[Kurt_Hectic]

Personally I clearly see the need for a international court like the ICC. It's sad that americans are so afraid of it being used as a tool for anti-americanists. We have to remember that although accusations of violations of international law often come from those who hate the US and Israel (arabs/leftist europeans), international law in itself does not have such a bias. And it is the LAW that is used in the court, not politics. If we make this a neutral and effective international prosecution-system then this will make the conditions for the terrorist-supporters much more difficult. I believe the US should consider to support the ICC because it's the best thing we got at the moment. For me it is clear that international regulations is a natural tool against terrorism. As for Sharon; if he has broken the law he should be prosecuted like anyone else that brakes the law.

[philetus]

And it is the LAW that is used in the court, not politics."

I have a bridge for sale kurt.

[Pox]

international law in itself does not have such a bias

Hmm, exactly what "international law" are you describing?

I believe the US should consider to support the ICC because it's the best thing we got at the moment

That's the most ridiculous statement I've seen in quite some time. Your ignorance knows no bounds.

[Pox]

international law in itself does not have such a bias

Hmm, exactly what "international law" are you describing?

I believe the US should consider to support the ICC because it's the best thing we got at the moment

That's the most ridiculous statement I've seen in quite some time. Your ignorance knows no bounds.

[An.American.Expatriate]

BS!

Just look at the recent example in Spain. Spain is not happy with the outcome of an american investigation into the incident at the Hotel in Bahgdad during the war - so they have issued arrest warrants for the three soldiers involved.

This can, and will happen at the ICC as well.

For me it is clear that international regulations is a natural tool against terrorism

Right. Then please show me the "interanational" definition of terrorism!

The UN in UN-American and it is good that we did not join into the fallacy of the UN's court.

[Paul_Denton]

And it is the LAW that is used in the court, not politics.

If thats true, then I have the Brooklyn Bridge up for sale for 50 cents!

For me it is clear that international regulations is a natural tool against terrorism.

International regulations? Against sand-nazis willing to die to kill us and Israelis. You gotta be f*king kidding me! No terrorists and almost no countries on earth ever follow BS like the Geneva Convention. All it does is tie our hands behind our back.

As for Sharon; if he has broken the law he should be prosecuted like anyone else that brakes the law.

Since when is combating TERRORISTS against the law?

[Actuality]

I personally believe that it all depends really on how you interpret the law & I think that US/UK Army can pass it with good lawyers.
But the very damaging effect of 'calling someone to the International court', is already in it self an irreversible damage.

That is my point.