10 Years International Crime Court: Towards World Law?

by hamilcarr 202 Replies latest social current

• 

  hamilcarr

  While rereading the entire thread I came across a valid counterargument put forth by Burn: the ICC is a violation of the US constitution.

  Is this true? This is what I found:

  COSSACK: Ambassador Scheffer, in hearing that, that's totally different than the traditional American system that we have here with a jury. And do you think that that would create special problems for people to sign -- for the United States to sign on to something like that? To give up the traditional trial by jury?

  SCHEFFER: No, when we were negotiating the Rome treaty, we always kept very close tabs on does this meet U.S. constitutional tests, the formation of this court and the due process rights that are accorded defendants. And we were very confident at the end of Rome that those due process rights, in fact, are protected, and that this treaty does meet a constitutional test.

  So, keep in mind that most of the world, in fact, does not have a jury system and does not render criminal justice the way we do in the United States or in the United Kingdom or other common law countries. Most of the world prosecutes criminal defendants in accordance with civil law concepts, where judges not juries are in fact the determiners of the final judgment.

  So we know that. We weren't surprised by it, and we were able to work very comfortably with that. But we had to keep our eye on the ball of what are the due process rights that are being protected in the statute? And, in fact, we're doing that now in further negotiations for the rules of criminal procedure and evidence for the court. We're deeply engaged in making sure that those rights, in fact, can be preserved.

  http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0001/02/bp.00.html

  David Scheffer led the US delegation to the Rome Conference (10 years ago, here it is James), but still voted against treaty.

  Constitutional issues, apparently, didn't play a role.
• 

  hillary_step

  Hamilcarr,

  3 months later, it became a binding treaty.

  Yes, and late in 2002 the first Assembly was held. The provisional signatures are rather like signing a loan at the bank for a new business. You have your ducks in a line, but no business. Business started with the ICC five years ago.

  Cheers - HS
• 

  quietlyleaving

  I think this is worth cutting and pasting

  http://www.unausa.org/site/pp.asp?c=fvKRI8MPJpF&b=345925

  Bush Administration Policy Toward the ICC Strongly hostile to the Court due to ideological opposition to an international court that the US doesn't completely control. Withdrew the US from all ICC negotiations after April 1, 2001. Nullified the Clinton administration signature on the Rome Statute on May 6, 2002. Refuses to participate in the Assembly of States Parties as an observer state, unlike every other major non-state party, including Japan, China, Russia and Israel. Signed into law the American Servicemembers Protection Act (ASPA), which, subject to broad presidential waiver authority, purports to prevent the US from cooperating with the ICC, authorizes the US to use all necessary means to free US personnel detained by the Court, mandates the withdrawal of military training and assistance from countries (except major allies) that join the ICC, and requires the US to withdraw from major peacekeeping operations unless US personnel receive immunity from the ICC. Conducting a vigorous campaign to pressure states to conclude bilateral agreements preventing the surrender of US nationals to the Court or face the cessation of US funded military aid under the ASPA, as well as unrelated funding. Affected states include NATO accession countries, members of the "coalition of the willing" in Iraq, countries that provide peacekeepers to help maintain regional security in Africa, and countries that are key partners in the fight against global terrorism and drug trafficking. Using the US position on the Security Council to undermine the ICC by, on the one hand, carving out jurisdictional exceptions for peacekeepers and, on the other hand, challenging the inclusion of all constructive references to the Court. For example, even after the UN bombing in Baghdad, refused to allow language recognizing the ICC's criminalization of attacks against humanitarian aid workers as war crimes to be included in a resolution on that topic. Refuses to join any consensus resolution in the UN General Assembly recognizing the existence of the ICC.
• 

  hamilcarr

  Strongly hostile to the Court due to ideological opposition to an international court that the US doesn't completely control.

  All other opposition to the ICC is marginal.

  Added: This ideological fear of losing grips reminds me of Void's excellent post yesterday:

  Historically, the mindset of the typical male JW would be, No. There is too much pride, too much hubris, too much emphatic convicition of their own inerrant rightto do just as they please. Only they have the true measure of things, only they have the authority to establish rule, only they may decide.

  This is the basis of any ideological opposition to an international court: an unprecedented pride and unwillingness to adapt to a changing world.

  This is a critique of only one US political elite class though. Equating this with anti-Americanism paralyses any meaningful discussion.
• 

  quietlyleaving

  Hamilcarr

  I am very struck by the propaganda effects of the other items of opposition to the ICC by the Bush administration in the link.

  Also the term anti-Americanism has the effect of deflecting honest questioning. It is a very conveninient label to dismiss and denigrate valid discussion.

  The link I provided shows how the Clinton administration supported the ICC principle. Also the majority of Amercan people seem to be pro ICC.

  ql
• 

  james_woods

  OK - I have decided not to post on three sub-topics at one time anymore. One per post.

  How old is it?

  Hamilcar seems to be sticking with 10. H_S is stuck on 5, because he said so, and H_S is always right.

  I say 6 and a few days (23+), because that is common knowledge.

  Why is this important? It is not. However, the spin-meisters here who dearly love the ICC cannot even get their own story straight. So, rather than fight with James, who just looked it up on Wiki, and found that the founding charter was signed July 1, 2002 - why don't Hamilcar and H_S work it out between yourselves as to the exact age of this organization. After all, it is your baby - and you should really know the true date of birth.

  An analogy is obvious: When a human child grows up, how old is it? Answer - simple...you count up from the date of birth.

  The date of birth is the date of birth.

  It would seem that Hamilcar wants the date of birth to be the date of conception. This is a very difficult position for a liberal to take - does life begin at the point of conception? Most abortionists would deny such an idea.

  It would seem that Hillary_Step wants the date of birth to be the date when the baby took it's first steps, or uttered the word "Mama" for the first time. But, that is not the date which is on the birth certificate.

  Here is the deal - conception could be said to be approximately 10 years ago, when the GA of the UN started the Rome Assembly, and began the process of creating the ICC. The baby was born, and the birth certificate signed, on July 1, 2002. That was the date when this body was legally viable. Later, it began it's first hesitant first steps, it's first words, it's first solid food, etc...as H_S says - maybe about 5.6 years ago...but, that again was not the date of birth.

  The date of birth was July 1, 2002. It is really very simple.

  Why does it matter? Simply because the supporters of this organization cannot seem to get together on how old it is, or when it's birthday is.

  What I am seeing here is simply another thread in which hatred of the United States, conservative politics, and in particular anyone who does not share the world-government liberal thought tank - is labeled an idiot or worse.

  And yet you two godfathers cannot even publicly agree on how old your red-haired stepchild really is.
• 

  james_woods

  OK, time for a second topic: This one will be about "successful prosecution".

  Hillary_Step wants it to be that 12 cases were "successfully prosecuted" by the ICC.

  By this, I can only surmise that he means 12 warrants for arrest Let me offer you a few similar examples:

  Vincent Bugliosi issued a warrant for the arrest of Charlie Manson, took him to trial, convicted him, and put him in jail.

  Marsha Clark issued a warrant for the arrest of O.J.Simpson, took him to trial, and blew the prosecution of the case. He walked. She had to resign, never to be a district attorney again.

  Mike Nifong issued warrants for the arrest of the entire Duke University lacrosse team, blew the precase, was fired and disbarred.

  Let's do a little multiple choice here: Who "successfully prosecuted" their case?

  a) - Vincent Bugliosi b) Marsha Clark c) Mike Nifong

  The correct answer is (a) - Vincent Bugliosi. His guy is in jail.
• 

  quietlyleaving

  simple worlds for simple minds
• 

  james_woods

  Ok, now for a third topic: Bang for the Buck.

  The budget 2008 of the ICC is 90 million Euros (plus a hundred thousand or so).

  Let's call that about 180 million U.S. dollars. They claim to have about 450 employees. This would divide down to about $400,000 U.S. per employee for the year 2008.

  Outstanding, especially considering that they share office space with the U.N. in many locations, and that they have yet to gain a single conviction for any crime over their entire six year span of legal existence.

  The implications are obvious.
• 

  quietlyleaving