Replies

We cannot have it both ways; either we should be a part of the UN, and the World Court, and use them to get justice/influence events, as well as respect their decisions, or drop out of the world organizations, and become above the law. Once the rest of the world sense that we are the super-power, and we are above the law, guess how much love we are going to get.

The choice isn't that clear cut or simple, as much as you or a claque of jealous Europeans and Third Whirled dictators might like it to be. This issue is not about whether we have an International Court or not. This issue with the ICC is about the manner in which the ICC has been constituted, its powers, process, and jurisdiction.

First, is the key distinction, and it is in my mind non-negotiable: The Declaration of Independence states quite clearly: "endowed by their Creator certain unalienable Rights." When rights are not acknowledged as by the state as inherent to individuals, the power to confer rights accrues to the state. Rights then exist not at all.

That's my first objection: the powers of the ICC extend beyond the powers that a free people should allow to any government. It's kind of a non-starter with the ICC, don't you think? So we go on...

Second, the powers of the ICC extend to "crimes against humanity," and these include environmental crimes. Now I want you to use your imagination a little when it comes to how aquisitive bureaucrats think. Silt runs off my land and (supposedly) interferes with spawning of a fish that matures in international waters. So a bureaucrat from Gland in the IUCN decides I need a regulation to prevent erosion and sues the US government in the ICC until I get one, even though the regulations he recommends will cause massive landslides in the future and erosion is a necessary natural process in the mountains in which I live (it's already happening so I don't have to fantacize). I hate to tell you that such regulations are already being used for corrupt real estate scams.

So it is the breadth and vagueness of the powers of the ICC that are objectional (in this instance, we have more). You see, there are no limits, which brings us to another key distinction: We have Constitutionally limited government and the ICC has effectively no limits to its powers. That's kind of a problem too.

Third, the ICC does not derive its powers from the just consent of the governed even when they are states. You assert that the whole world wants this monster and I assure you that neither Russia, India, or China have ratified it. No, the ICC declares the rule of its unspecified "laws" as having jurisdiction over ALL NATIONS, with but 60 parties. That, sir, is a farce on the face of it. Perhaps there are reasons that so many countries didn't leap to the opportunity?

Fourth, the ICC ignores right to trial by jury, the right to confront witnesses, the right to protection from self-incrimination, can exercise multiple jeopardy, and acknowledges NO property rights... You say you want this thing?

No, this is not a matter of being "above the law" and it is not simply a matter of military power, this is an issue of a court whose architecture and implementation do not deserve our consideration, although they chose a curiously appropriate name "Criminal Court." (Well, at least they got that right.) It's a lousy job, a truly egregious example of international law. The manner in which it has come into force is an outrage. So why should we sign on? As far as I am concerned, by refusing to do so we are protecting the rights of every individual on the planet.

Well, we don't need any body to love us? Then don't bitch when thy hate you either.

What "they" hate in US behavior I can actually agree with in some respects. Had we constituted a court with just powers derived from the consent of the governed, UNDER the rule of law, protecting unalienable rights, I might have supported it. This one is a piece of crap.

The fact is all other governments, including the democratically elected European friends are supporting the World Court, and the UN, we should too, even if it would mean that our ex-presidents may be called to testify in the Hague!

This is a stupid argument, not based upon fact, and unworthy of anyone who would call themselves a FReeper. Kindly resign.