War crimes tribunal

[Imran Siddiqui]

You say you wont send your people to this tribunal. At the same time you tell Rwanda, Serbia, Bosnia, Croatia that they HAVE TO send their suspects to the tribunal in order to "make bussiness" with the US.

It is very hypocritical, I admit. Of course we can hide behind the idea that we have a open court system, but that still doesn't make sense when looking at the Rome Statute (the ICC's charter). I don't think we should say the ICC infringes on our soveriegnty and then infringe on others' soveriengnty by basically coercing them into accepting jurisdiction of tribunals.

[Ramo]

I have no problems with international jurisdiction when impartiality cannot be guaranteed. There are a few provisions of the ICC that I don't like, but the US "justice" system is hardly any better.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Of course we can hide behind the idea that we have a open court system, but that still doesn't make sense when looking at the Rome Statute (the ICC's charter).

Damn Poly for eating my post! Anyway, what makes you say this? I'd argue that there are parts of the statute that provide less protection than one would recieve from the American judicial system.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Because countries with reasonably fair, working judicial systems aren't going to have people hauled up there. Hell, that passage in the Rome Statute was basically written by the US itself (though, of course countries like the UK and France kinda liked the idea too).

As for less protection than from the American judicial system: if you commit an international crime, you deal with that law. The federal system has MANY less protections for defendants than plenty of states out there, but you don't see the states protesting that when a state citizen committs a federal crime.