International Law

[leomanxvii]

Are American and international interests served by the U.S refusal to be Party to the International Criminal Court? Fucking stumped.

[Hippie3]

i don't see where
the government has any authority to surrender american sovereignty
to a court in which
not one judge was elected by vote of american citizens.

some civil servant in the Hague has no jurisdiction over americans,
there is no constitutional mechanism to transfer such authority,
and there already is one supreme court with final say
over american law.

[leomanxvii]

^ yeah makes sense how other officials would not have the right jurisdiction in giving a sentence to criminals from our country.. but since the crimes are committed on an international standard I think a panel of 15 judges of different countries I think it is.. can have their rulings on such cases.

[Hippie3]

how would it be in america's interest to allow its' officials to be put on trial by its' enemies ?

[leomanxvii]

Originally Posted by Hippie3

how would it be in america's interest to allow its' officials to be put on trial by its' enemies ?

Sure wouldn't be in america's interest, but aren't laws being broken?

[Hippie3]

that's a matter of opinion.

still the court has no jurisdiction
until and unless we agree to it
and you just admitted that agreeing
would be against our own interests ,
so you answered your own question-
america's interests ARE being served
by refusing to join this so-called court.

[leomanxvii]

Right, but I don't see where I originally said it wouldn't be against our own interest.

[Hippie3]

Are American ... interests served by the U.S refusal to be Party to the International Criminal Court?

yes is your own answer.

but here you seem to argue in favor of the court-

since the crimes are committed on an international standard I think a panel of 15 judges of different countries I think it is.. can have their rulings on such cases...aren't laws being broken...

[bb4]

yes america breaks the laws of other sovereign countries, and an american can break an american law in some other country though not punishable in the american courts (i.e. smoke grass in the netherlands), if you are referring to things such as theft and murder which are considered crimes in most every country then, yes there maybe some debate as to the authority of america to protect its citizens. historically, however, america has always been for protecting their own in regards to crimes committed abroad. this international court only acts to eradicate sovereignty. i'm a confederate sympathizer, thought, the states should be making the laws, and the feds should be providing education and health care, just my 3 cents (damn inflation)

[leomanxvii]

Yes yes! ^ nice input

[Hippie3]

it's just wishful thinking on the part of a few
desperate to force their position onto america
when neither the ballot nor the bullet can give them relief.

there is no power on earth that can arrest george bush
except american power, which will not happen.
so they want bush to just give himself up,
submit to a trial by nations like
iran, north korea, people's republic of china, syria-
LOL


if the euros are so keen to see justice prevail
perhaps first they should clean their own house
by paying reparations for all the damages done
during their age of empires and colonialism,
the genocide they carried out in the Caribbean & Mexico,
etc.

i bet there are still some
old french retired generals that carried out
atrocities in morocco, algeria, vietnam-
let them be brought up for war crimes too.

try slapping the cuffs on Vladmir Putin for trial in the the Hague
for his KGB service, the war in chechnya, etc.

let's see those chinese officials and generals responsible
for the massacre at tiananmen square
brought to trial by this world court,
let's see Castro answer for his crimes too.

then maybe america could trust such a court
in handling such matters.