I get a kick out of Americans talking about whether or not they can be extradited (which, by the way, they can to a number of countries under various treaties), for the US snatches people from other nations without any due process what so ever in those nations, even despite extradition treaties with nations specifying such process. This has always left open the possibility that US citizens could be snatched out of the US on what might best be called a tit for tat basis.
I’m not sure how the ICC would handle such a matter, but my best guess based on it’s proposed procedure is that it would not accept jurisdication if the snatching nation were a party to the statute and refered the matter to them.
Even if every other nation in the entire world had every single citizen sign the treaty with blood- unless the US Senate ratifies the treaty we are not in any way 'bound" by it. Even if they THOUGHT that their 'treaty" would bind us- who the hell is gonna make the USA do anything it doesn’t want to? Crikies- the entire freaken UN can’t even make the USA pay its UN “dues”. How many Nuclear Aircraft carriers does Uganda have, anyway?
Even if the Senate ratifies the Treaty- the US Constitution is STILL the "higher law’- a treaty cannot abrogate a single clause of the Constitution. Ferkrisake- didn’t anyone of you folks even take 5th grade civics?
Taken grade 5 civics? No. I am not American and have never lived in the USA. International Public Law? Yes, although I must admit that it was not during grade 5.
I am aware of the US position that its own sovereignty, including its constitution, is inalienable, however, the US position not legally relevant to international public law. A practical reality, yes, but legally relevant, no.
Obviously in the real world no one can make the US do something it does not want to do, treaty or not, and in juris or ex, for major economic or military sanctions would be disastrous for any state imposing them against the US. At best, other nations can use moral persuasion or minor economic sanctions to encouage the US to stand by it’s treaties or abide by international tribunal decisions. So far this has worked very well in support of long established forums such as the IJC, and more recently the ICJ.
This is why I suggest that it would be a good thing if the US were to ratify the statute, for it would legitimize attempts by nations such as the US to go after genocidal maniacs throughout the world, but otherwise would have no practical negative effect on the US other than some nuisance cases, which the US would either win in short order, or ignore the verdict.
An admittedly cursory reading of this “Statute of Rome” indicates that all the rights we have under our Const. are protected: 5th amendment right, etc.
The only provision which I may have some problems with is the following:
(iv) Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated;
Now, what’s to stop Iraq from claiming that some of our men (including our President) intentionally attacked a baby food factory? There are safeguards in the Statute to prevent spurious claims. Nonetheless, there is the possibility.
The totality of the document satisfies my worries about our constitutional rights. I can think of none which is not protected in the statute.
True, but there is a possibility that if the Court wanted a US national it could issue a secret indictment, put his/her name on a watch list for officials in signatory countries, and have him/her nabbed the first time they unsuspectingly leave the US on business or for a vacation.
Now, the chances of this scenario happening in the current international climate are extremely remote- but what guarantees are there that this climate will continue forever?
I agree that there is no guarantee that the existing climate will continue forever, but at the same time, I believe that the possibility of the ICC setting up a sting or a snatch through signatory nations is moot, for it is already possible for any nation to do this on its own or in conunction with its allies.
As far as secret indictments go, my opinion is that Article 21 would protect against them.
The thought of Clinton being tried for bombing that aspirin factory in an effort to take his name out of the news during impeachment makes wonder if this court might be a good idea…
…naaahhh…
Even that wouldn’t make this court worth it:)
Screw globalism, support self-determination.
Maybe we need a thread debating the most efficient country size. I wonder if there is a “perfect” number somewhere between total anarchy and one world government. At what population size does a government do the best job of protecting it’s citizens AND still preserve the freedom of self-determination?
Applying a treaty to a country without its consent is an act of war. I can only hope that if such an event occurs, American leaders will have the courage to treat it as such.
Haven’t the Israelis been doing the same thing for years when hunting former Nazis? I think there was one case where they snatched someone in the US, but I could be mistaken. In any case, they certainly have nabbed former Nazis from other countries.