Int'l Criminal Court

[willy_ph]

Why does the US ardently oppose this institution that they helped create?

[ben-the-slacker]

Huh?

[RayH]

The same reason the Kyoto Treaty doesn't apply.

The Empire makes the rules and is not subject to them!

[RADAR1797]

Actually the reason is the US is not keen on its military members being judged by countries like Syria or Libya. The US polices its service-members better than any other country in the world and does not need third world dictatorships unjustly convicting its citizens for crimes against humanity. I am sure that Saddam Hussein would love to try every Air Force pilot who dropped a bomb on his country for crimes against humanity, but Saddam is the criminal and his aggression require the US bombing his country. Many Europeans and people from San Fransisco forget that in order to have a fair court, everyone must play by the same rules. Most of the world is not ready to step up to US standards, but would love to poke the US in the eye if they make the slightest mistake.

-RADAR

[necromancer]

Many Europeans and people from San Fransisco forget that in order to have a fair court, everyone must play by the same rules. Most of the world is not ready to step up to US standards, but would love to poke the US in the eye if they make the slightest mistake.

Well, I am not fron San Fran or europe but I feel the same way as Ray. I don't see why we should be exempt from this; someone has to police the police. It is only fair.

[RADAR1797]

You do not see the point, it is not fair and will not be in its current structure. In an ideal world might this be a nice idea, sure, but it is infeasible now. How would you like your brother or son fighting for your freedom to be tried by thrid world countries? No, we have a Uniform Code of Military Justice to ensure our service-members are held accountable for their actions. I would like to see the judicial system the Libyans or Iranians use to police their forces.

-RADAR

[willy_ph]

When the actions committed by one individual or organization clearly violate interantional law they should be held accountable. Those who oppose the Int'l Criminal Court are clearly stating that criminals such as Slobodan Milosevic should not be prosecuted, despite their horrendous actions.

If you're gonna enforce the rules, you have to follow them yourself. What's the point in having rules if a select group can disobey them?

When voting upon the creation of the International Criminal Court, the US voted against it along with China, Iraq, North Korea and 5 other countries. Apparently the US has more in common with it's enemies, than with its allies who recognized that the benefits of the court outweigh the negative possibilities. So far 88 countries have ratified the Rome Treaty establishing the International Criminal Court.

Finally, the process which one must go through to be tried by the court is very extensive. The court is designed to complement national courts, not supercede them. In order for a crime to be tried, it must fall under 4 core crimes; genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and aggression. However, aggression hasn't yet been defined and therefore cannot be prosecuted. In order for an American to be tried in the court, he/she must be acting in an official manner and their action must be part of a larger process against human rights violations. As such, the chances of such a crime being committed are very slim.

If it was clearly shown that an american committed a crime under the juridiction of the ICC, the ICC would have to notify the US of its intent to initiate an investigation. If the US chose to investigate the crime itself, the ICC would not be allowed to go any further with its investigation. If the US failed to begin an investigation, the ICC could then initiate its own investigation after 30 days of notifying the US.

If the US chose to investigate itself, the only way the ICC could pursue the case further is if a pre-trial chamber had doubts about the ability of the US to conduct a fair trial. Since it is known that the US justice system is effective, there would be no challenge by the ICC.

IMO, American politicians are paranoid and the American citizenry is falling in line, like usual.

[RADAR1797]

We have seen from the French how much faith they have in our effective justice system. Absolutely no sense in letting rouge nations make judgements against the US. BTW, Slobadan has been facing a war crimes tribunal for months now.

-RADAR

[Epidemic]

Currently I do not trust the world court. IMO there is too much risk of political decisions. The US has had to make some decisions through out the years that IMO are in the best interest of her citizens and the world at large. In each of these confrontation there has been much world opposition. I can see every errant bomb being tried. Every incident of collateral damage being investigated. IMO with the wrong people making the dicision we would have our military hands tied and our mouth gagged.

I gree with RayH.

Ever read Animal farm by George Orwell?

Some folks are more equal than others. That's all there's to it.