I would like to see provisions in it to protect against reprosecuting someone who has already been or is being tried by his home nation or the nation he offended.
I would like to see provisions in it to protect against reprosecuting someone who has already been or is being tried by his home nation or the nation he offended.
Surely.Quote by: pubmanager
The difference between the ICC and other treaties, such as Geneva, is that the ICC creates a process of criminal procedure inconsistent with the US Constitution, which grants and restricts the ways in which the government can legally act. The Geneva Convention prevents the US military from acting in certain ways, such as torturing. There is nothing in the Constitution that says the US government cannot stop its military from torturing, and it is Constitutional.
What makes the ICC unconstitutional is not what it chooses to prosecute, but the manner in which it prosecutes. Constitutional rights for criminal defendents are quite extensive, based off of several amendments to the US Constitution. The ICC does not respect some of the procedural requirements derrived from the US Constitution, such as Amendment VI which requires trial by jury. If the ICC were an American Court, its procedure would unambigously violate the US Constitution
If the US government signed onto this treaty, it would effectively be giving up certain procedural Constituional rights of its people in areas of its sovereignty. Just as the US government can not violate the Constitutional rights of its citizens, it cannot give authority to a global body which will do the same thing on its soil. Any prosecutions under the ICC of Americans in areas of American sovereignty are procedurally unconstitutional, and not allowable under the US Constitution.
Does this clarify?
Yes, thanks.Does this clarify?
My contention is that none of this is relevant to crimes committed by US citezens abroad.
As I pointed out in one my earlier posts, when abroad US citizens are subject to the laws of the country that they are in.
Are you taking the position that this also violates the constitutional rights of Americans?
"People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid."
- Soren Aabye Kierkegaard (1813-1855)
Actually our Embassy staffs insure that US citizens are treated fairly when accused and tried in foreign countries, where is even that minimal protection at the ICC?
No. Treaties, embassies, etc. work to protect US citizens abroad, but the Constitution does not have jurisdiction in areas of foreign sovereignty.
You raise some good points shield.
However the nations that have signed up to the Treaty believe that "there is enough protection for mature democracys" built in to the system.
What do you think?
"People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid."
- Soren Aabye Kierkegaard (1813-1855)
Just thought I'd re-post this extract from the tread starter.The US claim for special status undermines the very idea of the rule of law as a single, principled normative order to which all are bound. Even worse, it may undermine the great international effort of the last century to subject the use of force to the rule of law. For the United States to take this position is particularly embarrassing, since it, more than any other modern nation-state, has held itself out as committed to and constituted by the rule of law.
http://www.crimesofwar.org/icc_magazine/icc-kahn.html
I think this best sums up what I feel.
That and the disgusting way the US has tried to extort countries who do not support it's position.
"People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid."
- Soren Aabye Kierkegaard (1813-1855)
We have always policied ourselves and I don't see a need for a ICC for US, and I am afraid it could be used against our millitary personell and our political leaders. and has been pointed out it does violate several provisions of our Constitution. and no international law/treayu/provision can/should violate our own laws and soverenighty
Every country peddles influence to further their interest. I have a question for you Pub, why SHOULD the USA give aid to countries that act against what America feels is in it's best interest?
Country A "We're going to sign this treaty"
USA "We won't and will not give aid to you if you do"
Country A "That's not Fair!!"
USA "Too bad"
That's about the simple breakdown, and it makes perfect sense. We want to protect our citizens, and if that means holding aid over countries that sign into something we feel will harm our citizens, so be it.
Einstein's "Theory of Relativity" is still being challenged to this day, but by consensus Global Warming is a fact... that's REAL science at work, why didn't Albert just go that route?
It may make sense but it's not doing a lot to improve my oppinion of the US as a nation of morals, principles, ethics etc
Humanitarian aid should be above politics.
Punishing the innocent because you disagree with the decisions of their government?
If it's the government that's the problem, punnish the government. Not the people.
"People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid."
- Soren Aabye Kierkegaard (1813-1855)
Therefore it would follow that it is perfectly acceptable to try US citizens that commit crimes against humanity in the ICC as long as they were committed in a country that supports the treaty of rome, in accordance with their laws.
"People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid."
- Soren Aabye Kierkegaard (1813-1855)
But we're not really talking about ordinary citizens travelling abroad are we, we are talking about out soldiers, intelligence officers, and political leaders, who are generally accorded diplomatic immunity.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks