Justice for all - No thankyou, we're American

[Zealot]

There is neither puzzle nor dillema.
U.S. business is to protect U.S. Citizens around the world.

It is too simple for them to understand since they hate America you know!

[pubmanager]

May I just re-iterate the point of my confusion.

We are not talking about petty criminals here. They are not two-bit street hustlers.

We are talking about America protecting mass-murderers & genocidal maniacs.

Think Milosovic, Hitler that kind of thing.

The law would only apply if the country in question was unable or unwilling to prosecute the perpetrators itself.

I ask you again, what is the problem with this?

Does America wish to protect baby-murderers, rapists etc etc just because they're American citizens?

[BobbyO]

May I just re-iterate the point of my confusion.

We are not talking about petty criminals here. They are not two-bit street hustlers.

We are talking about America protecting mass-murderers & genocidal maniacs.

Think Milosovic, Hitler that kind of thing.

The law would only apply if the country in question was unable or unwilling to prosecute the perpetrators itself.

I ask you again, what is the problem with this?

Does America wish to protect baby-murderers, rapists etc etc just because they're American citizens?

No, but that is not the argument.

1. The law would consider to cover all, even if a country declines to ratify it. You like to think of it as simply a Pol Pot Jr. issue, but its not. Those who demand that it cover all are behaving quite, well, imperialistically. Nor is the record of previous attempts quite so benign. The best case I can hink of is during the 80s when Nicaragua went to the World Court to demand redresws for alleged USA mining of its harbors. The court ruled in favor of Nicaragua. However, the USa quite correctly ignored the decision because Nicaragua never joined the World Court, and thus had no standing to sue. The court, in its anti-USA zeal, ignored an obvioos problem for its ideological satisfaction.

2. There may be many reasons why a country will refuse to prosecute "alleged" folks. Not all of them nefarious or evilly intended. the court presupposes to rule over such decisions.

3. If we are talking about just a Hitler or Milosevic that is one issue. But we are not. The USA is in all corners of the world, and usually are presence is not welcome by everyone. Sorry, but we not going to be sucked into the petty politics of our involvements to that extent.

[shield772]

http://www.icc-cpi.int/library/about..._120704-EN.pdf

[shield772]

It seems we are not the only nation to have not signed it; Russia, Kuwait, Isreal, Saudia Arabia, Iraq, Iran, United Arab Immarates, Cuba Etc..... just to name a few

http://www.icc-cpi.int/asp/statesparties.html

[shield772]

The ICC does say the accused doesn't have to testify but it does not give jury trials not does it protect against double jeapordy.

[leftcider]

I ask you again, what is the problem with this?

The problem with this is that the US government is legally prohibited from signing onto the ICC because of reasons that I have previously outlined, unless a Constitutional amendment is passed which allows it.

The ICC does say the accused doesn't have to testify but it does not give jury trials not does it protect against double jeapordy.

These are a violation of the fifth and sixth amendments to the US Constitution. Whether the ICC is good or bad policy for America, it is illegal.

So, I guess Europe could score propaganda points against the US over it not signing onto the Court, but if its goal is to get the US to change, this is not a viable policy to pursue.

[pubmanager]

It seems we are not the only nation to have not signed it; Russia, Kuwait, Isreal, Saudia Arabia, Iraq, Iran, United Arab Immarates, Cuba Etc..... just to name a few

http://www.icc-cpi.int/asp/statesparties.html

my my, what good company you keep :rolleyes:

[pubmanager]

The problem with this is that the US government is legally prohibited from signing onto the ICC because of reasons that I have previously outlined, unless a Constitutional amendment is passed which allows it.


These are a violation of the fifth and sixth amendments to the US Constitution. Whether it is good or bad policy for America, it is illegal.

Sorry left, I've read back through your posts and still don't understand why it's any different to any other treaty that the US chooses to sign.

Could you give me some more on this?

[pubmanager]

No, but that is not the argument.

It's just a court for crimes against humanity, not a general court for war grievances.

[shield772]

It's just a court for crimes against humanity, not a general court for war grievances.

Article 5
Crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court
1. The jurisdiction of the Court shall be limited to the most serious crimes of concern to the
international community as a whole. The Court has jurisdiction in accordance with this Statute
with respect to the following crimes:
(a) The crime of genocide;
(b) Crimes against humanity;
(c) War crimes;
(d) The crime of aggression.
2. The Court shall exercise jurisdiction over the crime of aggression once a provision is
adopted in accordance with articles 121 and 123 defining the crime and setting out the conditions
under which the Court shall exercise jurisdiction with respect to this crime. Such a provision shall
be consistent with the relevant provisions of the Charter of the United Nations.

[pubmanager]

Sorry all,

Having put my brain back in I meant to write

it's not a general court for world grievances.

Just got war on the brain at the moment.

Cheers for pulling me up shield.