On the ICC issue, the US is requiring that the other countries put the US above the international law. Very contradictory isn't it. After all what has the US to fear. It is a open society and a society of laws.
That's just it, Chinu. We are a society of laws, and we refuse to ignore or break our own laws in favor of some extremely ill-defined set of laws that will be prosecuted by unknown prosecutors and judges chosen by 2/3rd vote of another dictators' club. Both respect for our Constitution and our national self-interest demand that we stay out.
The ICC has no structural safeguards against abuse. "International law" sounds very high-toned, but unfortunately it doesn't really exist, so the ICC will be making it up as it goes. The ICC makes sweeping claims for itself; it gets to define when a "war crime" or "aggression" has occurred, and prosecute whenever the offending country has not prosecuted said "war crime" to the ICC's satisfaction. The country doesn't even have to be a signatory! that's unprecedented, that an international treaty should claim to be binding on non-signatories. The ICC prosecutor can proscute anybody, and only needs a UN Security council majority to go to trial. Once this court gets rolling, it will be accountable to no one, except the diplomats of the member governments, which will mostly be dictatorships. It will certainly not be accountable to the citizens it's prosecuting.
The ICC is Unconstitutional. The Constitution does not give the Congress authority to vest any other body with jurisdiction superior to the Supreme Court's, which is precisely what the the ICC claims for itself with regard to "war crimes" or "agression", which it gets to define. Note that if the ICC thinks the US has committed a war crime and not prosecuted it (say, because the US thinks no crime occurred), the ICC claims the right to prosectute American citizens for "crimes" committed on American soil. Not Constitutional at all.
The ICC also bids fair to be every bit as biased and hypocritical as the UN General Council. Just for starters, "terrorism" is not mentioned anywhere in the Rome Ruling, but -- wait for it -- "occupation" and "apartheid" are defined as war crimes. Gee, I wonder who those crimes are designed for?
So why shouldn't the EUniks support it? They know perfectly well that nobody will waste his time coming after them; it's our leg (and Israel's) they will be chewing on. The EUniks will just get to sit on the sidelines and moralize, their favorite position.
But no way in hell should we have anything to do with the ICC. |
