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: Nadine Carroll who wrote (118272)	11/2/2003 12:15:02 AM
From: Jacob Snyder	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

<Since "aggression" is already contained in the Article 9 of the Rome Ruling, it does not need any amendment to be considered, so Article 121 is irrelevant.> I looked at many sites, when writing my original post on the ICC. Nobody, other than the U.S. government, interprets it the way you have. Everybody else (the ICC itself, the UN, the EU, every State that has ratified it, every human rights organization) agrees, the Rome Statute does not define, or include in the jurisdiction of the ICC, the crime of aggression. The British, Australians, Canadians, Mexicans, they all disagree with the official U.S. interpretation. This is (yet again) a scare tactic being used by the U.S. government, claiming that the ICC has infinite uncontrolled jurisdiction to do anything to anybody. Once again, the U.S. finds itself alone, claiming things that the rest of the international community (all except Israel) disagrees with.