Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Lebell
And there is part of the problem: What recourse would we have if they DID put someone in front of the ICC who we determined didn't deserve it?
This is of course the core of why we won't submit to the ICC. Those conducting trials are not accountable to those under it's jurisdiction.
Maybe you don't think this is a problem, but we fought a war to achieve just such a thing.
|
If he (or she for that matter) is innocent there should be no problem, get the person a good defence (should be there since he/she has already been found innocent by a court (which I presume was out for justice and not a politial statement)) and this person is free after trial. Cleared in full view of the international media, and thus presumably the world.
The problem the rest of the world might have, when the USA does not sign the ICC agreement, is that the USA might have something to hide. If your military courts (maybe aided by civilian law) are doing their job no USA miliatry personel (or any other country for that matter) would stand trial outside thier own country and the the ICC court would handle the Hitler's and Stalin cases in this world (i.e. cases to big to be held in a national court).
I therefore do not see what the problem is with the ICC unless a country has something to hide or is affraid it is doing something that is againts treaties they already signed. And the idea of holding a bribe (money in what form so ever) in front of other nations is weird in my opinion. I feel it is a method that is inworthy for a country that sees itself as the biggest democracy in the world as well as its defender.