US Opts Out of World Court

[MarkG]

our men and women in uniform _as well as current and former U.S. officials_ could be at risk of prosecution.

so what???
people who should be prosecuted for something they have done SHOULD be.... prosecuted, right?

[Roland]

We are comparing this to US law, not practice, right ?

Article 64, sect. 7

Limits to publicity - looks reasonable. How does it differ from US provisions ?

Article 68, sect. 1-6

I agree this goes a tad too far in limiting the defense.

Article 81, section 3[c]

As an exception pending appeal. Given that review on appeal is broader than it is usually in the US, it makes sense.

[DinoDoc]

BTW, isn't the Rome statute at odds with recent rulings from the Hague?

[Roland]

"BTW, isn't the Rome statute at odds with recent rulings from the Hague?"

Apart from the question whether this is technically possible - how ?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Roland
Apart from the question whether this is technically possible - how ?

How would Article 27, section 2 effect cases such as this one?

[Roland]

The Congo case only related to functional immunity while in office. It does not exclude jurisdiction, it only delays prosecution.
Art 27 establishes jurisdiction (which Belgium had too), and Art 98 allows for the respect of that functional immunity. Might be other provisions relating to that one too...

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Roland
We are comparing this to US law, not practice, right ?

You are correct sir!

How does it differ from US provisions ?

You saw the negative reaction in the US to Bush's proposal to hold secrect tribunals. What do you think the reaction would be when they start carrying out the samething on a more grand scale?

I agree this goes a tad too far in limiting the defense.

Only a tad? I guess that we'll just have to agree to disagree on how much withholding evidence from the defense can taint the verdict of a trial that proports to be fair.

As an exception pending appeal.

The defendent would be acquitted in this hypothetical. What is there to appeal or is double jeopardy another protection that distinguishes the ICC from American courts?

BTW, thank you for answering my question.

[Roland]

"What do you think the reaction would be when they start carrying out the samething on a more grand scale?"

Secret trials are different from partial exclusions of the public. Are all US trials always public ? Eg what happens when witnesses have to reveal professional secrets ?

"Only a tad? I guess that we'll just have to agree to disagree on how much withholding evidence from the defense..."

What exactly can be withheld, and what can be withheld without the court having seen it ?

"The defendent would be acquitted in this hypothetical. What is there to appeal or is double jeopardy another protection that distinguishes the ICC from American courts?"

If you have a jury trial an acquittal is pretty much the last word - although there are (limited) appeals against jury verdicts in our system, for example.
As the acquittal is not final it is not formally a double jeapordy... but I see that point. The double jeapordy protection also causes problems with our domestic law as it does not exactly fit a system that has broad appeals (for both sides) in criminal trials. A problem similar to prosecuting what is materially one deed in federal and state court....

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by GP


Those were just individual acts of misconduct. We were the good guys in terms of out policies and our actions to defend freedom during the Cold War.

If you think that we were the bad guy in the Cold War, it makes me that much less interested in signing treaties where you get to exert control over U. S. citizens. (Since I think you're kinda misguided...makes me trust you less...)

I think you were both bad guys. Neither of you cared overmuch (on geopolitical level) about the ideals you were supposedly putting forth...

You seem to be under the impession that I think this court should go back and dredge up all the crap the US has done in the last fifty years. Not true. Just demonstrating that ROW has justifiable cause to be concerned about US' refusal to sign, for fear of future violations that won't be adequately addressed by your soldiers trying their own.

[TCO]

Re: Re: Re: GP

Originally posted by MrFun


So, are you in la-la land??

The United States was really never a "force for freedom", with the exceptions with the American Revolution, and the Union, during the Civil War. In the late 19th century and in the first half of the 20th century, we sought to become an imperial power on behalf of our "little brown brothers" and white supremacy.

And WW2 and Cold War. And the incredible shining example of democracy that we've been. I'm not in lala land. You're in revisionist historian land.

[David Floyd]

And WW2 and Cold War.

WW2 can't be a fight for freedom given the huge amounts of lost freedom in the US, in the form of trade barriers, conscription, rationing, forced relocations, etc.

And in the Cold War we supported brital dictators around the world.

[Garth Vader]

You were dragged into WW2. You only supported the Allies because they were the only ones you could sell things to in the first 2 years of the war.

You didn't support democracy during the cold war. You supported anyone who said they were on your side, whether they were bloodthirsty dictators or western democracies. You were vicious to the other side whether they were democracies or dictatorships. It was capitalism vs communism not democracy vs dictatorship.

[David Floyd]

If we really fought for freedom in the Cold War, why did we not support the Hungarian, Czech, and Polish revolts?

[TCO]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


I think you were both bad guys. Neither of you cared overmuch (on geopolitical level) about the ideals you were supposedly putting forth...

I know you feel that way. I disagree with you as do most Americans. Being subjected to control by people with these kinds of beliefs makes me that much less interested in participating in this court.

FYI: You should at least parrot Roland's statements regarding Saddam versus Bush. It gives you more traction to push this thing through. If you insist that it's all about restraining the evil eagle, you're not gonna get anywhere...

[TCO]

try to be more sophisticated.

Originally posted by David Floyd
If we really fought for freedom in the Cold War, why did we not support the Hungarian, Czech, and Polish revolts?

We had to pick our battles, stud.