h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I stand corrected. Apparantly, President Clinton did sign this thing with the understanding that some things could be negotiated. We couldn't get the concesions that we wanted, so he never sent it to the Senate for ratification.

"We're not backing out of treaties. We're electing not to join."

Bill Clinton signed the treaty of Rone in December 2000. The current government announced that they will retract that signature on Monday.
Seems pretty much like backing out of a treaty.



"Who's to say if they think the home country did an adequate job. If US Attorney doesn't think a crime was committed, then can the ICC step in? If there's a federal trial, and the defendant is acquitted, will the ICC feel that justice was done? "

Actually reading the treaty will answer these questions:

"Article 17
Issues of admissibility

1. Having regard to paragraph 10 of the Preamble [[which reads " Emphasizing that the International Criminal Court established under this Statute shall be complementary to national criminal jurisdictions,"]] and article 1, the Court shall determine that a case is inadmissible where:

(a) The case is being investigated or prosecuted by a State which has jurisdiction over it, unless the State is unwilling or unable genuinely to carry out the investigation or prosecution;

(b) The case has been investigated by a State which has jurisdiction over it and the State has decided not to prosecute the person concerned, unless the decision resulted from the unwillingness or inability of the State genuinely to prosecute;

(c) The person concerned has already been tried for conduct which is the subject of the complaint, and a trial by the Court is not permitted under article 20, paragraph 3;

(d) The case is not of sufficient gravity to justify further action by the Court."
http://www.un.org/law/icc/statute/99_corr/2.htm


So, no. The ICC can not step in after a federal trial.

Two-Bit,

If this treaty only concerned American's, fair enough. But what about US troops enganged in foreign wars? Are you seriously saying that if US troops "misbehave" that the citizens of these foreign nations shouldn't be able to do anything about it?

American soldiers are subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice wherever they are. A violation of the laws of war is a violation of the UCMJ. We already have a system in place to deal with it.

We have no need of an international court to deal with these issues.

>I don't see any reason for us to join into this thing and subject American citizens to foreign justice.<

Well, a lot of people would say that the reason for that is because the US is always happy enough to inflict INjustice on foreigners.

Ask the mothers of the dead children in Iraq, the people of Cuba, the people of Venezuala, the people of Grenada, relatives of the 40 dead in Afghanistan (who Rumsfeld can't even say 'Sorry' to like any reasonable human being would, whatever the beliefs of the pilots at the time).
Ask the people of Laos (which was Cambodia when Kissinger decided it was fine to bomb the s**t out of them simply for being a non-combatant nation.)
Ask the dead of the village of My Lai.

Ah, Lt Calley. I think that was sort of where I came in.

Here we go...

US troops would be subject to the US law only? What's to stop US law deciding that US troops can bend it?

Sorry, Two-bit, but the rest of the world is as soverign as the United States. If your forces are going to fight there, then you should be answerable to laws outside your border. Otherwise, stay at home.

"American soldiers are subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice wherever they are. A violation of the laws of war is a violation of the UCMJ. We already have a system in place to deal with it.
We have no need of an international court to deal with these issues."

Perfect! If the US deals with it then the ICC can't (see the Article I quoted). So, if the US are a herfectly happy bunch of nice people who don't do things they should not, or at least deal with them afterwards, they have nothing to fear from the ICC, because it can't do a thing. Thus the ICC has no issues to deal with.
Why retract the signature then?

It seems as if we have situation where this is totally pointless. All anyone has to do is say that we'll have our own investigation, and that will settle it. Or will the members of the ICC decide on there own that the ingvestigation is insufficent, and decide to launch their own prosecution.

This sounds a bit like the inane laws that we create for ourselves everytime we have a big news item. Congress is horrified, they investigate a matter (which mucks up the ongoing criminal investigation) then creates a new law that criminalizes activity that was already created.

The issue we had with this is that we were seeking immunity from the court. Other countries have been granted that immunity. I already stated why we signed.

I agree, Two Bit. The court is pointless. It's highly likely (I think) that nobody will ever be able to successfully prosecute a case against anyone through it.

So, it's pointless. Also any risk of a US citizen being prosecuted by it can be completely nullified by simply holding an investigation *within* the US (which you'd surely WANT to do, if there was ANY evidence at all of a war crime, and if there *wasn't* the investigation wouldn't take long...).

So given that - why not sign up? What harm can it do? Nod, smile, sign, and tell Europe to go back to sleep.

I think the reason for this thread, and the reason for European attitudes to the US refusal to sign up, is that saying "No", in the precise terms being used, just makes the US look really, really insular - and a sole world superpower being so inward-looking makes the rest of us folks out here nervous, frankly.

Don't get me wrong, I understand why the US feels it has no use for the ICC. But the could perfectly easily treat the ICC like the Geneva convention - sign up to it, espouse it to everyone as a good thing, and then if there's a situation where it's inconvenient (like, you've captured dozens of enemy soldiers, only they're not "soldiers" as defined in the treaty), you just give a reason why you're ignoring it ("illegal combatants") and if everyone else complains about it, screw 'em. After all, what's the POINT of being the most militarily powerful nation on earth if you can't do whatever the hell you want?

H.

I think Two Bit's posts illustrate my point perfectly, from his point of view his logic is infallible. "We have no need of an international court to deal with these issues." Note "We have no need..." not "Nobody has a need...". I'm not America bashing. If we could do it, we would too.

I, personally, think that the question behind this thread is aimed at a greater thing. The fact (or so it would seem) that the US of A (not the people of that nationality, but their government) is getting a bit carried away by their power.
I've recently discussed this with a whole lotta law students and people who left university, wrote their PhD and currenly teach at uni. At least one of them wrote his thesis on the subject matter the ICC wantss to prosecute. That thesis was published by Oxford University Press ... a nice move for a German So, not a bunch of uneducated tabloid readers.
And the general consensus is that the US of A are pushing things at the moment. Thus, to all citizens of the US of A here... it's not aimed at you personally, but at the policies your covernment is implementing.

Or as R.A. Wilson said.

Perils of Cocaine Abuse
Two recent political leaders allegedly had this nefarious habit.
Both came to power after dubious elections, by non-electorial and irregular methods.
Both nations immediately experienced attacks on famous public buildings.
Both blamed an ethnic minority before forensics had any evidence.
Both led "witch-hunts" against the accused minority.
Both suspended civil liberties "temporarily."
Both put the citizenry under surveillance.
Both maintained secret and clandestine governments.
Both launched wars against most of the world.
One had a funny mustache. Can you name the other one?
http://www.rawilson.com/main.shtml

And that's what worries me. A country which thinks that it can run the whole world and that's above of what the rest thinks.

Just because the ICC wouldn't be able to charge US citizens as it stands, doesn't mean they won't take that power on themselves. It is the nature of governments to expand their power. If we create this new political body what will keep it from expanding to the point where it can charge US citizens regardless of what the United States does.

Our central government was supposed to be a limited government that regulated interstate commerce and conducted foreign affairs. What part of our lives does the federal government not affect now? I expect there will be a number of people in Europe who will feel the same way after 100 years after the EU.

In this country, we have frivolous law suits constantly. Every once in a while something truly stupid gets through and someone gets charged with a silly crime or is forced to pay money in a civil suit.

While I can appreciate that we have the power to tell the world that they won't get whatever citizen, why wait until the court demands it. We can just end the matter now by not joining.

President Clinton wasn't going to put us into this thing. I doubt that Vice President Gore was so inclined either. I don't think the election had anything to do with it.

The comparison of President Bush to Hitler is absurd.

I think it's pretty clear who attacked this nation. We're not persecuting a minority in this country. We haven't suspended civil rights, we've acted according to our law (although I do think that we should have had the tribunals for those detained in Getmo). The laws on surveillance have not changed to any great degree. We've just lifted some absurd policy restrictions on federal agents. All governments have classified functions, that's noting new. We haven't launched wars against the rest of the world. We have launched limited attacks in a few places.

"If we create this new political body what will keep it from expanding to the point where it can charge US citizens regardless of what the United States does"

Simple, regulation. I don't want an ICC that can be abused to make military intervention impossible or that can be used for vendettas. It should outline a handful of things that are unacceptable - deliberate killing or harming of non-combatants for example. Since it's international, it's hard for any one country to gain control of it and use it for vendettas.

Like I said, what the US does within it's own borders is it's own business. What it does outside of it's borders is everyone's business.

"The comparison of President Bush to Hitler is absurd." - really how so.

Wasn't detaining suspects after the WTC attacks without council a supenncion of liberties?

"I think it's pretty clear who attacked this nation." based on - did the US conduct a hearing and trial to identify the suspects and just not tell anyone?

How about McArthur (SP?)

The US is full or dodgy stuff. I think the rest of the world just want it kept in the US.

People keep talking about all this need US power "...and tell Europe to go back to sleep" The peacekeeping force that was "threatened" is over 17,000 but only 3,000 are US. What gives??

""The comparison of President Bush to Hitler is absurd." - really how so."

well, it is a bit

Apart from anything else, I doubt Hitler used cocaine. He was infamously puritanical. The "Hitler used cocaine" rumours are probably linked to the "Hitler was homosexual" rumours that preceded it - an attempt to attack him by linking him to things that are/were socially unacceptable to many people.

Hitler was also against chemical warfare due to experience in WWI. And Clinton never inhaled

I still see no backing for the blanket statement that the comparason is otherwise absurd

I can see (not agree with) two bits view. On TV here the 6 O'clock news showed reports of the US bombed wedding party and also showed american news footage - completely unfeeling and unquestioned backing of US military offical word.

To quote twi bit himself "we can start dictating terms" - the post was more or less we can rule the world.

"On TV here the 6 O'clock news showed reports of the US bombed wedding party and also showed american news footage - completely unfeeling and unquestioned backing of US military offical word."

I think the US should have been more apologetic about the accident (as I'm sure it was). The United States has got to stop it's obsession with bombing. It's a stupid and, dare I say it, cowardly way of fighting wars.

"To quote twi bit himself "we can start dictating terms" - the post was more or less we can rule the world."

I couldn't find two-bits "quote". Whatever, the US can't rule the world and is more aware of that than certain people think.

The quote is from "what's wrong with americans"

I remember reading the impressive stats on the standing force being created (I don't know if it's done yet) by EU members. Perhaps there wil be a more transparent and accountable force in the world.

At the risk of being jumped on I'd agree with Zagrebs statement on bombing.

Trying to keep this non-personal. I appreciate you standing up to all this flak, Two Bit.


"Just because the ICC wouldn't be able to charge US citizens as it stands, doesn't mean they won't take that power on themselves. It is the nature of governments to expand their power. If we create this new political body what will keep it from expanding to the point where it can charge US citizens regardless of what the United States does."

It would take a UN vote to change the ICC's power and the US is part of the UN [even though thy do not really pay thier fees]. It's not some whismsical banana-republic thing.

"Our central government was supposed to be a limited government that regulated interstate commerce and conducted foreign affairs. What part of our lives does the federal government not affect now? I expect there will be a number of people in Europe who will feel the same way after 100 years after the EU."

It's not mine to judge the US internal affairs.



"President Clinton wasn't going to put us into this thing. I doubt that Vice President Gore was so inclined either. I don't think the election had anything to do with it. "

I'D say: you don't like it, you don't sign it. Why did he sign it if he weren#t to put up with it? Is your government really that irrational? I don't think so.



"We haven't suspended civil rights, we've acted according to our law (although I do think that we should have had the tribunals for those detained in Getmo)."

Two Bit, you work in law enforcement if I recall correctly. The guy in question was arrested in ... what ... mid-May? he had no contact whis his attorney till now, beginning of July? Miranda Warnings? The entry you wrote? ("You have the right to an attorney." A593688) An American citizen is arrested as a foreign *combattant*? Because he *planned* to do something?

Zagreb, read the Rome treaty, it outlines a lot.


Appartition "People keep talking about all this need US power "...and tell Europe to go back to sleep" The peacekeeping force that was "threatened" is over 17,000 but only 3,000 are US. What gives??"

I really think it a bad idea of the US to say that "if you don't give us immunity, we won't do peace-keeping missions" ... ... ... at least that's what it souds like to me.


"It's a stupid and, dare I say it, cowardly way of fighting wars."

As a side note, and to quote a German newspaper: "Driving a plane into a building is not cowardice."


To repeat the first sentences:
Trying to keep this non-personal. I appreciate you standing up to all this flak, Two Bit.