US Clashes With Europe Over War Crimes

US and one day will come where all of the countries in the world will force the US to accept these laws in full...

The US will not be forced. We have, and will, go to war to protect out interests.

or you shall see an economic Goliath tumble when it's global resources are restricted by this international assembly.

Of course the members of the 'international assembly' only have economies because of the global resources we are buying.

You're an idiot and have been blown out of the water on this thread....

Like it or not, a global government is forming with or without the US...

My, my. Lenin's dream. But today, only Chirac proffers this. Much of the international community would like to handcuff the US via regulation and entanglements. Notice these agreements are honored in the breach by most nations, which only demonstrates the true purpose. As long as the United States stands on the side of human freedom, (which, among other things, devolves political power to the lowest possible level), the great majority of the world's people will ultimately side with us against the "one worlders."

Mr. SQUID (is that really your name or are you a Naval Academy graduate?) Laws are only as good as those who are enforcing them. And therein lies the problem. The ICC has broad discretionary authority to determine whether or not something is a crime, whether or not a country conducted a "good faith" investigation, whether or not the trial was proper, and whether or not an imposed sentence was appropriate. And further, appellate authority is contained within the ICC and there is no review past that--not the UN or the Security Council or anybody else--certainly not the USA. So we have an unaccountable court free to review every stage of the legal process in signatory countries to identify if their process meets ICC standards--standards which are established by the ICC! To assume that there will not be ICC prosecutors & judges who will take action based on ideology or anti-Americanism or very expansive ideas of their powers is, I believe, naive.

Mr. SQUID, if you believe the real problem is that the USA is willfully not investigating or prosecuting international criminals under its control or else is protecting its own citizens who have committed war crimes, then it would follow that you would want the ICC to have jurisdiction over the USA. Is that the case, or do you simply advocate the idea of devolving power as far away as possible from the people and into the hands of unaccountable elites?

Mark,
I respect your diplomatic tone. I am glad when people can discuss serious issues without threatening or resorting to name-calling.

1) I agree with your point about the lack of balance and accountability. I think installing a court system without a counterweight such as a legislative body, which, by the way, should reflect a reasonable representation of all nations, would be too much power to whiled for one organization. Given the nature of mans corruptibility that is certain to be abused unless checked. Still, ICC is not a bad idea but with representation.
2) .."that the USA is willfully not investigating or prosecuting international criminals under its control.." Well, sort of since Lieutenant William Calley is out enjoying his life in Florida as a real-estate businessman after being pardoned by Nixon. Come on, you really think EVERYTHING is done by the book here? Sure we get our people off unless it's just too public to cover up.

3) ICC, this is my prediction, will not have authority over us courts on a domestic level but will be able to call people on an international level. I also think the ICC is better then the kangaroo court that has been setup, the YCC, to simply justify the means.

Is preemptive war still justified when the no reason has been found to act? No. What happens to the police officer that breaks into your house and kills your brother and sister because he had a suspicion that something was going on? Does he go free? Well, internationally, there must be a body to hold people accountable for such an "error" and to see if indeed it was done with malice.

Thanks, very interesting! Listen, I am exploring this idea with people who are willing to explore it with me. Discussing this with a closed minded individual is a waste of time be it...politics, liturature or even soccer for that matter.

Respectfully,
SQUID

Strangely, on a completely different thread, somebody else brought up My Lai to me today. It seems to be the poster child for those who maintain that the US needs more supervision from the international community. I contend it is the exception that proves the rule. With everything the US has been involved in over the 35 years since My Lai, the fact that My Lai is trotted out as evidence of our wanton evilness or disregard for law should show how truly rare it is for the US military to be involved in those type of problems and how well we police our own without the help of judges from dictatorships and prosecutors from former colonial powers.

Squid, you say "Come on, you really think EVERYTHING is done by the book here? Sure we get our people off unless it's just too public to cover up." Doesn't My Lai prove just the opposite? It was the most public of trials, yet Calley was let go after serving only 3 years (BTW, as of the late 70s he was working in a jewelry store in Columbus, GA--he helped my wife & I with a watch repair. Was very overweight & remarkably normal/non-guilty looking for someone who had murdered over 100 people--he's now in Florida? Selling real estate?!?! Not sure that's a good career choice for America's most famous war criminal). Now, have you heard of the courts-martial conducted for U.S. military folks who mis-treated Somalis? Well, they occurred, even though I have found very few people who ever heard of these incidents. The USA has a professional military that it can be proud of--we make mistakes sometimes, but we also do not wilfully kill or mistreat noncombatants and the few times that someone pulls something like that, we take action, whether anybody else cares or knows or not--cause its the right thing to do.

Not sure why we need the USA under the ICC. As an American I see no reason to expose our fellow citizens to extra-Constitutional politically or ideologically based prosecutions. As a citizen of the world, I recognize that the USA is the greatest force for good in the world right now and has been for most of the last century, so why we would we want to put American power under the potentially hobbling review of a capricious and unaccountable body?

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.