But what IS the problem with the international criminal court?

[Silver Cheetah]

I'm having a bit of difficulty understanding the US position in relation to the ICC, which the US seems to have said NO to in no uncertain terms. 74 states have ratified the treaty so far, many more have signed it.

The court is an apparatus for punishing war crimes. It can only act when a national court is unable or unwilling to do so. Given this, US servicemen could never be held accountable for their actions around the globe as members of a peacekeeping or attacking force. If it was alleged that war crimes had been committed, the alleged perps would always be tried by an American court.

Given this, what is the objection? I'm confused.

[ 07-02-2002, 02:40 PM: Message edited by: Silver Cheetah ]

Check out the US constitution. The Bill of rights and the other founding documents. They create a country that gaurentees its citizens certain things, and among these things is the protection from foreign governments. The US was formed to get away from european oppression the little thing called the revolutionary war also played a big part in it. Our laws will not allow our leaders to give over the rights and responsibilities that we reserved for our selves. Im not saying that the world court isnt a good idea, but it has many many flaws as well. But I dont have the time to debate that at this point. But like I said if you read those documents you will see where there are conflicts.

The USA is not just another country....Its founders had a different vision from what existed anywhere else in the world. Its got its flaws but so far to date, it has worked more for the betterment of the rest of the world than against it. Even our military structure sets us apart. Our forces are designed to Win the wars but is not designed to hold the ground...why? because we arent a country of conquest, we arent out trying to grab land.

In the end, if the world court does gain authority over US forces abroad, you will probably see a huge reduction in the amount of help given tothe rest of the world by US troops. This will delight some people, but I believe that it would hurt many more than it delighted...... [img]smile.gif[/img] any hoooo thats my take on it.

[ 07-02-2002, 02:50 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

[Silver Cheetah]

Originally posted by MagiK: Check out the US constitution. The Bill of rights and the other founding documents. They create a country that gaurentees its citizens certain things, and among these things is the protection from foreign governments. The US was formed to get away from european oppression the little thing called the revolutionary war also played a big part in it. Our laws will not allow our leaders to give over the rights and responsibilities that we reserved for our selves. Im not saying that the world court isnt a good idea, but it has many many flaws as well. But I dont have the time to debate that at this point. But like I said if you read those documents you will see where there are conflicts.

Well, I might not pick up on them! Can anyone else tell me?

EDIT: Don't understand the 'foreign governments' thing. The court is an international tribunal, and we're talking about lawyers, not governments here.

[ 07-02-2002, 02:53 PM: Message edited by: Silver Cheetah ]

[/)eathKiller]

but the lawyers are, in a way, represenatives of the countries from which they were hired!

[Larry_OHF]

Great post, MagiK!

Hey, I was told by a friend that the U.S. was the first nation to have a Constitution based on freedom, and after us, all but six countries have created a constitution of like-mind and reason. Is that true?

[Silver Cheetah]

Originally posted by /)eathKiller: but the lawyers are, in a way, represenatives of the countries from which they were hired!

So, what is the US so afraid of? Like I said, the ICC is for cases where national courts have refused to try someone accused of say, war crimes. So where a nation refused to try a dictator, then they can be tried by the ICC. I see this as a major contribution to world justice. At least it could be, if the US, Russia and China would deign to participate. I guess it sorts out the men from the boys, ie. those willing to take responsiblity for their actions, from those who are just not.

[Silver Cheetah]

Originally posted by Larry_OHF: Great post, MagiK! Hey, I was told by a friend that the U.S. was the first nation to have a Constitution based on freedom, and after us, all but six countries have created a constitution of like-mind and reason. Is that true?

Why great? It doesn't answer the question. I have already said that this is NOT about protection from foreign governments, due to the fact that Americans would only ever be tried by the international tribunal if America refused to try them in national courts. How is that going to happen?

Basically, it seems to me that MagiK is saying that the US government and military does not wish to be held accountable for its actions in the rest of the world.

[johnny]

I don't think this court is gonna work anyway. What bothers me the most though is that once again the whole circus takes place on our soil, we've had the Scottish court for the Lockerbie case, the Yugoslavia tribunal and now this. Why is all this happening here, it only attracts terrorist attention !

One thing that has a strong influence in America is our deeply ingrained attitude towards freedom. This may take more explaining than I am capable of, but here goes...(please note that I am trying to explain a cultural attitude, capture a feeling; I'm not defending or attacking the attitude)
The quickest way to get an American to do something, is to tell one not to do it. Freedom and independence are practically coded into our genetic structure. The definition of freedom is "I'll do what I want, when I want" and independence means "And you're not going to tell me what either of those will be". We are a very contrary and conniptious people, especially when it comes to "foreigners" telling us what to do with "our" people. Case in point, the kid who got caned for spray-painting grafitti... there was a lot of commentary concerning "Who do they think they are..."
ANYTHING that smacks of "forein interference" is immediately suspect... one of the reasons that there is still significant levels of mistrust concerning the United Nations within the general populace.
I'm not saying that this is right or wrong or green or blue, but that's how many (not all) Americans seem to feel.

Don't know if that answers the question, but maybe it will provide some insight...

[Sir Taliesin]

Why great? It doesn't answer the question. I have already said that this is NOT about protection from foreign governments, due to the fact that Americans would only ever be tried by the international tribunal if America refused to try them in national courts. How is that going to happen?

Basically, it seems to me that MagiK is saying that the US government and military does not wish to be held accountable for its actions in the rest of the world.[/QB][/QUOTE]

So basically, what your saying SC is that if the US military finds no problem with the conduct of it's soldiers, and chooses not to try them in a Military Courts Marshall, then an offended country could bring charges up against them in an international tribunal. Seems like a form of double jeopardy to me. Something that I am opposed too, especially since having participated in a Courts Marshall case and finding that it's the most exhaustive form of investigation I've ever seen.

Then too, how is the case to be considered. Is the defendent, to be looked on as "innocent until proven guilty" (as we have here in the US) or as "guilty until proven innocent" (like they do in Mexico). Let me tell you right now that "guilty until proven innocent" will not fly what so ever with the US public.

I can also tell you that the US public would be in favor of NEVER deploying peacelkeeping forces if we were forced into this agreement.