Well, actually, the ICC cannot prosecute you if your country is already doing it. The ICC is for prosecuting offenders who�s country is unwilling or unable to prosecute them. And how in the world would the US be unable to enforce justice in their armed forces? The US doesn't loose any sovereignty if joining the ICC but now it has damaged it as a whole as any dictator in the world will say "Why are you hunting me? Look at the US, they cannot be tried, so why should I be tried? Equal rights to all!".
The day the world got international crime law was the day the US, England, France and Russia opened the "N�rnberger trials" against the Nazi criminals for offences against mankind (and rightly so!)
Quote:
Originally posted by Krsqk:
quote:
Well, what can I say......USA just made a new law: its legal to invade The Netherlands.. if American citizen, who have commited crimes against men kind, are held in The netherlands for trial.
|
[rant]I'm sorry. Where is the country of mankind? Last I knew, there was the concept of sovreignty of states, that meant each country had the right to try crimes committed in their territory. If someone wants to kill 72 million people in Lower Slobovia, then they ought to be tried according to the laws of Lower Slobovia. Not the laws of the Netherlands, not the laws of England, not the laws of the United States. There is no "world court" because there is no "world government." The day I say the pledge to the UN flag "under man" is the day I accept a world jurisdiction. Yes, there is a universal morality which condemns genocide and other despicable acts. No, there should not be a universal court to try them.[/rant]
I really shouldn't read these political threads.
[edit]I'm sorry for any offence--none intended. I greatly resent the pressure to surrender sovreignty to an international body when we have constitutionally guaranteed freedom from infringement by national powers.
Re: OT: I\'m proud to be an American...
Threaded Mode