I just read an interesting TNR article about the US's opposition to the International Criminal Court. Here are some particularly pungent excerpts:







The question for debate, then, is this: is the US acting in good faith when it opposes the ICC? Do the reasons given really stand up to scrutiny, or are they just more fabrication and distortion in service of an American Empire policy?

I'm not sure. I think it is indicative of an underlying assumption of the current administration, and many Americans, that "to the victor belong the spoils".

A kind of sense that, now that America is top dog in the world, they can impose rules without having to obey them; that foreign markets must be opened to American exports, but American jobs must be protected; that American motives and actions are always benevolent, so how can any criticism of them from outside America be anything other than malicious; and so on.

I don't think this is particularly an American failing - every world power in history has had delusions of innate superiority when temporarily endowed with actual political, military or commercial dominance through combinations of circumstance, luck (and, yes, talent). Doubtless America won't be the last power to fall prey to this.

1. Yes
2. It seems to me I’ve read this before on another thread. The quotes are very deja vu…I was unable to find it, however. Maybe I’m losing my mind.

The following link provides a good analysis of the ICC, and presents a compelling case against its jurisdiction over our soldiers.

ICC=pandora’s box

Vast Potential Obligations:

Our soldiers would no longer be protected by the fifth and sixth amendments of our constitution:

None of this even touches on the most glaringly evident potentiality...Our president is the commander-in-chief. Therefore, would that eliminate all US authority or representation in the trials of our own soldier citizens? There is a lot to be lost, and nothing tangible (that I can think of) to be gained here.

Mrs. P illustrates most of the reasonable objections, the one that is most glaring (and misleading) is the assertion of "the ICC only has jurisdiction where the national courts decide to do nothing" which is patently false. The ICC can rule that the national courts are "ineffective" if they reach the "wrong" conclusion.

Any new layer of bureaucracy (such as the ICC represents) must always be measured against the "do nothing" alternative. Is there an alternative means of securing justice against those that commit war crimes? The answer is demonstrably "YES" given the examples of Nuremberg, Rwanda, and Yugoslavia. Would adding the ICC bring to justice a perpetrator that would otherwise escape justice? I think that question is can be answered by "probably not" (although not resoundingly NO).

Therefore, the ICC fails the "do nothing" test and should not be implemented.

Since the US legitimately rejects the idea of the ICC, it is in its national interests to protect its citizens from the abuses of the ICC. Assurances that tragedies such as that in Liberia will not be turned into a witch hunt against American officials is a logical course, given the international attitudes of today.

As reasonable as Amlord and MrsP make our opposition sound, I don't buy it. Call me a cynic, but I think it has to do with our administration looking at past actions (like the Iran-Contra affair, the numerous Central American coups and invasions) and seeing a style of foreign policy not likely to end anytime soon.

Although Kissinger is conspicuously absent from the Bush Administration's resurrection of the Nixon-Ford cronies, his guiding philosophy of the Machiavellian realpolitik is still in evidence. We can look back, and see where people like North, Poindexter, Reagan, Nixon, and Kissinger could easily come under the guns of the ICC. But what would have really been bad about that? These people got away with quite a lot, but did any of them go to jail for their crimes? No.

It comes down to whose interests are being served. Are our interests as citizens being served when the president (being sure to have a plausible denial) directs aid and munitions to Contras who commit mass murders of civilians? I don't think so.

I would welcome the ICC. It is in the interest of American citizens that if our government commits war crimes, they are taken to task for it. I am not arguing left/right politics here. I just think that our real opposition to the ICC is based not on the details of the wording in their charter; but on the fact that it is not in our "national interest" (read: the interests of those in power) to be subject to any outside jurisdiction when we know unsavory acts WILL be commited - they are, after all, a part of our government's strategies on the world stage. History has shown that war crimes commited by America have gone virtually unpunished.

Of course, I would rather have a justice system in our own country which would serve this purpose - but where is it? The "rule of law" punishes the man who commits a murder, but not the president who endorses horrible, horrible atrocities. How is funding Suharto's genocide in East Timor any less of a crime than aiding and abetting a serial killer? There are two sets of laws in this country, and it is truly sickening. If our own courts refuse to even try these cases, our citizens should be in an uproar. They should demand tribunals. If the ICC is the only group willing to take up the cause, more power to 'em.

The US will NEVER endorse the ICC, at least not until we undergo a radical change.

The ICC was a dead issue under Clinton, as well, so do not attempt to point the finger at Bush. The treaty was originally signed in 1998, giving Clinton more than 2 years to garner support in the Senate. Of course, that support was nowhere to be found.

I would be interested in knowing which actions you think the US committed that rise to the level of "war crimes". Supplying arms is now a war crime? To me, "War Crime" is the directed mass slaughter, rape, or torture of a populace (among other things). War crimes are not defined as allowing someone else to do these things. The one who orders them done is guilty of war crimes.

Fortunately, these terms already have official definitions so we don't have to spend all of our time trying to reconcile every single person's idiosyncratic (and often self-serving) definition with every other's. I suggest the International Humanitarian Law resources at the Red Cross as a good starting point. The book A Problem From Hell also cites many sources.

Torture is covered in articles 3, 32, and 147 of the fourth Geneva Convention, to which the US ratified on August 2, 1955. Torture is mentioned again in Additional Protocol I, which the US - to our collective shame - has not ratified since it was introduced in 1977 (we're the only "first world" nation for which that is true). Article 76 of that same document specifically addresses rape and forced prostitution. For genocide we must go to the UN, which passed Resolution 260 on that topic on December 9, 1948. However you feel about the UN, or US sovereignty, we signed it on November 12, 1948 and ratified it on November 23, 1988. We are bound by it, by our own voluntarily given and democratically derived word.

The sticking point here is collusion. If you know someone is going to commit a war crime, and enable them to do it (e.g. by providing the means), to what degree are you yourself liable for the consequences? In domestic criminal law, there are clear standards for aiding and abetting, but in international law the issue is much murkier. Perhaps we can try debating that some time, but please let's get the red herrings about definitions and applicability out of our system first.

Actually, since this debate is over the ICC, we can go by the ICC definitions of its jurisdiction:
From the TNR article:

Has the US participated in anything resembling these guidelines?

If not, and we never intend to, what are we so worried about? Or is "the innocent have nothing to fear" usable in all contexts except this one?

The "innocents have nothing to fear" argument would only pertain when potential prosecutors do not have a pre-judged attitude towards the potential accused.

We are a target to other nations, no need to give them ammunition.

Besides, my argument is rooted in the "do nothing" principle. What possible advantage is there to the ICC over tribunals? Efficiency, as the ICC proponents say? Each of these cases should be given the full attention of the world, ala Nuremberg.

How does the ICC pass the "do nothing" test?

How did you get from efficiency to full attention? Seems like a bit of a leap to me. Yes, war crimes should be given the full attention of the world, as at Nuremberg. We should also not have to wait for a tribunal to be formed, with all of the political maneuvering that inevitably involves. Having an ICC already there ready to handle such cases is like having a fire extinguisher in your home instead of having to get one from the store when the need arises. Time matters. Domestically, would we tolerate a court system where every case was tried before a court convened for that specific purpose?



See above.

Try and read a little closer next time, Amlord. Perhaps you missed this part of my post:


I don't give a hoot whether Clinton, Kennedy, or Bush did any of this stuff. My concern is speaking to power, not being caught up in the inane game of partisan politics.

Does no one think we commited genocide against the Native Americans? Hello? What about against the Africans taken as slaves? Do you know how many of them were murdered?

We supplied Turkey with the vast majority of their weapons and military vehicles - knowing they were murdering what came to be 20,000+ Kurds.

We supplied Indonesia with money and weapons, KNOWING they were using them to commit genocide against the East Timorese.

We funded and trained and armed the Contras, KNOWING they were raping, plundering, murdering innocent people.

It's not my fault if you don't read history, Amlord, or if you refuse to see things which may be unsavory about America's past. That, however, does not force them into nonexistence.

What about leaders who ordered the My Lai massacre? The soldiers were told that the village was all communists, and they killed almost every man, woman, and child. What about the leaders who directed the bombing of Dresden? What about the leaders who directed the carpet bombing of Southeast Asia?

We can't pretend our hands aren't as dirty as anyone else's.

If we can't get off our compliant butts and demand justice, why not have the ICC do it? It's not happening here. Unless SOME kind of real justice seeking occurs, the same old crap is just going to keep on happening. I believe in America. I believe in what America COULD be. But I don't believe in wearing blinders.

For the American people yes. National Sovereignty is at stake. Americans are answerable to no one except their own government and their own laws. No one else can tell how an American will be ruled under laws. The UCMJ would be worthless because the rules and codes of the UCMJ would be irrelavent. Our troops will be at the mercy of a political-run agenda.

I agree that is the case within the borders of the USA. I have no doubt at all that if American service personnel ever committed a war crime within US sovereign territory they would be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

However, when a single American citizen commits a crime in a foreign country, they are subject to the laws of that country. Whether those laws are compatible with the rights acknowledged in the American constitution or not, and whether that person likes it or not (with the notable and, in my opinion, heinous, exception of those with diplomatic immunity from prosecution).

American citizens living in England do not have the right to bear arms, for example, as part of a well regulated militia or not. If that sticks in their craw, they can go to another country that permits gun ownership, or go back to the USA.

The ICC was constituted purely for war crimes (not burglary or fraud or "ordinary" rape or murder), with particular reference to states in chaos - like, for example, modern day Afghanistan or Iraq, or like the Balkan states in the early 90s, where there is no competent domestic court system to prosecute war crimes.

War crimes often take time to come to light, and the rotation of service personnel in most armed forces means that war criminals are often posted back to their own country, or to another third party location, by the time that there is enough evidence to prosecute anyone.

If that evidence is sufficient to warrant a trial, yet the country on whose behalf the war criminal was acting does not hold a trial, or holds one that is evidently flimsy enough to make one think it has not taken the charges seriously, what on earth is wrong with asking that they be tried properly at a higher court?

If the principle that war criminals must be brought to justice under such circumstances is sound, what are the objections to the very existence of the ICC?

If the concerns are about the fairness or justice of the way the ICC works, like for example it's lack of protection against self-incrimination,, double jeopardy, etc., why is the USA not actively taking steps to change it to make it fairer?

No. It seems to me that GA has put his finger right on it. Somehow, Americans are superior beings that are too pure to be answerable to anyone "except their own government and their own laws".

Where does that attitude go next? Will the US ban international travel to and from any nation that dares to subject ordinary Americans to their domestic laws, so that no matter where an American goes or what they do, only an American court can try them for breaking an American law?

What a tremendous idea. After all, the e-mail that does the rounds every so often listing arcane and antiquated US laws is just a joke, right? And we all know that no US court ever let a guilty man free or jailed (or worse) an innocent one, right?

Could the Americans who support the US boycott of the ICC, rather than constructive engagement with it, please get off your horses? The lack of oxygen at such altitudes is muddling your thinking.

And countries in states of anarchy with no laws, IOW...the types of countries our troops are sent to combat? Comparing Iraq or Afghanistan to a visit to England is far from a reasonable comparison.

The bottom line is this...Should our soldiers who are sent to serve our country overseas be entitled to at least as fair a trial as a psychopathic serial killer in America? Anyone who believes the answer is yes should say no to ICC jurisdiction over our troops.

Not when people say things like "Americans are answerable to no one except their own government and their own laws. No one else can tell how an American will be ruled under laws."


Unless psychopathic serial killers are routinely tried in military tribunals, you aren't comparing eggs with eggs.


Or they could alternatively say that the ICC should be changed to give all the same safeguards that guarantee a fair trial that exist in US courts. IF that were the case, would you still object to ICC jurisdiction over US troops? If so, why?

(Edited for spelling)

Why? Why is your presumption that trials conducted by the ICC would be any less fair than trials in the United States? There is no basis of support for your claim that "anyone" who would answer yes to your question should decry the idea of the ICC. No basis at all. At most, it is merely your belief. That doesn't make it true.

If the idea is that America is not well liked, and would therefor receive unfair trials at such a court, well, psychopathic killers are not well liked either, but we still trust the court to give them a fair trial.

If unfair political prosecution is such a fear, then why have so many countries agreed? Surely the fine upstanding US troops will conduct themselves above reproach.

I believe this is because many americans suspect an anti-American bias to proceedings. Because our policy is hated by the world some may attempt to take this out on individuals called before the court. If "the innocent have nothing to fear" argument stood up then we could claim no courts have never condemned the innocent before. Clearly there are numerous examples of injustice from courts due to biased authorities. That is what Americans want to avoid.

The problem with that thinking, which I was trying to put into words in my last post, is that opposition to the ICC for this reason is often put forth by the same group of people who don't fret at all about injustice being served in American courts.

While injustice does occur, I think we can all agree that our current criminal justice system is fair in the great majority of cases. Even given that there is a strong "bias" against murderers and criminals in general, we have faith that the judge/jury system is capable of equal treatment under the law.

There is no reason to assume that general anti-American bias would result in an ICC that would treat American war crimes any differently than those of any other nation's soldiers. The possibility of innocent people being convicted is there, obviously, just as it is in our own courts. If this is given as a reason for not having such a system at all, then let's get rid of our court system too.

But we already have a system in place for dealing with war crimes, you say? The reason for the ICC, as I understand it, has to do with the idea that agents of the state are less likely to be prosecuted by the state. If a commanding officer orders his or her soldiers to torch a village, well, we have in our own history (Vietnam, anyone?) a pretty poor record of trying them for war crimes. An international, impartial body without vested interest in the goals of any particular state seems like a pretty good idea to me.

The truth is, I think the US would be one of the countries least likely to be frequent visitors of this court. There are many nations where war crimes go completely unpunished. For the sake of the betterment of justice in the world, the ICC is an excellent idea. For the world's most powerful nation to oppose it in its entirety delegitimizes what could be a powerful tool for justice.

I was unaware that anyone's stated opinion altered reality. I say "I should be a billioniare" (anxiously awaiting God's response).
The point being, even the most egregious of societal offenders are entitled to protection under the fifth and sixth amendments of our constitution. Our soldiers volunteer to defend our country and are entitled to at least the basic rights afforded to any American accused of any crime.


The UN is comprised of over 150 countries, a vast number of which are guilty of extreme human rights violations. Iraq, North Korea, and Iran are all members of the UN. How would anyone ensure a fair trial (by our standards) when such countries don't even offer such protections for their own citizens, and how exactly would that be enforceable?

I absolutely reject any stripping of military members from their fundamental right to a fair trial for the purpose of any dubious rationalization of 'expediency'.



I already provided a link which explains in reasonable detail the direct violations of amendments five and six of our constitution during the Yugoslavian trials. It isn't my imagination.

Are you beyond reproach, UJ? I might not be. Neither of us are required to go into a warzone and conditions of anarchy, so we might never know. Fortunately, should either of us decide to obfuscate the law, we are entitled to a fair trial...unlike what many members of the UN would propose.
Why have other countries agreed? Lots of different reasons. Perhaps one is because America has a much larger number of military personnel engaging in missions, and those 'other countries' few by comparison.

As already stated, reasons advanced for the US's non-participation in the ICC, regardless of the stated or suspected reasons of various US administrations, include the lack of rights and protections afforded by the US Constitution, possible biased prosecution, etc. I think the biased prosecution issue holds plenty of weight by itself considering the UN is not comprised merely of nations generally friendly to the US and generally civilized, but is also comprised of nations that are rather brutal. The UN's appointment of Sudan to the human rights council ( !) is a prime example. Another factor that is important to consider is that of long-term sovereignty. Yes, this has been mentioned already, but let's project the ICC forward many years and see where this thing goes.

Already there are those calling for the establishment of a dedicated UN army, and some have even suggested the prosecution of non military personnel by the UN for crimes unrelated to war (such as alleged environmental "crimes"). It is easy to see the historical pattern that all government tends to expand rather than contract. The UN is no exception. Some would call the line of thinking a “slippery slope fallacy”. But I think a good rule of thumb is to never trust government any further than you can throw it.

The establishment of the ICC is seen by some to be a necessary first step toward a global judiciary – one that is not restricted to war crimes. And do not put it past the architects at the UN to morph such a body as the ICC into just such a judiciary, complete with a complimentary executive branch in the form of the much-desired UN army (and perhaps police force). Heck, they’re already discussing global taxation. Were all of these elements to come together at once (judicial, legislative, executive), the UN would suddenly have power vastly greater than what it has today.

It is clear that many world leaders, elites, and movers and shakers have in mind the goal of “global governance” (this word is plastered all over much of the UN’s literature), or rather, global government. And a structure such as the ICC is an important mile-stone toward this goal. Indeed, without such a step, their hopes of an all-powerful global government cannot be realized.

The further we go down this road of “global governance”, the less sovereignty we will have, the less of a voice we will have in government, the less accountable those at the top will be, and the more consolidated power will become in the hands of the few. For these reasons alone we should oppose the ICC as it is a vital step toward such global government. The farther we go down this road, the more difficult it will be to turn back and extract ourselves from the growing morass.

Care to identify who all of these people you refer to? You mention that "already people..." are saying this and that, yet you have not linked these proposals to the I.C.C. Are the people calling for global taxation (I'm not familiar with this issue) the same calling for the expansion of the I.C.C. mandate? Do they have any connection with those people you allude to as wanting to establish a global governance?

Your philosophy seems to be that of throwing out the baby with the bathwater so to speak.

That being said, questions of sovereignty are legitimate. The only counter to an I.C.C. is for the U.S. to make at least a passing effort to respect the principles of law in other countries. To the best of my knowledge American Interests (not soveriegnty, security or any constitutionally delegated subject) trump the concerns of other international actors in almost every ocassion where law is called into question.

I cannot identify ALL of them, but here is an example -- an article about a paper "by the World Institute for Development Economics Research of U.N. University, with support from the U.N.'s Division for Social Policy and Development and the Ministry for Foreign Affairs":

http://www.sovereignty.net/center/unu-report.html

The paper does not refer specifically to the ICC, but given its other objectives, an expanded ICC is practically a requirement to effectively fulfill all the stated goals.


Not at all. I don't see the ICC as a "baby" in this analogy.

Like I said, there is room for criticism; I was merely saying that you were criticizing the ICC for the wrong reason. You cannot object to it because you fear that people who are unattached to it may try to do something in the future...

Your other concerns are legitimate; but you completely disregarded the end of my post. If you don't believe that the I.C.C. is a viable and reasonable initiative the governments that would be a part of it must work to improve international justice themselves; and the U.S. has a pretty poor record in that regard.

The people of whom I speak are most definitely attached to it (insofar as they are attached to the UN itself). And as I said, "global governance" is a concept widely promoted at the UN. And this "governance" isn't just talking about bringing war criminals, etc, to justice. It's far broader than that. The ICC is simply a step in that direction.


Forgive me, but I didn't see any need to comment on the end of your post. But now that you've brought it up again, what's wrong with ad hoc tribunals? I realize there's a good-intentioned desire to make the world a better place. But I believe that by handing over more and more centralized power in an attempt to achieve this, the cure will eventually be worse than the disease.