The ICC v. The U.S. Constitution

American Journalism Center ^ | May 17, 2010 | Spencer Irvine

[bs9021]

The ICC v. The U.S. Constitution

Spencer Irvine, May 17, 2010

The implications of President Barack Obama’s review of American policy towards the International Criminal Court (ICC) could have large and dangerous future results, argued three panelists during a Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom lecture.

A former advisor under President George W. Bush, Lee A. Baker, pointed out that prior to the Obama administration; the U.S. Congress passed the American Serviceman Protection Act in order to protect American servicemen and women from the prosecution of the ICC. Baker reasoned that American constitutional law prevents the United States from “divesting” power and authority to another country or organization such as the ICC. And, unlike American law, under which there are both military and civilian courts as well as civil and criminal prosecutors, the ICC is only focused on prosecution regardless of a citizen’s occupation. These are reasons enough to resist the ICC treaty as Americans, argued Baker.

Brett D. Schaefer, a Jay Kingham Fellow at the Heritage Foundation, agreed with Baker’s argument. Before, Schaefer said, Americans could only theorize if the ICC would have jurisdiction over them, and if so, what would be the ramifications for American servicemen and women. When asked about the ICC’s open case referring to war crimes in Afghanistan, prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo said, “War crimes are under my jurisdiction. I cannot say more now because we are just collecting information,” leaving open the possibility of investigating Americans for war crimes and prosecuting them in the near future....