Why is the US so opposed to the International Criminal Court?

[chula]

The purpose of the Human Rights Commission is to enforce the same human rights standards that the United States has refused to agree to. Now do you see why my point makes sense?

[lucwarm]

***Originally posted by chula *

What was your purpose in bringing it up, lucwarm? Considering the United States agreed that it violated international law, it’s hardly a good example of the ICJ overstepping its bounds. All the decision said was that in the future, US courts need to provide some mechanisms for reviewing whether defendants rights were violated under international law.**

Ummm, did you actually read the decisions (plural)? Did you bother to read my posts?

I think that you haven’t, because if you had, would know that the ICJ did a lot more than you claim it did.

**

The ICJ would not order a reversal, a retrial, or anything along those lines. **

How do you know this? The issue was moot by the time of the later decision.

**

While there is no reason whatsoever to think that the ICJ was influenced by the anti-death penalty cause,**

I gave a bunch of reasons. Feel free to read them and respond.

**but I feel the need to add my two cents since I know something about international law. **

Whatever.

[Brutus]

*Originally posted by chula *
**The purpose of the Human Rights Commission is to enforce the same human rights standards that the United States has refused to agree to. Now do you see why my point makes sense? **

No, I do not see why your point makes sense.

My point:

*The United States respects the human rights of its own citizens, and of other citizens.

*China, Syria, etc, do not.

The US respects human rights, even though we do not join every little ‘human rights club’ that is formed. Syria, China, and the like, do not respect basic human rights, regardless of what little treaty they signed.

Do you see my point?

[jharek]

*Originally posted by samboy *
**The ICC has now begun operation. It has the power to prosecute individuals for crimes in violation of International Humanitarian Law committed after July 1st 2002 if the country where the crimes occurred is unable or unwilling to prosecute.

The Rome statute of the ICC currently has 139 signatories and 76 ratification’s, including France, The UK, Canada, Germany and Australia.

The US is a signatory to the statute (under the Clinton admin. with reservations) but the current government has since shown strong opposition to the ICC. This page indicates the US’s position.

IIUC the ICC allows the prosecution of citizens who’s countries do not recognise the court if the crimes are committed in a country who does. What does this mean? It means that even if the US does not support or recognise the ICC, its citizens are still able to be prosecuted abroad. This includes US peacekeepers which explains why the US is going against the entire security council to veto the routine 6 month extension to the Bosnian peacekeeping effort. This has repercussions for many peacekeeping operations around the world.

cite on the bosnian situation

Why is the US so against the ICC?
Why are they fighting so hard to get immunity for their forces from the type of charges that are indefensible? Why doesn’t the US trust a international court to deliver justice?
Is this hypocritical considering the US is expecting the international community to support them in their ‘war on terror’?

Is the US really going it alone in world justice? The ICC vs the US?

Further information of the ICC **

Its a classic misdirection man. In the world today, they make you look and think one thing while they intend on doing quite the other.

They want the ICC more than anyone, it is part of the agenda. Global Currency, Global Justice, Global Military, anyone else noticing a trend???

[chula]

Lucwarm, I not only read the decision, I studied it in one of my international law courses. I mentioned my knowledge of international law in order to avoid a lecture on the basic aspects of this case.

I conclude that the ICJ would not order a reversal or a retrial because (1) it would violate principles of international law, and (2) the decision says so. Did you read the case?

The Court observes in this regard that it can determine the existence of a violation of an international obligation. If necessary, it can also hold that a domestic law has been the cause of this violation. In the present case the Court has made its findings of violations of the obligations under Article 36 of the Vienna Convention when it dealt with the first and the second submission of Germany. But it has not found that a United States law, whether substantive or procedural in character, is inherently inconsistent with the obligations undertaken by the United States in the Vienna Convention. In the present case the violation of Article 36, paragraph 2, was caused by the circumstances in which the procedural default rule was applied, and not by the rule as such.

In the case of such a conviction and sentence, it would be incumbent upon the United States to allow the review and reconsideration of the conviction and sentence by taking account of the violation of the rights set forth in the Convention. This obligation can be carried out in various ways. The choice of means must be left to the United States.

I read your posts, and I saw no evidence cited that the ICJ’s decision was influenced by an anti-death penalty bias. If I overlooked a post, please point it out to me.

My question remains: What was your point? I’m not saying that you don’t have one, but it seems to have gotten lost in all the discussion.

[chula]

*Originally posted by Brutus *
***The United States respects the human rights of its own citizens, and of other citizens.

*China, Syria, etc, do not.

The US respects human rights, even though we do not join every little ‘human rights club’ that is formed. Syria, China, and the like, do not respect basic human rights, regardless of what little treaty they signed.**

The United States’ overall human rights record is debatable. Your statement is a vast oversimplification. There are a number of human rights that China, for example, does a better job of protecting than the United States. I don’t know how to make my point any clearer: Why would you entrust someone to protect laws that they do not believe in? Try this: If we do not join the international community’s “human rights club,” as you put it, why would you expect them to let us join theirs?

[Tejota]

*Originally posted by grem0517 *
sailor

I hope the US will give you a fair trial which would be the end of the matter.

This is at the heart of the debate we’re having. The “end of the matter” assumes that the ICC accepts the US trial as valid under the Rome Statute. The point many people here have been trying to make is that this may not be a given due to political influences on the ICC.

This exchange I think, clearly exemplifies why this is a pointless debate. Allow me to demostrate, by discussing the nightmare scenario that you seem to be contemplating.

Let us assume, for the sake of argument that the ICC is in fact, a corrupt political organization.

[ul]
[li]They decide to prosecute a group of US Soldiers for a bogus war crime. [/li][li]The USA has first chance to handle as internal trial, they decline[/li][li]So the (corrupt) ICC stages a show trial and convicts. [/li][/ul]

So friggin what? The ICC has Zero police powers, if the USA declines to enforce their ruling, then they are just pissing into the wind.

Does anyone actually belive that if we decline to join the ICC, that we can somehow prevent them from holding show trials of US soldiers? :rolleyes:

There is plenty of time to repudiate the ICC after the turn into a corrupt political organization. To do so now is just unjustified paranoia.

On the other hand, if we join, we have some say in how things are run. It is far more likely that the ICC can be turned into a tool to use against the USA if we don’t join than if we do.

[lucwarm]

*Originally posted by chula *
Lucwarm, I not only read the decision, I studied it in one of my international law courses. I mentioned my knowledge of international law in order to avoid a lecture on the basic aspects of this case.

Ok, then you know that the ICJ issued an “order” in 1999 or so, some two years prior to its final decision, right?

Here’s what you said a few posts ago:

Considering the United States agreed that it violated international law, it’s hardly a good example of the ICJ overstepping its bounds. All the decision said was that in the future, US courts need to provide some mechanisms for reviewing whether defendants rights were violated under international law.

The reality is that the ICJ, among other things, issued a provisional order/ruling/decision/whatever to stop LaGrand’s execution.

That is significantly more than just finding the US violated a treaty and directing the US to honor the treaty in the future.

I don’t mean to sound condescending, but as a law student, you should know this. I’ve also said it many times in this thread.

**

I conclude that the ICJ would not order a reversal or a retrial because (1) it would violate principles of international law, and (2) the decision says so.**

According to your quote, the LaGrand decision says the following:

In the case of such a conviction and sentence, it would be incumbent upon the United States to allow the review and reconsideration of the conviction and sentence by taking account of the violation of the rights set forth in the Convention. This obligation can be carried out in various ways. The choice of means must be left to the United States.

Now earlier, you said this:

The ICJ would not order a reversal, a retrial, or anything along those lines.

Clearly what the ICJ was contemplating was “along those lines.”

---

Please please don’t try to weasel out of this. Just go back, read the thread carefully, and then try to add something, ok?

[chula]

OK, lucwarm, I reread your posts on this thread, confirming that you have misunderstood the LaGrande decision.

So, your problem is not with the final judgment, but with the provisional order? The provisional order simply said that the United States government should do what it could to delay the execution until a decision could be made. It did not “enjoin” or “overrule” a decision of a US court.

The is a vast difference between saying that the United States must offer a procedure by which the claim can be considered and dictating the outcome of that procedure (i.e. a reversal or a retrial). As a lawyer you should know that. If a US court had simply reviewed the case in light of the Vienna Convention obligations, then the ICJ would have been satisfied.

By the way, did you read the Supreme Court decision you mentioned? (Germany v. US - I can post it if you wish since it’s short.) All the Court did was decline to exercise jurisdiction.

You still have offered no evidence of the ICJ’s bias in this case. Or clarified your point in bringing this up.

[lucwarm]

*Originally posted by chula *
**OK, lucwarm, I reread your posts on this thread, confirming that you have misunderstood the LaGrande decision. **

whatever. I suppose that asking you not to weasel was just too much.

**

So, your problem is not with the final judgment, but with the provisional order? The provisional order simply said that the United States government should do what it could to delay the execution until a decision could be made. It did not “enjoin” or “overrule” a decision of a US court.**

Well, we can debate whether the provisional order can be characterized as an injunction or not, but here’s the thing -

Earlier, you made the following claim:

What caught my attention was this peculiar interest in the LaGrand case. . . … What was your purpose in bringing it up, lucwarm? Considering the United States agreed that it violated international law, it’s hardly a good example of the ICJ overstepping its bounds. All the decision said was that in the future, US courts need to provide some mechanisms for reviewing whether defendants rights were violated under international law.

Clearly the ICJ did more in the LaGrand case than you claim.

Why won’t you concede this obvious point?

**

The is a vast difference between saying that the United States must offer a procedure by which the claim can be considered and dictating the outcome of that procedure (i.e. a reversal or a retrial). As a lawyer you should know that. **

Maybe so, but again you are splitting hairs and ignoring the fact that your earlier statement was wrong, or at a minimum, misleading.

**

By the way, did you read the Supreme Court decision you mentioned? (Germany v. US - I can post it if you wish since it’s short.) All the Court did was decline to exercise jurisdiction.**

Well, the case did contain some interesting dicta. But so what?

**

You still have offered no evidence of the ICJ’s bias in this case. Or clarified your point in bringing this up. **

I stand behind my earlier posts in this thread. If they aren’t clear enough for you, then so be it. When you get tired of weaseling, hair-splitting, and pushing down strawmen, I’ll be happy to discuss the case with you.

[Zakalwe]

Monty
Wow, are we disconnecting.

It actually took me a while to go back and figure out what I think happened.
All the way back at the beginning of this page, you said:

A member of the US Armed Forces doesn’t sign away his Constitutional rights.

I made the point that given the fact (probably badly) that given:

1. A member of the US Armed Forces may be posted overseas.
2. While overseas and off-base, a US Armed Forces member is subject to the laws of that country.
3. Those laws may provide a good deal less protection for the member than the US Constitution does.
   My conclusion was that effectively, you may not be entitled to protection by the US Constitution as a direct result of your participation in the US Armed Forces. Many of the potential risks inherent in US participation in the Rome Statute already exist and are faced by US servicemen/women everyday.
   I didn’t say they weren’t protected by some other Constitution (be it Japanese or German or Ribonian).

I also completely fail to see where in my post of July 17 I suggested anything remotely resembling a concern that the US Government was abridging the Constitutional rights of a Service member.