Why the US should ignore Bush's policy, and join the ICC instead of antagonizing them.
In spite of the overt divisiveness that has come to characterize America’s political climate in recent months, there are still a select few topics that all people, no matter their individual political allegiances, can come to an agreement on. One such topic is the denial of impunity for people who commit various war crimes and human rights violations.
…
Article comments
26 - Alan Kurtz
What you [are] effectively saying is that an American's constitutional right overrides the rights of other citizens of this planet not to have crimes committed against them.
STM (#15), I flatter myself that I'm a skillful writer who can express my own thoughts. You have no call telling everyone what I am "effectively" saying. That's your spin, STM, and bears no resemblance to what I wrote.
You also presumptuously give us a lesson in the origins of constitutional law, as if because we are Americans, we're naturally ignorant of such learned things. Moreover, you make a wholly unwarranted leap from the specifics of this ICC discussion to your usual rant about "the myth of American exceptionalism," falsely accusing us of believing that we "live in a vacuum."
With superciliously pontificating friends like you, STM, America doesn't need enemies.
27 - zingzing
"To put it in a current-era example, Jordan, there's an American girl in prison right now in Italy-not because she was GUILTY, but because she is AMERICAN."
really? they lock up those italian guys because they were american as well? i'm pretty sure she's in prison because she was party to a murder. whether she did it or not is up for question, but being an american in italy isn't a crime, far as i know.
28 - P. Venkman
Cannon, the prosecuting atty had a little more than that, like the body being found with Amanda Knox's bloody fingerprint on her face.
Sounds like you don't know squat about the case
29 - Alan Kurtz
It's beyond me why Cannonshop (#21) raised Amanda Knox in this context, and further mystifying why zingzing (#27) and P. Venkman (#28) have taken up that matter. The context, please recall, is the ICC. Ms. Knox, an American student attending the University for Foreigners in Perugia, Italy, was convicted of murder, sexual assault and obstruction of justice in an Italian court. She was not charged with a war crime. Her case therefore relates not at all to the ICC. Talk about irrelevant!
30 - zingzing
i took it up because it was profoundly stupid. that said, it's perfectly in line with the context, which was about foreign bodies having legal powers over american citizens. cannonshop said that she was jailed by italians merely for being an american. that, while stupid, and not a war crime, is not irrelevant to the conversation at hand.
also, do you excuse yourself from the supposed irrelevance?
31 - Dr Dreadful
Talk about logical arguments.
Says Joseph Cotto in #14, immediately after presenting a flawless example of the Slippery Slope fallacy.
Beautiful...
32 - doug m.
What's irrelavent is your opinion on what is relevant.
33 - Alan Kurtz
Since my objection as to relevancy has been so rudely overruled by court of Blogcritics opinion, I guess I now have enough wiggle room to mention the so-called "Save our State" constitutional amendment appearing on all Oklahoma ballots next Tuesday. Its was motivated partly by a New Jersey case in which the judge refused to issue a restraining order against a husband who repeatedly raped his wife, ruling that the man was abiding by his Muslim beliefs (Sharia) regarding spousal duties. Another impetus for Oklahoma's proposed amendment was the testimony of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan during her June confirmation hearings, saying she'd be willing to consider international law when deciding cases before the high court.
No doubt the court of Blogcritics opinion will dismiss this as the latest crackpot paranoia from a state that doesn't really count anyway, since who on earth would want to live there. But it's possible, just possible mind you, that this is the tip of an iceberg. As Sharia and international law increasingly infest our American legal system, we may see more such reaction. I certainly hope so.
34 - Dean Stephens
zing zing,
you don't get the point of the article. the Icc is about convicting those who commit war crimes or crimes against humanity. How many americans do you know who commit those kind of crimes? and if an american does commit a war crime, especially one against another nation, the issue of them being an American becomes moot.
And I can't believe I'm writing this, but I agree with Alan Kurtz. The argument of about an american in an italian jail who committed a crime in italy, is completley irrelevant.
35 - STM
You also presumptuously give us a lesson in the origins of constitutional law, as if because we are Americans, we're naturally ignorant of such learned things.
That's your take on it, not mine. You spoke about the importance of constitutional law as it applies to Americans through the application of the criminal justice system.
To me it sounds like American exceptionailism, and if I choose to back up my arguments by pointing out a few things a lot of Americans don't know about their own laws, well and good.
I always feel when I'm dealing with Americans like you Al that you don't care whether you've got any friends because you think you can take care of all the enemies yourself. Clearly, you can't.
As for pontificating, pot ... meet kettle.
36 - STM
First paragraph above should begin: Al writes "Blah blah .."
37 - zingzing
dean, i wasn't commenting on the article. just the thread. and if you can't see the relationship between what cannonshop said (silly as it may be) and the general idea that certain americans would like to fight against, well... what am i supposed to do?
38 - STM
Al: "I flatter myself".
Yeah, you do but you probably shouldn't.
Clearly, you've stopped listening to any other arguments but your own, even when they're spurious. You used the constitutional argument, I say it's bollcks and another example of Americans believing they are exceptional and above everything. That is certainly how your argument appears to pan out, especially when you focus on due process, which didn't magically appear in the US in 1776.
You know the old adage, right?
A man who only takes notice of his own arguments is often negotiating with an idiot.
39 - STM
Cannon, the evidence in that trial was pretty compelling. There are plenty of non-US citizens locked up in American jails who say they're innocent and only there because they're not Americans.
She should probably get a retrial given some of the new information that has come to light lately, but the evidence that convicted her in the first place will still be compelling.
40 - STM
Al: The UK is one of the strongest supporters of the ICC.
It was also the first country to enshrine due process in law; it survived for another 400 years to become a pillar of the Bill of Rights and it's why it exists in America. My pointing that out is not pontificating but the basis of a valid argument.
The 1354 Liberty of Subject Act states:
"No man of what estate or condition that he be, shall be put out of land or tenement, nor taken, nor imprisoned, nor disinherited, nor put to death, without being brought in answer by due process of the law.”
Due process, trial by a jury of your peers, the right to silence, the right not incriminate yourself by giving evidence against yourself in court, and safeguards such as habeas corpus, still form the key plank of the UK criminal justice system, just as they do in the US.
To possess UK citizenship is a guarantee of these rights and part of the contract between government and citizen that all these conditions will be met or by law, or there is injustice.
Plenty of other countries also have due process enshrined as part of inherited anglo-American jurisprudence.
Which is why I think your argument using the constition as its anchor is a complete crock and is nothing but an example of the myth of exceptionalism held by some Americans ... once again, and as we've all come to expect.
41 - STM
And as another example, here's how Australia, which places supreme value in the criminal jurisdiction on due process and the other safeguards offered up in anglo-American jurisprudence, dealt with it when it signed on to the ICC in 2002.
The wording of this is key, especially the part about the primacy of Australia's criminal jurisdiction, and would appear to shoot down many of the kinds of arguments offered up by some in the US regarding citizens and due process rights.
Is ratifying while stressing primacy and safeguards for citizens the answer?
I still maintain, however, that the US should be wary and move carefully if it ever did lean towards the ICC, especially in regard to agendas. I would hate to see Americans - or anyone else - prosecuted for tearing terrorists and mass murderers a new set of arseholes, which might be a risk if agendas come into play.
42 - Cannonshop
#41 is the point-Agendas, once you sign over your sovereignty to outsiders, you are subject to their political AGENDAS. There is a REASON the U.S. did not buy off on the revision to the Geneva Conventions adopted in the 1970's at Soviet urgings that would provide protections to non-uniformed irregular forces (i.e. Terrorists or Insurgencies) the same rights as uniformed regular forces. The change was never ratified, and under U.S. Constitutional structure, it is therefore non-binding. Buying in to ICC would REQUIRE that this non-ratified structure (one generated specifically, at the time, to protect Soviet sponsored groups such as Shining Path, and which would now protect Al Quaeda's operatives) take precedence over U.S. Law, and give their sympathizers and apologists in Europe and elsewhere power over U.S. personnel in the field.
Utilizing the power of Agenda, any action taken by a soldier (including taking none) can be 'classified' as a "War Crime" or "Atrocity", and international bodies have a rather ridiculous track-record on the subject (For example, ignoring Arab rocket-attacks on Israeli civilians, while condemning israeli counter-battery fire.)
There are, by definition, no neutrals in armed conflict, least of all those that proclaim their own 'fairness', there are innocent bystanders, but once involved, someone's going to be on a side.
Notably also, is Britain's continuing trend toward disarmament and capitulation-not just on foreign fronts, but domestically as well-which is also the pattern in Europe, with the tolerance shown to the use of violence and murder over friging CARTOONS, while condemning anyone who takes a counter-point issue with it.
I'm not ready for Dhimmitude anymore than I was ready for surrender to the Soviets-lots of people on the Left apparently ARE, and bodies like ICC or the United Nations underscore this very, very, well.
On the Knox thing (since I brought it up) Evidence is ALWAYS compelling when it is not allowed to be challenged, and when exculpatory evidence is excluded. Under Italian Law, OJ Simpson would've been convicted and it wouldn't have taken nine months to do it. Being present at a murder scene in the U.S. makes you a WITNESS, not a Perpetrator.
43 - zingzing
"Being present at a murder scene in the U.S. makes you a WITNESS, not a Perpetrator."
but does it make you an american?
44 - STM
I don't agree with you on the Brits backing down on much at all; they're the only ones with any real clout who back the US when it chooses the tougher courses of action ... like In Iraq or Afghanistan.
And on Ms Knox. Yes, she probably does deserve a retrial since new information has come to light.
At first, being present at a murder scene anywhere makes you a witness AND a person of interest, and not just in the US ... that is, until the prosecutors and police start eliminating people from their inquiries.
I don't bhelieve Italians dislike Americans that much that it would form part of their prosecutorial mindset in a murder trial.
Italy might not be noted for its system of justice compared to ours, but not everything's a conspiracy against the US or its citizens.
The evidence against her was certainly compelling ... at the time. From what I saw of it, there didn't appear to be much room for reasonable doubt at the time of the trial.
What's happened since is a different story.
45 - STM
That post above is for Cannon.
46 - STM
Cannon writes: "once you sign over your sovereignty to outsiders, you are subject to their political AGENDAS"
Then you don't sign it away. Check the link above on what the Aussie government did when it ratified. It made the primacy of the protections of Australia's criminal justice system legally binding before it would even agree to ICC ratification.
47 - Cannonshop
By ratifying, Australia still subjects itself to sanction, particularly if the mood of the ICC is not amenable to acknowledging Australian Jurisdiction, Stan, much the same as is currently going on wrt to the U.S. being accused of "War Crimes" and violations of Geneva that are only legally binding if it had ratified the amendments put forward by the Soviet Union (and warsaw pact nations) in the seventies. It's kind of like something called "mission creep" in the military community-first you give it a little bit, with "Strongly worded" protections-but once the new agency feels it is secure, it will over-ride and attempt to impose its OWN standards, and regardless of the "Protections" stipulated, typically all that really happens is either the agency is repudiated and shown to be an empty-suit (see: United Nations Committee on Human Rights), or the "protections" are ignored (See: international kerfluffle over how non-uniformed combatants are handled by the U.S. in Iraq and Afghanistan-this latter example ignoring that under the version ratified by the U.S. these NUC's don't have ANY rights, except a bullet to the forehead-they are UNLAWFUL combatants, same as spies or Mercenaries, Geneva only provides one lawful treatment of spies or mercenaries-execution...at least, the version ratified by the United States.)
An ICC with little to no actual power is safer for everyone, than an ICC likely to revel in extranational powers and attendant corruption as the United Nations typically embodies.
As for how I tie the Kercher thing in?
Okay, the only country more universally hated than ISRAEL world-wide? is the United States, it's fashionable, especially in mainland Europe, to despise the U.S., and the Knox trial was high-profile, it likely made the prosecutor and Judges famous with the wine-sipping set from eastern spain all the way to Berlin-being able to "Show those arrogant Yanks what-for" is good for any ambitious pol in the EU, or anyone seeking a higher office out there, particularly anyone whose politics are left-of-centre.
48 - zingzing
cannonshop, that's not the most persuasive legal argument. that's a load of conjecture and wishful thinking. "oh, us poor americans. we're hated because we're free and shit." come on. maybe she's innocent. but you go stand in a roomful of corpse in america and see if you aren't arrested. but then, it'll just be because you're white. yup.
49 - STM
Cannon: "Geneva only provides one lawful treatment of spies or mercenaries-execution...at least, the version ratified by the United States"
Which the US, to its credit, hasn't followed through on in this latest round of nastiness. As far as I know, captured "enemy combatants" have not been executed by US authorities.
I'm sure we would have heard about it ad infinitum if even one had been put to death.
Of course, you don't hear the same howls of protest when al-Qaeda are cutting off innocent people's heads live on video or killing captured US soldiers and dragging bits of their bodies through the streets of Fallujah whilst dancing up and down.
There's a conundrum for you.
50 - John Lake
The Unites States and the International Criminal Court are and will be at odds owing to the simple fact that the ICC finds it hard to prosecute wars of aggression while the U.S. finds them acceptable.
51 - Alan Kurtz
Follow-up to comment #33: the Associated Press reports, "Oklahoma voters have approved a measure that would forbid judges from considering international law or Islamic law when deciding cases." This is a significant victory for our sovereign American legal system.