Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (36016)	8/6/2002 12:42:32 AM
From: Nadine Carroll	Respond to of 281500

I also agree with den Beste that signing on to the ICC means taking a risk of being ganged up on by hostile nations. I don't really want the likes of Cuba, Sudan, Zimbabwe, Iran and other Third World dictatorships deciding whether the US committed war crimes. After watching how the UN treats Israel, no thanks. The news is worse than that, I'm afraid. Not signing on to the ICC also runs these risks, as the bloody thing claims essentially universal jurisdiction, whether the party in question is a signatory or not. All the ICC prosecutor needs is a majority vote of the Security Council, and he's good to go. That's why we just had the knockdown fight about exempting the Bosnian peacekeepers from ICC jurisdiction, which ending in a year's reprieve and a strong speech from Negreponte as to how any US agreement to the ICC would require a constitutional amendment. Thanks for your informed opinion.