U.S. a no-show for start of 1st global war crimes court

What type of moronic nation would let a world court try their troops?

 

89 of them, including Britian and the entire EU.

Great, good for them, they can have their world court all to themselves for all that I care.

 

Because we're not part of the world, dammit!

 

Article III, Section 1

The judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme court............

I wonder why we don't vest judicial power in a court higher than the Supreme Court?

 

I thought we weren't worried about that silly Constitution in this post-9/11 world?

 

Well, if there are only 89 countries in this court, doesn't that leave 100+ other countries that are also not part of the world?

 

Fair enough.

If anybody wants to, do a comparison of the countries who are there and the countries who aren't. Then we can decide which group we'd rather be a part of.

 

Re: Re: U.S. a no-show for start of 1st global war crimes court

None. Its part of our self-indentity to see ourselves as better than all the rest, but in a "you're still my buddy" type of way, so that they'll let us sell Coke there...

 

If some of you are tired of the silly rhetoric of some aforementioned silly posters...(given the fact that the treaty was rejected by the Democratic Controlled Senate on vote of 95-0 in 1999).

The World Court is UNCONSTITUIONAL on SO MANY levels, one scarcely knows where to start.

However, one example: The World Court does NOT allow a trial by jury.

The U.S. Constitution protects a citizen right to be TRIED BY A JURY before one's liberty can be taken.

Before the President (as leader of the executive branch of government) could deliver an American Citizen up to the World Court, there would be around 750,000 lawyers ready to sue in Federal Court on a myriad of grounds...

Such as:

Article III, section 2, paragraph 4:

The Trial of All Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where said Crimes have been committed, but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such place and time as Congress by Law have directed.

NOTE THE USE OF THE WORD SHALL!!!!

Also: Article XIV, section 1 (aka 14th amendment):

....No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law: or deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law.

As in THE RIGHT TO A TRIAL BY JURY!!!!

End of discusion, mates!

 

This is rediculous. Would you rather we just form one giant union or federation and subject everyone to the same laws? Let's just go piss on the graves of all the founding fathers and everyone who fought for our freedom while we're at it.

And Universal, I dunno, maybe because the Supreme Court can not try millions of cases a year? Could that be a reason?

 

I'm going to get creamed for this, but. I’ve always been in favor of the ICJ.

There are two types of scenarios in which it would affect us.

a)My Lai and/or No Gun Ri type incidents. In these cases the U.S. military, media and military justice systems seem to do a pretty good job of self-policing. I don't know a great deal about exactly how the IJC is set up, but I highly doubt that the ICJ would try to usurp or interfere with an ongoing military or civilian trial on the same case involving the same defendants being held their native country.

Arguments that countries with an axe to grind would be hauling U.S. grunts into the ICJ for “alleged” incidents are a red herring. The ICJ is a political body as much as a judicial body, with limited resources to boot. They wouldn’t take a case against the U.S. unless it was a slam-dunk. Which brings us to number two.

b)Incidents such as the Chilean coup of 1973. This is an example of what I am sure is the nightmare scenario for U.S. politicians and spooks. Rightly so. Though we will never be sure, the preponderance of evidence indicates that the U.S. knew of and actively abetted the dissapearances of and executions of civilians, including members of the legitimately elected national government. That's a bona fide war crime, folks.

Is that the kind of behavior you want your government engaged in? To be able to get away with?

There are a lot of realpolitik folks out there who will trot out the "omlette" and "sausage" arguments, but I'm not buying. I think that quite a bit of the current predicament the U.S. finds itself in vis a vis our international reputation is that we have a terrible reputation for this kind of behavior. Hopefully, most if it is behind us. But I have no problem with an outside agency that is empowered to call into the dock U.S. leaders to answer for acts that the U.S. political system, the U.S. media and the American people lack the stomach to deal with.

If the U.S. is to get through the next few years, we have to become a better global citizen. This unilateralist tendency of the Bush administration will not work as a long-term strategy. The ICJ is a necessary institution. Americans are not above the law. If U.S. courts cannot or will not hear such cases as in “b” then I don’t have a problem with the ICJ going after them. I do think that there should be some reasonable, informal, gentleman’s agreement that incidents occurring say, more than 30 years ago should be given a pass. That is probably a compromise that the U.S. could have gotten, had we not walked out on the planning process way back in the mid-1990’s before the Rome treaty was even signed.

Besides, what do our people have to be afraid of anyway? These defendants are going to be rich, powerful people with access to the best lawyers money can buy. Our lawyers can kick the crap out of any lawyers on the planet.

In the end it comes down to my firm belief that if you talk the talk of freedom and justice for all, then you have to walk the walk.

Edit: Oh, yeah. There is probably a strong argument to be made regarding the constitutionality of such a treaty but only regarding the extraterratorial authority of the court to compel a U.S. citizen to answer a subpoena without a pre-existing arrest warrant in the U.S. An extradition treaty with the ICJ would take care of that. Then you would only need to find a judge willing to swear out a warrant against say, Henry Kissinger. (Although, I've already said the poor, sick f**** should get a pass.)

Re-Edit: Yes, I know its the ICC, not the ICJ. Upon further looking around, as part of it's charter it will only take cases which ocurr after its empanelment.

 

To parapharse James Carvell....

"ITS THE CONSTITUTION....STUPID!"

 

Oh wow.....how to respond.....

Article III Section1. The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

I thought every person was required to read the damn document at least 3249 times in elementary school, middle school and high school?

Oh yeah, throw in some of the more enunciated consitutional arguments above. We can't enter into this organization, unless we amend the constitution, which I am not in favor of doing. Especially if the sole reason to do it rests entirely on joining this World Court.

 

Constitutional?

First, The Constitution is completely mute on the subject of international organizations. The Constitution speaks to the power of federal government. To try all cases pertaining to the U.S. Code. Period, full stop.

Signatories to the treaty all stipulate that the ICC has juristiction in any war crimes cases. Part of the treaty (I'm assuming) is an extradition clause.

You know what extradition is right?

Let's say you commit a crime in France and manage to get back to the good-ole U.S.A. without being caught. The Frog cops track you down. They issue a request for extradition. We have an extradition treaty with France. A U.S. judge in your local circut court swears out a warrant, the local cops pick you up and the next thing you know you're handcuffed to a smelly French cop on an Air France flight back to Paris.

Nothing unconstitutional about it. Happens all the time.

 

I'll buy the Constitutional argument in this case, but what about Kyoto and the landmine treaty? What did Jefferson et al right on those subjects that would keep us out the on periphery of civilization?

 

Anybody who thinks US troops should be subjected to an international tribunal should have their nuts squeezed in a vice, starting with Universal (assuming he has nuts). We have our own very honorable military courts to deal with rogue soldiers.

 

Your arguments are so laughably lacking in foundation its not even funny. The Constitution delinates the power of the federal government and their relation to the states. It doesn't say anything about the jurisdiction of World Courts or whether the US would be willling, by treaty, to submit to such.

 

Well, your silliness has already been pointed out,but since there are so many uneducated students of the Constitution, you being Exhibit A, you might notice that this talks about "judicial power of the United States." Universal is talking about a World Court.

Why don't you sleep on this?

 

Hey, didn't we pay our UN bill already? Well, it may have been 10 years behind, but we can all thank Ted Turner for the help.

Until he decides to crash the stock market by selling all his AOL stock in one afternoon.

 

Where did all these really, really bad students of the Constitution come from?


Universals point is of course well taken. The US speaks with forked tongue. Or at least its inconsistency.

Will sacrifice the blood of our youth for a UN resolution -- but we won't submit to the ICJ.