International criminal court

[Guest TheMikeSC]

I'm a little surprised that this has yet to be mentioned, but the Bush administration has stated it will not even offer the treaty creating the ICC to the Senate for ratification and there is serious discussion about removing the U.S signature from said document.

 

Now, how does everyone feel about this? I, as expected, back Bush in this move as I feel the court is a clear violation of our Constitution (U.S citizens have certain rights guaranteed under the Constitution that won't be protected by the ICC) and was one of the far too many to count horrible laws that lame-duck Clinton signed after Gore lost the election (we'll be fixing all of THAT damage for years to come).

 

However, does anybody think we SHOULD sign this? I can't fathom the rationale behind doing so, but I am interested in hearing if anybody thinks a permanent ICC is a good idea---or if it's just simply one of the worst ideas out there.

                  -=Mike

[Guest]

What American rights does the ICC not protect? (I don't know much about this, but if the conflicts could be resolved I think it would be a good thing for the United States to back it. But if it violates our Constitution, of course we shouldn't. We can't.)

[Guest TheMikeSC]

What American rights does the ICC not protect? (I don't know much about this, but if the conflicts could be resolved I think it would be a good thing for the United States to back it. But if it violates our Constitution, of course we shouldn't. We can't.) >>>

 

 

From what I've read, defendants are not guaranteed a jury trial, don't have the right to face their accusers, things such as that. I also imagine the right to representation isn't there, but I don't know for sure.

                          -=Mike

[Guest]

Anyone have a detailed list, or know where one can be found?

[Guest TJH]

This seems to be just another European attempt to dilute power from individual states.

China hasn't signed it, Russia hasn't signed it, nearly all of Asia hasn't signed, and no one in Asia has.

Just because someone decides to name something international doesn't mean it is.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

Anyone have a detailed list, or know where one can be found? >>>

 

 

OK, a few sites to check out.

 

First, the official site: http://www.igc.org/cc

 

And a very good critique of the ICC by a fellow at the CATO Institute:

http://ww.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-311es.html.

              -=Mike

 

...Always willing to try and provide both sides

[Guest]

Thanks Mike, but your hyperlink's messed up <g> The actual link is here.

 

After reading that document in its entirety, in particular, the numerous ways it alleges the ICC would violate the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, I can think of no reason on earth why we should ratify such a treaty.

 

On the other hand, this website seems to be saying the opposite: that the ICC would, in fact, be compatible with the Constitution. So now I'm confused.

[Guest LooseCannon]

Some of the confusion stems from the fact that the Cato institute is comparing, in some instances, rights under the U.S. Constitution to the procedures used in a Yugoslavian Trial in 1995, and not necessarily the language of the ICC.

 

However, even so, under my reading of the relevant portions of the ICC, the ICC does not appear to provide as full protection against double jeopardy proceedings, and as full protection in the jury selection process.  Also I'm unclear to the extent that ICC affords the accused the right to confront his accusers.  There does seem to be a loophole that would allow adverse witnesses to testify outside of the accused's presence, and allow for cross-examination on behalf of the accused outside of his presence, and would perhaps allow for total anonymity of the adverse witness.  This, in particular, gives me serious pause.

 

I don't mean to imply anything nefarious on the part of the USAforICC website, but their comparisons in some cases are a little misleading and probably overstate the case that the rights afforded under the ICC are as fully comparable as those under the U.S. Constituion.

[Guest Vyce]

Maybe it protects our Constitutional rights, maybe not.

 

The fact that there's confusion in the first place makes up my mind for me.  I'll err on the side of caution and say, don't ratify it.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

Thanks Mike, but your hyperlink's messed up <g> The actual link is here.

 

After reading that document in its entirety, in particular, the numerous ways it alleges the ICC would violate the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, I can think of no reason on earth why we should ratify such a treaty.

 

On the other hand, this website seems to be saying the opposite: that the ICC would, in fact, be compatible with the Constitution. So now I'm confused.>>>

 

 

The mere fact that this treaty might violate our Constitution is sufficient reason to not ratify it.

                          -=Mike

 

...And I put precious little past the U.N.

[Guest Hogan Made Wrestling]

I don't really see the need for this beyond what's already in place at the Hague for prosecuting war criminals and crimes against humanity, crimes whose magnitude stretch beyond domestic courts of law. It's served us well in the past (since WW2) and continues to do it's job so "if it ain't broke don't fix it" as they say.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

I don't really see the need for this beyond what's already in place at the Hague for prosecuting war criminals and crimes against humanity, crimes whose magnitude stretch beyond domestic courts of law. It's served us well in the past (since WW2) and continues to do it's job so "if it ain't broke don't fix it" as they say. >>>

 

 

Thing is, we know what it will be used for. The petty dictatorships that populate the U.N presently will use it to attack their enemies and the U.S.

 

This is a terrible idea whose time will, hopefully, never come.

                          -=Mike

 

...Loving it that Reno might not even win the Democratic nomination for FL Governor

[Guest gthureson]

Short and sweet answer?

 

Too many holes and inconsistencies in the plan for it to ever serve justice.  It'll serve political ends, which is not the purpose of a court of law, domestic or international.

 

Hopefully it'll die on the table before it actually gets implemented.