But what IS the problem with the international criminal court?

[Scholarcs]

Originally posted by John D Harris: 2) The US is a soveriegn Nation it doesn't have to do anything just because the rest of the world does. And neither does any other nation. That is what is meant by "soveriegn".

hmmm So we can pull out of the ICC? Can Yugoslavia pull out of the ICC? They want to, why can`t they? They are as soveriegn as America is.

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by Scholarcs: quote: Originally posted by Chewbacca: If the fact that any American wouldnt get the rights of due process (like protection from search and seizure as well as innocent til proven guilty) isnt enough to reject the court, then the idea that important Americans with lots of power and influence would be tried and probably convicted must be a prime policy motivator.

What the hell are you talking about? Milosovic had alot of power and influence, he is still being tried, why cant powerful Americans be tried? [/QUOTE]Milosovic, was turned over by Yugoslavia, yes under threat of sactions. But still Yugosalvia turned him over. The rest of the world could try sactions against the US if they want too.

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by Scholarcs: quote: Originally posted by John D Harris: 2) The US is a soveriegn Nation it doesn't have to do anything just because the rest of the world does. And neither does any other nation. That is what is meant by "soveriegn".

hmmm So we can pull out of the ICC? Can Yugoslavia pull out of the ICC? They want to, why can`t they? They are as soveriegn as America is. [/QUOTE]They can if they want too! nobody is saying they can't, unless the treaty Yugosalvia signed, assumeing they signed the treaty says they can't. If thats the case then Yugoslavia should of had better lawyers read the treaty

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by Scholarcs: quote: Originally posted by Chewbacca: If the fact that any American wouldnt get the rights of due process (like protection from search and seizure as well as innocent til proven guilty) isnt enough to reject the court, then the idea that important Americans with lots of power and influence would be tried and probably convicted must be a prime policy motivator.

What the hell are you talking about? Milosovic had alot of power and influence, he is still being tried, why cant powerful Americans be tried? [/QUOTE].
.
.
.
Hmm I wonder why powerful Americans like lawmakers and statesmen would exert GREAT influence within the circles of policy-making to veto the very court that would have them tried.

Heres a bit on Senator Kerry:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...&notFound=true

Not to mention:
90 million clusterbombs were illegally dropped in Loas by the United States during the Vietnam conflict. 12,000 dead and maimed, mostly children, since the END of the Vietnam conflict. More information about the atrocities are here:

WARNING!! This site has pages that contain graphic and gruesome pictures of clusterbomb victims.
The first page is safe!
http://www.itvs.org/bombies/story.html
You have been warned!

This puts anyone who had knowledge of the bombing directly in the cross-hairs of an autonomous war crimes tribunal like the one proposed. I think they deserve it, personally.

[DeSoya]

In reality , landmines are an efficient form of psychological warfare. How can your enemy chase you when they are afraid to walk on fields and roads strewn with mines?? They are also like getting a bill in the mail. Kind of like telling the enemy thay they may have driven you out , but they will still be paying for it long after you have gone.

Landmines are insufferable and are a horrible way to wage war. They also come perilously close to violating the Geneva Convention of 1949.

The ICC is basing most of it's crimes code off of the Geneva Convention and the Biological Warfare Convention of 1948. Both of which are universally ratified even by the US. I was poking around on the amnesty international site: www.amnesty.org
and found a link to the finalized draft of the crimes list. It contains some of the following things: Genocide, Murder, Enslavement, Rape, Torture, Enforced Prostitution and Pregnancy, Aparthied, Kidnapping, Biological Experimentation, Denying a Fair Trial, Attacking Civilians (this would count landmines I imagine), Attacking Undefended Places, Pillaging, Using Biological Weaponry, Mutilation, Denying Quarter..... The list is very long. If you are interested check it out for yourself. It's a PDF file. As far as I can tell it seems like stuff that the US shouldn't have to be doing in the first place. We are too big a nation to stoop to such depths.

As for Milosevic: He wouldn't have gotten a fair trial in Yugoslavia. Either he would have been ripped apart or he would have gone scott free. Both those choices are rediculous. The value in an international court is that once the international peace keeping mission is finished there is some responsibility for all sides of the conflict.

DeSoya

[norompanlasolas]

Originally posted by /)eathKiller: Well i understand why, i mean after all, the US doesn't want to play a role in the world court thing, theire constitution says that they must remain a single and free nation void of all other nations, there must be something between the lines about signing up with the court that places your own nation under its jurisditction or something like that... i'm not too sure myself... after all... im just a guy in cuba listening to this song over and over again... how am i supposed to gain any insight into the political system... if it isn't that tho... i bet it has something to do with the death penalty... if the republicans have power then they don't want that ability taken away from them... ---------------- yes

death, your sig seems kind of familiar to me...
nicely done! [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Neb]

I personally think that it wouldn't help any even IF the US agreed to this. Whenever any of their powerful people got convicted of anything they'd whine, whinge and say that: "No, sorry, we don't like your judgement, we'll take him/her back now. And we can do it, because we're stronger than anyone else! Mwahahahaha!"

Of course they'd expect everyone else to stick with the judgement that thet court gave them, if anyone else tried to do what they did then they'd have to be bombed back to the stone age for being terrorists....

I don't find it hard to understand why some people dislike the US, their "We're so superior" attitude, which a lot of people over there seem to have, really gets on my nerves.

[Donut]

Originally posted by Absynthe: quote: Originally posted by johnny: And do you think that makes you guys unique ? Overhere it's exactly the same, we love our freedom just as much.

I don't think that makes the U.S. unique, no. But it seems that most European nations have at least some notion that working together is mutually beneficial, hence the formation of the E.U.
My point, such as it is, is that Americans generally feel that we can, and should, stand alone. That anything that may give another nation direct say over an American citizen or American interests is to be avoided.
Please note that I am neither endorsing nor vilifying this viewpoint! I am just trying to explain an attitude, prevalent in the U.S., that seems to cause confusion among non-Americans.[/QB][/QUOTE]Wouldn't that apply to any crime. Would Americans (sorry about the generalisation) feel that if an American commits murder in another country he shouldn't be arrested and tried?

[Silver Cheetah]

Originally posted by Chewbacca: Well some people want to try Americans in that court for war crimes commited during the Vietnam conflict.

Like I said, it can 't be used for crimes committed in the past. It doesn't operate retrospectively. So that would never happen. Seems like the US press is whipping up a lot of feeling about this based on an inaccurate view of the powers this court actually has?

[Donut]

Originally posted by The Hunter of Jahanna: Currently there is a ban on land mines. Uninformed "Celebrities" tell us land mines cause unneccesary wounds and that they are barbaric , ect.

It's true that there is a ban on landmines but not all countries have signed up for it. Amongst the countries that have not acceded to the treaty are: China, Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Libya, Russia and of course the USA.