[SQUID]

One cannot enforce rule of law for the world and yet want nothing to do with it once it comes to the US to sign on to officially ratify them. America needs to understand that either you are for international law or against it. The world assumes that America is not since the world sees America breaking international laws to enforce international rules and laws like Clinton did with Yugoslavia. The ICC is a good idea and any American committing international crimes should be subjected to their jurisdiction. It's what America always wanted since Wilson and the League of Nations.

[itsahoot]

It's what America always wanted since Wilson and the League of Nations.

Care to take a vote on that issue?

[Faraday]

Que? "International law" is an oxymoron. The US does not enforce international law--it agrees to, and enforces, treaties; it supports its allies; it defends its vital national interests. The supreme law for all US citizens is the US Constitution. We recognize no superior international body of law or organization. We are free to honor or withdraw from any international commitment, e.g. the ABM Treaty. The ICC, and its adherents in Old Europe, are pathetic in their impotence.

[Own Drummer]

Too bad the U.S. was never a member of the League of Nations.

Giving away legal sovereignty over its citizens is un-Constitutional, and any president who did so unilaterally would face impeachment.

Any Congress which voted to do so would be voted out of office so fast their collective head would spin.

[muawiyah]

?

That's the strangest post I've ever seen you type.

Everybody knows there is no single world opinion about anything except the desirability of a permanent immigration visa to the United States.

Besides, this war criminal stuff is primarily Old World material. They've certainly got more than their fair share of them and if they did nothing beyond prosecute their own they'd be busy enough.

That goes for Germany and France as well. Not all the bad guys went down. People got off with light sentences because no one could find any witnesses. Now that the evidentiary trail has been substantially improved over the years, it's time to take some of those 80 - 100 year old war criminals and give them an end of life conviction of some consequence.

[telebob]

"America needs to understand that either you are for international law or against it."

I couldn't agree less. The US has always been for a system of international treaties and agreements that advance its interests or promotes the peace, but I can't recall any instance were the US has agreed to relinquish its own soveriegnty to a manifestation that claims to be representing 'international law'.

From what I've seen of the ICC's workings so far, it's not much more than a Euro kangaroo court to be used for mainly political purposes. I can't think of any reason why the interests of the US would be advanced by submitting our military personnel or political leaders, regardless of party, to the whims of an evidently hostile judicial body.

[CFC__VRWC]

Assuming you're not a DU troll, let me ask you one question - will you still support the ICC once Bush and Blair are indicted for war crimes because they led us to war in Iraq? It WILL happen, I guarantee you. In fact, I think the only reason it hasn't happened yet (at least to Bush) is because Chirac and his buddies want the indictment to be handed down closer to election time, so the Rats can use it as a campaign issue.

[oilfieldtrash]

I agree. Bill Clinton and Madeline Albright committed war crimes in Yugoslavia and should have to answer for it along with Milosevich who seems almost less guilty than them.

[Cogadh na Sith]

One cannot enforce rule of law for the world and yet want nothing to do with it once it comes to the US to sign on to officially ratify them. America needs to understand that either you are for international law or against it.

OK, the US didn't sign the Kyoto agreement. I'm driving an M1A2 Abrams tank for peacekeeping duty in Kosovo. It is belching out hydrocarbon loaded exhaust and drips some fuel in the forest.

The UN charges the tank crew as criminals for violating 'World Environmental Regulations' and wants each member of the tank crew to pay fines of $20,000 to the UN Environmental Fund.

Does that sound like what you want? I can guaran-damned-tee you that is exactly what will happen!

[mark502inf]

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?