International criminal court.US do not any part of

RE: International criminal court.US do not any par

Basically tomel, you hit the nail on the head.

RE: International criminal court.US do not any par

Geforce,(and others of course)can we sum it up that the US as usual is practising double standard?They dont give a damn about human rights/criminal justice-they only preached about justice and so on to the world(3 nations especially)but do not practice it for themselves?

RE: International criminal court.US do not any par

‘McDonalds’ sounds too Scottish, let’s try ‘Kentucky Fried Chicken’ instead.

RE: International criminal court.US do not any par

Thats right Geforce. Americans are only “misguided patriots” when they are caught. If they are not caught, they are just “patriots”.

Foreigners are “evil” and should be bombed because they are obviously commies and they will destroy our democracy. Their only chance to redeem themselves is by accepting hundreds of McDonalds.

RE: International criminal court.US do not any par

Because there are no criminals in the US. Criminals only come from rogue states or the axis of evil

RE: International criminal court.US do not any par

Actually, the point about an unaccountable prosecutor being appointed is OK by me.

I thought the judiciary was supposed to be independent anyway – by which, read unaccountable.

The entire point of the ICC is that the “league of nations” is able to condemn another nation or even an individual. The prosecutor is appointed directly by those nations and is therefore their representative. Would you rather 66 nations each had a prosecutor??

They’d spend the first 5 years of any case arguing over which brand of bottled water to drink!

Don’t get me wrong, I am dead against the ICC. But it does seem that if it is going to be put in place despite my opposition (!) then the process outlined in the article is actually the most practical one. No who’s being high-minded – the practical Europeans or the democracy-crazed Americans??

RE: ok

“The concept of the ICC is very noble and couragous, but the reality of the matter is that this institution would be just another political forum for the nations of the world to slug it out. “

I agree… a potential solution to many problems of the world.. just like the UN could have been.
Of course without their veto the US would be exposed to the sort of treatment they deal out so of course they are not going to like it.
Think of the scenario during the Kosovo intervention. Blair, Clinton, Allbright… all called to answer for what they were doing to Yugoslavia… justifying supporting Terrorism in Kosovo and later in Macedonia. How do you think Billy boy would get on? I can’t remember if I inhaled or not… isn’t memory lapse one symptom of drug use?
He can get away with lies to the American people because their economy was strong and they could care less whether he lies to them or not… a court of law whether it be internation or local generally frowns on those who lie for their own benefit.

(The Lewinsky incident did however clarify one point… we are all equal… except for those who aren’t… the head of IBM would have lost his job, spent time in jail and been sued and/or harrased for the rest of his life by womens groups… If Clinton was a woman he’d have been called a slut or worse… but he was a president during a “good” period fiscally speaking so he comes out smelling of roses… go figure).

ok

My fear would be walking out the door someday and being served papers with Geforces signature on the bottom of the document. }>

———————————————————————-

People being upset about us for that world court thing sure is worth a chuckle or two. Great entertainment.

—————————————-

That reminds me; the “nose art” such as it is on one F-117 (painted on the nose wheel door) says the following:

“Final Verdict”

elp
usa

RE: International criminal court.US do not any par

The concept of the ICC is very noble and couragous, but the reality of the matter is that this institution would be just another political forum for the nations of the world to slug it out. Does anyone actually think that world governments would really treat the ICC with benign altrusim, seeking nothing but justice? Governments do not do that, they act on their own interests alone. The ICC would turn into just another UN, where governments use what power they have to pass the resolutions they wish to see, for their own selfish ends. Justice would hardly be served by this place.

well, this is an article explainig US objections to the court : http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/rbartley/?id=110001701

World Law or Institutionalized Hypocrisy?
The International Criminal Court won’t give us justice.

BY ROBERT L. BARTLEY
Monday, May 13, 2002 12:01 a.m. EDT

After the carnage at Srebrenica and in Rwanda, the goal of putting the world’s butchers on trial surely strikes sympathetic chords. But in rejecting the new International Criminal Court last week, the Bush administration struck an important blow for the cause of justice in the world.

The court’s charter establishes a prosecutor who is literally irresponsible, not accountable to any democratic authority or even the United Nations Security Council. The prosecutor will be “elected by secret ballot by an absolute majority” of the ratifying nations. He would serve a nine-year term, and have the authority on his own initiative to launch investigations into “a. The crime of genocide; b. Crimes against humanity; c. War crimes; d. The crime of aggression.”

This brainstorm is popular in all of the usual high-minded quarters. The treaty negotiated in Rome in 1998 has been ratified by 66 nations, including France, the United Kingdom, Sweden, etc. It will open its doors in the Hague next year, with jurisdiction over crimes committed after next July 1.

The American representative to the Rome conference testified to Congress that the U.S. continued to object not only to the “self-initiating prosecutor” and the sweeping inclusion of the crime of aggression, but to the court’s jurisdiction over American peacekeepers on the territory of a state that had ratified the treaty. President Clinton signed the treaty on his last New Year’s eve in office, in the same last-minute rush that three weeks later produced the Marc Rich pardon.

Last week the Bush administration dialed up the United Nations and told them to forget it. Or rather, John Bolton, Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, sent a letter to U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan stating that the U.S. “does not intend to become a party” and has no obligations arising from President Clinton’s signature. The administration is preparing a diplomatic offensive against the court.

Henry Kissinger’s recent experiences show that the problems with the brand of jurisprudence the court represents are anything but theoretical. A year ago the Paris police stopped by the concierge desk at the Ritz Hotel and dropped off a summons for the visiting former Secretary of State. A French judge had decided he wanted to question him about U.S. policy in Chile some 30 years ago.
The judge was entertaining a case professing to be about the disappearance of five French citizens during Augusto Pinochet’s military regime in Chile. Baltasar Garzon, the Spanish magistrate who succeeded in having Gen. Pinochet detained in London, also requested that British authorities allow him to question the former secretary during a recent visit. In what rapidly became an international movement, judges in Chile and Argentina have issued similar writs.

The cases charge or suggest that the U.S. was complicit in “Operation Condor,” torturing and killing South American leftists. In the original French case, the State Department told the court that the questions should be directed to the U.S. government, and it’s expected to issue detailed answers denying any American involvement.

Even if that closes the matter, the episode demonstrates that prosecutorial investigations have an in terrorem effect, especially considering that Secretary Kissinger is 78 and General Pinochet was 82 when he was seized and held for 16 months. Similarly, a Belgian court has entertained a case charging Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon with crimes against humanity in the 1982 massacres at Sabra and Chatilla in Lebanon.

The “independence” of many European magistrates already sanctions freewheeling grandstanding, perhaps for the better in Italian Mafia prosecutions but for the worse in anti-American campaigns dressed up as judicial grievances. With this already coming from magistrates in European democracies under an established rule of law, American officials have every reason to worry about a new prosecutor reflecting the “world opinion” enshrined in multinational bureaucracies.

The U.N., for example, recently proposed a war crimes investigation of the Israeli seizure of Jenin, where tales of massacres turned out to be Arab propaganda lies. It proposed no investigation of sending suicide bombers to attack civilians in markets or banquet halls, or of desecrating Christian shrines.

In recent years the U.S. was railroaded off the U.N. Human Rights Commission, with the help of the Swedes and European Union. The U.S. felt it had no alternative but to withdraw from the U.N. Durban conference on racism, as earlier it withdrew from a politicized UNESCO.

Curiously but predictably, American support for an unrooted world prosecutor comes from many of the same voices who recently changed their minds on the U.S. independent counsel law, first championing it and later complaining that Kenneth Starr and company were too independent. Some, including this newspaper and Mr. Starr himself, warned early on that prosecutors need to be anchored in the executive branch accountable at elections.
The Bolton letter to the U.N. resolves the status of a signed but unratified treaty. The 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties provides that a state that has signed a treaty subject to ratification is obliged not to undercut it “until it shall have made its intention clear not to become a party to the treaty.” The Kyoto environmental accord and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty are also signed but unratified; indeed the Senate has already rejected the CTBT. If the Senate’s Constitutional power to ratify means anything, unratifiable treaties should be dispatched by the procedure just established with the ICC rejection.

This would of course produce further howls about the U.S. refusing to follow enlightened opinion. But the world also looks to America for such things as bailing out failed peacekeeping efforts in the Balkans. If world opinion wants the U.S. to go along with the likes of the new court, it’s time for world opinion to grow up and get serious.

Mr. Bartley is editor of The Wall Street Journal. His column appears Mondays in the Journal and on OpinionJournal.com.

—————————————-
U.N. Representative: So, Mr. Evil –
Dr. Evil: It’s Dr. Evil, I didn’t spend six years in Evil Medical School to be called “mister,” thank you very much.

Mongu no like Sheriff….

“Mongu just pawn in game of life….” 😀

( para-phrased from the movie; “Blazing Saddles” )

RE: International criminal court.US do not any par

they said on the uk news taht the constituiton casues soem preoblems too.

i too disagree with teh whole onesidedness of nuremberg

rabie :9

RE: International criminal court.US do not any par

There is no doubt that there are lots of war criminals in the US who should be brought to justice. The CIA “hero” who dies in Afghanistan is one recent example.

But in my opinion, the ICC is little more than a mouthpiece. I do not believe in “victors justice”. I still feel that the Nuremburg trials were farcical and every similar trial ever since has also been a farce.

I have great idealogical difficulty in accepting that the legitimacy of the ICC. It’s just the winnders whacking the loser. Not very sporting and frankly, conduct unbecoming of gentlemen.

RE: International criminal court.US do not any par

Many in the US view the ICC as a politically-motivated rather than justice-motivated organization. Another objection is ICC championing group rights rather than individual rights. Other key elements the ICC is missing include no secret trials, right to face your accuser, right to appeal and many other rights that exist in the US courts.

RE: International criminal court.US do not any par

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 13-05-02 AT 04:23 PM (GMT)]The rationale is that if the US signed up to an international court which could have the power to indict anyone then maybe a US serviceman or even politician might be at the receiving end. Lets face it, the one nation that has been involved (to some degree) in practically every war since WWII is the US – it would hardly come as a surprise if some of the US citizens who functioned as part of that involvement were criminals of one kind or another. What’s really worrying, however, is that some case might go the very top (and Milosevic isn’t setting a very good precedent for that).

RE: International criminal court.US do not any par

I believe than like in many other domains , the US want to be able to interfer in other countries politics but don’t want that anybody else could interfer in theirs.