The following article is from the Sydney Morning Herald today:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/Countries-that-refuse-US-immunity-face-aid-cuts/2004/12/10/1102625502044.html

What do people think?

Personally I think this policy is absolutely dispicable. Why shouldn't the US be subject to the same rules as the rest of the civilised world in terms of war crimes?

I think that the USA has a right to opt out of such institutions if it wants.

 

But i don't think it should tie aid to politics, the two should be seperate, that is potentially victimising the most vunerable and smacks of bullying.

Personally I think this policy is absolutely dispicable. Why shouldn't the US be subject to the same rules as the rest of the civilised world in terms of war crimes?

As far as I know, only 59 countries are expected to ratify the treaty.

I think that the USA has a right to opt out of such institutions if it wants.

 

But i don't think it should tie aid to politics' date=' the two should be seperate, that is potentially victimising the most vunerable and smacks of bullying.[/quote']

Yep, I agree, the U.S. shouldn't resort to extortion.

As far as I know, only 59 countries are expected to ratify the treaty.

That is, at least, a good start. I think everyone would agree that all civilised countries should eventually join the ICC.

That is, at least, a good start. I think everyone would agree that all civilised countries should eventually join the ICC.

 

I'm not sure about that.

 

Pan-national organisations have a track record of lacking accountability and becoming self perpetuating bureaucracies.

 

Who would the ICC be accountable to? How would i have a say in its laws and their interpretations? It all seems very removed from any vote i get to cast.

I'm not sure about that.

 

Pan-national organisations have a track record of lacking accountability and becoming self perpetuating bureaucracies.

 

Who would the ICC be accountable to? How would i have a say in its laws and their interpretations? It all seems very removed from any vote i get to cast.

I think its commendable to those countries who are at least trying to do something to bring war criminals to justice. I don't agree agree with the path of action that says the problem is too hard so we'll ignore it. Why is the USA asking for immunity in the first place? I'll hazard a guess and say that they know they are committing war crime and will commit them in the future and are scared of being branded hypocrites.

Why is the USA asking for immunity in the first place? I'll hazard a guess and say that they know they are committing war crime and will commit them in the future and are scared of being branded hypocrites.

 

I think it is that they don't trust the court to be impartial and fair. After all the UN has countries like Libya on its committee of human rights. Not a great advert for these types of pan national organisations. They can be hijacked for political purposes, i'm sure that some countries would be delighted to try and embarrass the USA with this court, even to the extent of being unjust.

 

War criminals have been brought to court before without an ICC, just a few years ago a Nazi war criminal was arrested and tried in the UK. Not being in the ICC does not necessarly mean not taking any action against war crimes.

Has any US citizen ever been convicted of a war crime? (not trying to be offensive, I really don't know)

Has any US citizen ever been convicted of a war crime? (not trying to be offensive, I really don't know)

 

No offence taken, i'm not an American (Thank God).

 

I know some Nazis who had taken on US citizenship were later unmasked and tried for crimes commited in WW2. Some soldiers were tried for war crimes commited in Vietnam. Other than that i don't know.