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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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?
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.
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.
No, it isn’t. What you are doing is simply claiming that Americans are above the law outside the US, not more, not less.
They have done no such thing.
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.
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.
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?
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.
International protection from invasion / inferference at the whim of a US policy makers judgement. Or, at least, reparations. See Nicaragua for details.
Problem is that there are provisions preventing such action, and as such, the argument doesn’t fly.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Ever wondered why one of the other countries that didn’t sign up for the ICC was Iraq?
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.
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.