Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - US "bullies" countries into giving immunity to US forces

Mojo_PeiPei · 12-11-2004, 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

fill me in please on exactly how the bill posted above functions to obviate the question of rightwing political biais at every level of the debate in this thread on the question of internationa law with reference to crimes against humanity? it seems rather to simply write that political logic into a different register...a republican dominated congress passes a bill written on the basis of exactly the kind of john birch society-style "logic" about international law i complained about earlier--this changes things how exactly?

given that a war crime is a crime against humanity, i do not see how teh question of national sovereignty enters into consideration here. folk who are supporting the american refusal to accept the jurisdiction of the incr seem to be bent on pretending that the issue is sovereignty and not the prsecution of war crimes. i think that is false. what, then, is the basis for refusing to accept the notion that americans can and should be prsoecuted for war crimes? nothing about being prsecuted assumes guilt....

Did you not read what the treaty would do? How is this not an issue of sovereignity???

Quote:

B) The treaty known as the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, adopted in Rome, Italy on July 17, 1998, by the United Nations Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court (hereinafter referred to as the `ICC Treaty'), by claiming the unprecedented power to investigate and try citizens of any nation--even the citizens of nations that are not party to the treaty--based upon events taking place in the territory of a nation party to the treaty, is entirely unsupported in international law.

(2)(A) Under the terms of the ICC Treaty, an institution, to be called the International Criminal Court (hereinafter referred to as the `Court'), is to be established upon the ratification of the ICC Treaty by 60 nations.

(B) The creation of this permanent, supranational Court, with the independent power to judge and punish elected officials of sovereign nations for their official actions, represents a decisive break with fundamental United States ideals of self-government and popular sovereignty.

(C) The creation of the Court would constitute the transfer of the ultimate authority to judge the acts of United States officials away from the people of the United States to an unelected and unaccountable international bureaucracy.

(3)(A) In its design and operation, the Court is fundamentally inconsistent with core United States political and legal values.

(B) For example, a defendant would face a judicial process almost entirely foreign to the traditions and standards of the United States and be denied the right to a trial by a jury of one's peers, reasonable bail, a speedy trial, and the ability to confront witnesses to challenge the evidence against the defendant.

(4)(A) A prosecutor under the ICC Treaty would be able to appeal a verdict of acquittal, effectively placing the accused in `double jeopardy'.

(B) Such appeals are forbidden in the law of the United States and have been inconsistent with the Anglo-American legal tradition since the 17th century.

(5) Because the guarantees of the Bill of Rights in the United States Constitution would not be available to those individuals prosecuted by the Court, the United States could not participate in, or facilitate, any such court.

(6)(A) If the United States were to join the ICC Treaty, United States citizens could face removal to jurisdictions outside the United States for prosecution and judgment, without the benefit of a trial by jury, in a tribunal that would not guarantee many other rights granted by the United States Constitution and laws of the United States, and where the judges may well cherish animosities, or prejudices against them.

RB aren't you one of those on this board who is greatly opposed and frightened by the patriot act? Seems awfully hypocritical to me...