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: Jacob Snyder who wrote (118204)	10/31/2003 4:34:21 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

The ICC proposes an unaccountable prosecutor, elected by the representatives of mostly unfree governments, bringing charges from a new, ill-defined & unprecedented body of law ("aggression"? what's that? we'll decide when we find somebody we want to prosecute for it) against anybody he damn pleases for anything he damn pleases, essentially. You don't mention that the Rome Ruling claims jurisdiction not merely over signatories, like a normal treaty, but universal jurisdiction over anybody the prosecutor wants to prosecute - all that's needed is a go-ahead from the UN. If only one of the litigants is a signatory, that's good enough too, the prosecutor is good to go. That the actions of the ICC would be politically motivated should be obvious to anyone who has watched the UN in action, or the various claims of the Belgian courts to universal jurisdiction. Indeed, that's why most of the supporters of the ICC like it, I believe.

To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (118204)	11/4/2003 6:17:16 PM
From: Jacob Snyder	Respond to of 281500

US Will Deny Aid to Countries That Refuse Court Immunity Deals by Rupert Cornwell in Washington Published on Tuesday, November 4, 2003 by the lndependent/UK The United States aims to secure agreements "with every country in the world" guaranteeing immunity for its citizens from any prosecution from the new International Criminal Court (ICC), and will cut off military aid to countries which do not comply. In an uncompromising defense of Washington's decision to shun the court, Under Secretary of State John Bolton announced yesterday that the US has already reached so-called Article 98 exemption agreements, under the Rome statutes setting up the ICC, with 70 countries; 50 of them among the ICC's 90 signatories. Speaking at the conservative thinktank, the American Enterprise Institute, Mr Bolton also accused the European Union of imposing an "unfair choice" on aspirant members by insisting they do nothing to weaken the authority of the ICC. This made it harder for these countries to reach exemption deals with the US, he complained. The White House's total rejection of the court, announced soon after it took office in 2001, fueled some of the first criticism of the Bush administration as unilateralist and scornful of international pacts. The language of Mr Bolton, in-house 'neo-conservative' hawk at the State Department, will only sharpen such complaints. He lambasted the "intolerable" authority of the court, with its "unaccountable prosecutors and unchecked judicial powers" which represented a "macro-constitutional" issue for the US. More clearly than ever before, Mr Bolton indicated that Washington's biggest objection is not to the risk that the court poses to American soldiers, diplomats and other officials, but that it would encourage attempts to prosecute top figures in US government, past and present, for war crimes. He cited the efforts in Belgium - since abandoned - to level charges against President Bush and military and civilian leaders at the Pentagon over Iraq. "Launching criminal investigations can have enormous political implications," Mr Bolton said. Washington's favored retaliation is to sever military aid to countries which refuse to grant Article 98 exemptions. The Act has been rigidly applied by the Bush administration, even to close allies who have contributed to the American-led occupation of Iraq. commondreams.org