@dhromed said:
@boomzilla said:
I don't get it. You're saying that you're antagonized by us not agreeing to your illegal detainment our military or other officials? And that we'll do something about it if you do? Why is that a surprise? You need to rethink who started antagonizing whom.
Well, it just means the US doesn't recognize the International Court.
Actually, Clinton signed the Rome Statute in 2000, but didn't submit it to the Senate for ratification. Then Bush pulled out. The Obama administration is cautiously beginning to work with the court.
The whole point of the International Court is to to "bring to justice the perpetrators of the worst crimes known to humankind – war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide", especially when national courts are unable or unwilling to do so. Our (the United States) stance against the court creates the appearance that we are above international law. Take a look at the Nuremberg principles, which serve as the basis for the Court. They seem quite reasonable.
It seems odd that we would remove ourselves and yet we participated at Nuremberg under generally the same principals, providing two judges and one prosecutor. I guess it's all ok as long as we're not held to the same principles. I wonder if the argument that the Iraq war may have been illegal used in Hinzman v. Canada could have had anything to do with Bush's decision?
There are a number of reasonably valid arguments (lack of Jury Trial, for example) that participation in the International Court by the United States would be unconstitutional. Other nations have had to amend their constitutions in order to ratify the Rome Statute without such conflict. However, in my opinion, there has to be some way to bring the persons responsible for such heinous acts to justice before the World at large when individual nations balk at their responsibility to punish such offenders, but if any one nation holds itself above international law how can that nation expect Justice when it is attacked?