a good incentive for the attackee to set up military installations in dense civilian areas. \*\* I suggest familiarizing yourself with the existing body of international law on this issue. This isn’t anything new. It’s been a concept that has been around for decades. I realize, though, that it is a bit uncomfortable for people who are scared shit of risking injury of their own people and rather cluster bomb a village than sending ground forces in. > [@](#): > > \*\* > You still have yet to provide a reason why signing this treaty is in the best interests of the US. \*\* Well, unless you claim that it is in the best interest of the US to be on par with Iraq in its respect for international law, it is. ---
**Author:** ![refusal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ac91a4/32.png) [@refusal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/refusal)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2003, 1:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/international-criminal-court/185738/22 "2003-07-02T13:20:22Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Andy \* > \*\*No respectable democracy allows the politicisation of their judicial process. \*\* The US Supreme Court is appointed by the President and approved by congress. How is this not politicised? Almost all nations have politicisation of judicial appointment (Britain is currently moving from a system where they are appointed by the government to a system where they are appointed by a committee chosen by government). What the USA is objecting to is an appointment procedure which the President of the USA is not in control of. ---
**Author:** ![Brutus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/91b2a8/32.png) [@Brutus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brutus)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2003, 1:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/international-criminal-court/185738/23 "2003-07-02T13:27:43Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by And that’s the bottom line \* > **I believe the U.S. should recognize and be a part of the ICC. The U.S. needs to be held accountable for its actions just like any other country…** America is held accountable for its actions, by the electorate. We sure as hell don’t need the oh-so-unbiased rest of the world defining our ‘accountability’. Signing the ICC would most likely open American soldiers to a ‘legal gang-rape’. Witness the idiots trying to get Tommy Franks. It is not hard to imagine what will happen when everyone gets a chance to have at American soldiers in a so-called ‘legitimate’ venue. Any thinking person can see that the ICC will be used as a tool against America. And most importantly, there is _nothing_ in it for America. We persue who we feel we need to persue. We detain them as we see the need to detain them. We kill them if we see the need to kill them. What will the ICC give to America that we already don’t have? Let the Uraguays and New Zealands of the world play ‘court’. We already have all the courts we need. ---
**Author:** ![ChaosGod](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ac91a4/32.png) [@ChaosGod](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ChaosGod)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2003, 1:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/international-criminal-court/185738/24 "2003-07-02T13:53:36Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Brutus \* > Let the Uraguays and New Zealands of the world play ‘court’. We already have all the courts we need. \*\* Its Uruguay. ---
**Author:** ![Tarantula](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e274bd/32.png) [@Tarantula](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tarantula)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2003, 1:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/international-criminal-court/185738/25 "2003-07-02T13:55:48Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Brutus \* > **… And most importantly, there is _nothing_ in it for America. We persue who we feel we need to persue. We detain them as we see the need to detain them. We kill them if we see the need to kill them. What will the ICC give to America that we already don’t have?** I have no words to describe the disservice you have just done the majority of Americans by voicing that ignorant, belligerent, bigoted and (dare I say it) stupid, point of view. It is people like you \*\* Brutus \*\*, who give Americans a bad name. ---
**Author:** ![ChaosGod](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ac91a4/32.png) [@ChaosGod](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ChaosGod)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2003, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/international-criminal-court/185738/26 "2003-07-02T13:57:30Z")
I find it refreshing that many countries are refusing to be coerced by the US into not signing this treaty. I’m surprised at Colombia for instance, which I would have thought to be very tied up with the US on many levels. I’m glad about Croatia too, who, although wishing to enter NATO, and owing the US for helping stop serbian push, is also drawing the line. And, yes, even Uruguay, is drawing the line. ---
**Author:** ![SuaSponte](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SuaSponte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuaSponte)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2003, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/international-criminal-court/185738/27 "2003-07-02T14:22:02Z")
> [@](#): > > ## _by OliverH_ quote: > > Originally posted by dutchboy208 > > If you don’t… well, for one thing, not everyone else’s forces are answerable. Only 139 states have ratified the treaty,and it only took 60 to make it “enforceable”- thus assuming a principle of interstate democracy which doesn’t really exist, at least not outside the UN. > > * * * > > Quite the contrary, it is standard procedure with international treaties of any kind. So, **OliverH,** it is your belief that it is “standard procedure” that nations who do not sign a treaty are subject to its terms? Simply put, your belief is wrong. I think that the US has made a mistake in not signing up to the ICC. I think the signatories of the ICC have made a mistake in attempting to claim jurisdiction over nations who have not signed up for the ICC. Far more than a mistake, it is a blatant violation of international law - for all the attacks on the US for its alleged violations of the sovereignity of other nations, that provision of the ICC treaty is just a blatant an attack on sovereignity. If one wishes to get others to sign up to the ICC, then one should follow the same methods used to get people to sign up to the NPC and various treaties banning torture, etc. - pressure/induce them to do so. Don’t say “we don’t need your permission - we will apply the treaty to you anyway.” Sua ---
**Author:** ![Dogface](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9d8465/32.png) [@Dogface](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dogface)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2003, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/international-criminal-court/185738/28 "2003-07-02T14:28:52Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Roger\_Mexico \* > \*\*The US is a rogue terrorist state and knows that its actions are criminal in international law, so of course they will pretend they are above the law. \*\* Go kiss your Bin Laden picture some more. So tell me, how many weeks did you celebrate after the World Trade Center was attacked? Do you hold a party for three days or the whole week every September 11th? ---
**Author:** ![Dogface](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9d8465/32.png) [@Dogface](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dogface)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2003, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/international-criminal-court/185738/29 "2003-07-02T14:31:23Z")
The ICC is nothing other than an attempt to give politics a “legal” veneer. It has nothing at all to do with justice. ---
**Author:** ![Brutus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/91b2a8/32.png) [@Brutus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brutus)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2003, 2:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/international-criminal-court/185738/30 "2003-07-02T14:38:19Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ChaosGod \* > \*\*Its Uruguay. \*\* If we are playing International Grammar Court, you should have used ‘it’s’, not ‘its’. I wonder if one of you ICC chearleaders could answer a couple of simple (and related) questions: 1. What, specifically, will be possible for America after signing up for the ICC, that was _not_ possible before? 2. What, specifically, will be possible for the other signing parties after signing up for the ICC, that was _not_ possible before? ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2003, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/international-criminal-court/185738/31 "2003-07-02T14:39:07Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SuaSponte \* > I think that the US has made a mistake in not signing up to the ICC. I think the signatories of the ICC have made a mistake in attempting to claim jurisdiction over nations who have not signed up for the ICC. Far more than a mistake, it is a blatant violation of international law - for all the attacks on the US for its alleged violations of the sovereignity of other nations, that provision of the ICC treaty is just a blatant an attack on sovereignity. I believe you are mistaken. US soldiers who stay in the US would not be subject to the ICC. But if US soldiers go and commit crimes in other countries then I can’t see why they should be immune. If country X accepts ICC jurisdiction and the US does not want to accept ICC jurisdiction then it can stay the hell out of country X. It is the USA who is doing its best to infringe on the sovereignty of other countries. Not the other way around. I believe this was discussed in depth in the old thread mentioned. ---
**Author:** ![sqweels](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f19dbf/32.png) [@sqweels](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sqweels)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2003, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/international-criminal-court/185738/32 "2003-07-02T14:39:58Z")
> [@](#): > > You still have yet to provide a reason why signing this treaty is in the best interests of the US. Can anyone grasp the concept of being a “team player”. ---
**Author:** ![OliverH](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/278dde/32.png) [@OliverH](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OliverH)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2003, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/international-criminal-court/185738/33 "2003-07-02T14:43:35Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SuaSponte \* > \*\*So, **OliverH,** it is your belief that it is “standard procedure” that nations who do not sign a treaty are subject to its terms? \*\* Yes, it is. An American traveling within the EU is subject to the premises of the Schengen agreement. Don’t like it? Don’t travel to the EU. Period. > [@](#): > > \*\* > Simply put, your belief is wrong. > \*\* No, it isn’t. What you are doing is simply claiming that Americans are above the law outside the US, not more, not less. > [@](#): > > \*\* I think the signatories of the ICC have made a mistake in attempting to claim jurisdiction over nations who have not signed up for the ICC. \*\* They have done no such thing. > [@](#): > > \*\* > Far more than a mistake, it is a blatant violation of international law - for all the attacks on the US for its alleged violations of the sovereignity of other nations, that provision of the ICC treaty is just a blatant an attack on sovereignity. \*\* Methinks you are a bit confused about that sovereignty thing. Sovereignty is concerned with territory. The Sovereignty of the US ends at its borders. This sovereignty is not infringed on the least by the ICC. When you travel abroad, you are subject to the laws of the countries you travel in. > [@](#): > > \*\* > If one wishes to get others to sign up to the ICC, then one should follow the same methods used to get people to sign up to the NPC and various treaties banning torture, etc. - pressure/induce them to do so. Don’t say “we don’t need your permission - we will apply the treaty to you anyway.” > \*\* We’re not talking about a treaty like the NPC here. We’re talking about nations making a decision on who THEY submit THEIR countries to. There is a very simple way for Americans to avoid being tried at the ICC: Stay at home. Your claim that the treaty is applied to the US as a nation is plain and simply false. It is not. It is, however, applied to American individuals who travel in countries which have ratified that treaty. Rather than the ICC infringing on US sovereignty, you demand that other nations relinquish the sovereignty of their own country by declaring Americans above the law of the land. When you’re abroad, you better make sure you haven’t done something considered a crime locally. Scores of tourists have to learn it the hard way each year when they discover the bags they were asked to carry through customs in, say, Malaysia, on behalf of a ‘good friend’ were not as innocent as they looked. Observing local laws is the most basic concept of travelling abroad, but it seems it is incomprehensible to some Americans, who think the world is their colony. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2003, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/international-criminal-court/185738/34 "2003-07-02T14:43:55Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by dutchboy208 \* > **"Standard procedure with international treaties of any kind"- like the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty? While it may now be in force, it is because all the (fully) nuclear states have ratified it, not because a majority chose to.** What the hell are you talking about? CTBT has not entered into force - it has only been ratified by 31 of the 44 countries that are needed for it to enter into force - and the US Senate rejected the treaty in 1999 by a vote of 48-51-1. But back to the ICC, I think there are two key reasons why Americans - not just Bush, but I’d say a good number of Americans - are not enchanted with the ICC. First, there are plenty of countries with an axe to grind who would doubtlessly seek to harass the US Government with baseless charges of war crimes, like **Brutus** mentioned with the nutjob in Belgium seeking to indict Tommy Franks. Yes, I fully realize the Rome Statute allows for trials of those who are citizens of countries that are not party to the treaty, and yes, I fully realize that the ICC prosecutors may choose not to take up investigations. But the US joining the ICC would legitimize the system that allows for such frivilous charges to be filed, and why would the US want to lend legitimacy to that system? Especially considering that joining the ICC regime would bind the US to cooperating with investigations and prosecutions, giving the Administration the obligation to assist in looking into charges that it may believe are baseless. Second, Americans are not enthused with the idea of cedeing sovereignty on their Constitutional rights, especially when there are some significant differences between those rights that are contained in the Rome Statute. For example, Article 81 allows a prosecutor to file an appeal of an acquittal - a clear difference with the Constitution’s double jeopardy clause. Further, there is no check upon the power of the court once a conviction has been secured - in contrast to the power to grant pardons in order to limit a judicial body, as an organic entity, from becoming too powerful. And finally, what is the problem that is needed to be solved by a supra-national criminal court? Tribunals have been formed for specific purposes - Yugoslavia and Rwanda among them - and I don’t think a convincing case has been made in the US that there is a need for a permanent international judicial body. Where are the criminals who are getting off scot free because the ICC has not existed until now? ---
**Author:** ![OliverH](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/278dde/32.png) [@OliverH](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OliverH)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2003, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/international-criminal-court/185738/35 "2003-07-02T14:46:38Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Brutus \* > \*\* > > 1. What, specifically, will be possible for America after signing up for the ICC, that was _not_ possible before? > \*\* Bringing people to a recognized international court for crimes against humanity without going through a lengthy process of establishing such a court and defining the terms under which it operates each and every time there is a conflict. > [@](#): > > \*\* > 2) What, specifically, will be possible for the other signing parties after signing up for the ICC, that was _not_ possible before? \*\* See above. ---
**Author:** ![Aro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b3f665/32.png) [@Aro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aro)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2003, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/international-criminal-court/185738/36 "2003-07-02T14:57:44Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Brutus \* > \*\* 1) What, specifically, will be possible for America after signing up for the ICC, that was not possible before?_\* Respect. > [@](#): > > \*\*2) What, specifically, will be possible for the other signing parties after signing up for the ICC, that was _not_ possible before? \*\* International protection from invasion / inferference at the whim of a US policy makers judgement. Or, at least, reparations. See Nicaragua for details. ---
**Author:** ![OliverH](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/278dde/32.png) [@OliverH](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OliverH)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2003, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/international-criminal-court/185738/37 "2003-07-02T14:58:32Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Ravenman \* > \*\* > But back to the ICC, I think there are two key reasons why Americans - not just Bush, but I’d say a good number of Americans - are not enchanted with the ICC. First, there are plenty of countries with an axe to grind who would doubtlessly seek to harass the US Government with baseless charges of war crimes, like Brutus mentioned with the nutjob in Belgium seeking to indict Tommy Franks. > \*\* Problem is that there are provisions preventing such action, and as such, the argument doesn’t fly. > [@](#): > > \*\* > Yes, I fully realize the Rome Statute allows for trials of those who are citizens of countries that are not party to the treaty, and yes, I fully realize that the ICC prosecutors may choose not to take up investigations. But the US joining the ICC would legitimize the system that allows for such frivilous charges to be filed, and why would the US want to lend legitimacy to that system? Especially considering that joining the ICC regime would bind the US to cooperating with investigations and prosecutions, giving the Administration the obligation to assist in looking into charges that it may believe are baseless. \*\* In other words, your problem with the ICC is that it can be abused to the same degree the US justice system can be abused. > [@](#): > > \*\* > Second, Americans are not enthused with the idea of cedeing sovereignty on their Constitutional rights, especially when there are some significant differences between those rights that are contained in the Rome Statute. > \*\* They are doing that not by joining the ICC, but by setting their foot outside the United States. They have no rights under the US constitution for actions that happened be it in Iraq, Australia, or Mexico. > [@](#): > > \*\* > For example, Article 81 allows a prosecutor to file an appeal of an acquittal - a clear difference with the Constitution’s double jeopardy clause. > \*\* Irrelevant. Again, the Constitution is not applicable to acts that happened outside the US. Allowing both sides to appeal a sentence is standard procedure in numerous democratic countries. > [@](#): > > \*\* > And finally, what is the problem that is needed to be solved by a supra-national criminal court? Tribunals have been formed for specific purposes - Yugoslavia and Rwanda among them - and I don’t think a convincing case has been made in the US that there is a need for a permanent international judicial body. > \*\* These courts had to be established individually, wasting a huge deal of time, and allowing those tried in these courts to continue to commit crimes until the court was established, they were indicted, and surrendered to the court. > [@](#): > > \*\* > Where are the criminals who are getting off scot free because the ICC has not existed until now? \*\* Ever wondered why one of the other countries that didn’t sign up for the ICC was Iraq? ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2003, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/international-criminal-court/185738/38 "2003-07-02T15:08:00Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Neurotik \* > \*\*. > > You still have yet to provide a reason why signing this treaty is in the best interests of the US. \*\* I didn’t say it was in the best interest of the US. Actually, it isn’t, as long as the US can get away with crimes it would commit and has enough reach to punish countries which commits similar crimes on its citizens. In the same sense, it’s not in my best interest to have any court around if i’m currently the mafia boss in the district. It’s in the best interest of the world community at large to have such a court, IMO. Now, as long as the US not signing doesn’t make its citizens immune from prosecution, I don’t have much issue with them not signing. I’ve an issue with a lot of other countries entering in bilateral treaties with the US to protect US citizens from prosecution. That’s a shame. ---
**Author:** ![TwistofFate](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/cdc98d/32.png) [@TwistofFate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TwistofFate)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2003, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/international-criminal-court/185738/39 "2003-07-02T15:10:02Z")
> [@](#): > > Go kiss your Bin Laden picture some more. So tell me, how many weeks did you celebrate after the World Trade Center was attacked? Do you hold a party for three days or the whole week every September 11th? Kneejerk cleanup, aisle three. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2003, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/international-criminal-court/185738/40 "2003-07-02T15:11:55Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by OliverH \* > \*\*Your claim that the treaty is applied to the US as a nation is plain and simply false. It is not. It is, however, applied to American individuals who travel in countries which have ratified that treaty. \*\* Oliver, I must disagree. Article 5 of the Rome Statute allows the ICC jurisdiction over the crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression (which is left undefined). Articles 12, 13, and 14 allow the ICC to exercise its jurisdiction when a state that is a member of the treaty refers a case to the ICC that such a crime was committed on its territory or on its ships or aircraft. There is no requirement that a indicted person ever be physically present in the country. There is no requirement that the country of an individual accused by the court accept the jurisdiction of the ICC. The nature of the scope of the crimes under jurisdiction of the ICC means that it is not likely that Private Jones would be indicted for genocide, rather, it would be General Smith or President Doe, regardless of whether those persons entered the jurisdiction of the complaintant party. This the the whole goddamn point of the ICC - otherwise, we could presume that prosecutions would be carried out by the judicial branch of a particular country. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/international-criminal-court/185738.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/international-criminal-court/185738.md?page=3)