The US doesn’t want anything like the ICC, not only for their soldiers but for anyone, AFAIU. Now, how then comes that the they reserve themselves the right to judge over british citizens that they captured in Afghanistan?
Is that why the GWB gov’t dislikes the ICC, because other nations could treat the US this way? Then, why do they give such an example?
No one ever said the US government was the smartest political body. But they are shrewd. Most nations could not get away with a double standard like this. The US does get away with it, even though so many others protest.
DeviantScripter last edited by
I believe the issues surrounding the ICC tend to delve a little deeper than simply “getting to catch other soldiers.”
There are issues of corruption among such a powerful body, and issues concering how said court will interfere with a nations soveirghty. Although, perhaps the biggest reason that I would not sign on to the ICC is because of the probable outcome we could forsee. It would turn into another UN security council, where nations use it to settle old scores with countries.
El Jefe last edited by
I se it as the US finding questionable characters in a combat zone(yes, the war is over, but battles continue) compared to the UN/ICC coming into the US in a non-war situation. A little different, but we can haggle…
ZimZaxZeo last edited by
Certainly a nation state must always exercise caution in signing on to a protocol that diminishes its sovereignty or the “favored individual” status of its citizens at home or abroad – elsewise, why have a nation state at all?
Still, it does seem odd to me that many of our true allies (and they are true – realize that Germany and France, for instance, each have had troops working and fighting alongside U.S. forces in Afghanistan for nearly two years now) have found a way to sign on to the ICC and other supernational legal bodies. They haven’t done so with political naivety – they have likely done so in the knowledge that there will be horsetrading and negotiating all along the way, and this is yet another international forum that they would much prefer taking part in, than missing out on.
and issues concering how said court will interfere with a nations soveirghty.
This does not answer at all the question of “which right does that give the US to keep citizens of other allied, democratic countries with a sound legal system (say, UK) captured and deprived of some very basic rights that define “sound legal system”…?”
I se it as the US finding questionable characters in a combat zone(yes, the war is over, but battles continue) compared to the UN/ICC coming into the US in a non-war situation.
I think i don’t understand…. so, if someone captures a US fighter somewhere, then it would be ok to send him to a non-US tribunal (not trial, that’s where the brits are sento to: a tribunal!)? That is exactly (except for the tribunal part, a internationally accepted legal trialis enough) what this one US law is about, that in these cases the US reserves itself the right to use military means to “liberate” that person…
Could you explain more what you meant with that sentence?
El Jefe last edited by
Well, you know that if what you suggest happens happens then the Us soldier will just say, “You can’t do that. I’m an American citizen!” and they will let him go since he is innocent.
Ha ha ho ho!!
Sure. Why not go with your idea? If he’s a suspicious character in a war zone shot him and ask ?s later.