"Bjørnar" wrote in message
...
(BUFDRVR) wrote in
:

Why would the US sign up for a "justice" system that had the
power to idicted, charge etc. our serving generals for doing their
job, *legally*. The US would spend millions of US dollars every year
defending ourselves in this international "kangaroo court".

Comming from a nation where people have a spectacular tradition
for sueing one another for nothing, your statement is more than
amusing.

You never answered the questions. Why? Because that would be the case and
that is the reason why the US rightly declines to join a system that would
unjustly target it. We may be stuck with the current legal system, but why
join something equally as ridiculous?

MYTH: The Court will take on politically motivated cases
against U.S. citizens or soldiers.

FACT: Numerous safeguards in the ICC treaty will prevent
frivolous or politically motivated cases. First, the ICC
will cover only the most egregious international crimes,
defined in ways corresponding closely to the U.S. Code of
Military Justice. It will have no jurisdiction over crimes
committed on U.S. soil unless the United States ratifies
its treaty.

No myth here. This is how it would start but it would morph into an anti US
(when the correct party was not in power) body. And who defines egregious
international crimes?

The simply truth is we don't have to join. Why should we? I would agree to
it only if there was a clause that said, "if the ICC pursued a case that is
purely political in natural, we don't have to submit anymore." Sounds
ridiculous doesn't it. About as ridiculous as "Numerous safeguards in the
ICC treaty will prevent frivolous or politically motivated cases." Well I
don't trust it. And neither do most Americans. Make it iron clad and the
US would probably take another look.

MG