US to abandon treaty on International Criminal Court

The United States is disassociating itself from a treaty that created the International Criminal Court because the tribunal is not accountable to any authority and could second-guess US courts, Secretary of State Colin Powell announced.

He said the decision to "unsign" the treaty would be formally announced as early as Monday.

"Within the next day or so, the United States will notify the Secretary General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan, that we will not ratify it, no intention of ratifying the international criminal court treaty," Powell said Sunday on ABC's "This Week" television program.

"Since we have no intention of ratifying it, it is appropriate for us, because we have such serious problems with the ICC, to notify the depository, secretary general, that we do not intend to ratify it, and therefore we are no longer bound in any way to its purpose and objective," he added.

The court is being created under a 1998 Rome agreement signed by countries eager to set up an international body to prosecute genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Many legal experts argue an international criminal court is the missing link in the international legal system because the existing International Court of Justice at The Hague handles only litigation between states, not individuals.

Its absence has allowed many crimes against humanity like the killing of an estimated two million people in Cambodia in the 1970s to go unpunished, these experts say.

Former US president Bill Clinton signed the accord on behalf of the United States on December 31, 2000, but, due to overwhelming opposition in Congress, he never submitted it for ratification.

Members of the US Congress, where support for the treaty remains very low on both sides of the aisle, have insisted the court could be used by critics of the United States against American servicemen participating in military operations overseas.

To date, 66 nations have now ratified the international statute, six more than required to trigger its entry into force.

The court will come into being July 1, and is expected to be ready to start work in The Hague early next year.

Powell said the court was beholden to no higher authority, not even the UN Security Council, and would be able "to second-guess the United States after we have tried somebody."

"We found that this was not a situation that we believed was appropriate for our men and women in the armed forces or our diplomats and political leaders," he said.

"And it is for that reason we will be notifying the depository, secretary general ... that the United States does not intend to ratify the ICC."

At the same time, Powell pointed out that the United State had supported the international tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda and is trying to set up a court to hear cases stemming from the conflict in Sierra Leone.

The US decision drew sharp criticism from 23 prominent human rights advocates, including Jesse Jackson and Amnesty International-USA Director Bill Shultz, who called it rash, arguing that the United States was "turning its back on decades of US leadership in prosecuting war criminals since the Nuremberg trials."

"Unsigning is an unprecedented act that has little practical effect, but is symbolically powerful because it undermines American leadership and credibility at the worst possible time," the group said in a statement.

An opinion poll conducted last month for the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights showed that 54 percent of Americans believed that the US government should change its current position on the court.

Knowing how easily polls are manipulated, the one by the Lawyers' association is highly questionable.

Amnesty International and Jesse Jackson are equally criminal.

Former US president Bill Clinton signed the accord on behalf of the United States on December 31, 2000,

Okay, let's hear from the "not-a-dimes-worth-of-difference" crowd.

Amnesty International and Jesse Jackson are equally criminal.

Of course he approves of the world court, a member of the black caucas wanted the UN world court to investigate the "racism in Cinncinati" when those riots occurred. It's a great opportunity to "prove" human rights violations by the USA.

Take a look at this before you settle on seeing Jackson merely as a "clown", though granted he is that as well! http://oregonmag.com/JesseReview402.htm In addition to the info at that address, remember that his chief aide through the '80s and '90's was an old Communist party organizer, well known to the FBI, always on the run while being a Communist was still a crime.

As for Amnesty International, it is an organization that is highly selective about what human rights violations it concerns itself with. As far as I'm concerned, on the evidence, it is corrupt and ideological, hence criminal.

The review of the book on Jesse Jackson seems pretty damning, although there appears to be the usual guilt by association charges in the review.

I am always suspicious of the speaker for the 'common man' who travels first class. Must be the primitive methodist in me.

Jesse seems to belong to that long line of demogogues who line their own pockets with people's hopes.

Perhaps the IRS could investigate his tax returns.

As for Amnesty International, I don't know of any country they have not criticised. Unless you believe that any one or organisation who criticises the US or its allies(particularly Israel)is criminal. Even the Pope no longer claims infallibility!

Sure, we want no part of it but its ok to demand another sovereign country (Yugo) to take part in the kangaroo court.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.