(BUFDRVR) wrote in
:

The US is the universal target for anyones ill feelings,

I'm supprised you admit to that. Perhaps the US should start
to address that and ask themselves "why".

Because the US, as the "lone superpower" is both envied and feared
throughout the world. The "big guy" on the block will always be a
target no matter his politics or actions. The US is condemned when it
doesn't act (Rwanda, Cambodia) and condemned when it does (Iraq,
Afghanistan).

The US is also welcomed and respected. I don't think it's
that the US is acting, but how. The "big guy" on the
block doesn't have to be a bully if he doesn't want to.


About Afghanistan, the US had mostly allies, even though it's
probaly against the principles of democracy to invade on another
nations internal affairs, but still it's neccessary to have a
critical bastion which will question the use of power and funds.


but the US, apparently, feels
it shouldn't have to be held responsible for its own breaches
of international human rights and justice.

Wrong, the US believes the court will allow any nation with a grudge
against the US to force us into legally defending ourselves
continuously.

It would be a small price to pay if it will bring more justice
to the world, and I don't think the US will have much trouble
defending itself in juridical matters. I really don't see what
the US is so afraid of, it's been a firm advocate for an
international crimes court ever since Nurnberg and has been
one of the leader in developing the standards that led up to
the ICC Rome statute.

The purpose of ICC is to "promote the rule of law and ensure
that the gravest international crimes do not go unpunished".
It's a body that might as well work for the benefit of the US as
well as against it.

And compared to some other nations and their human rights
track record, I think the US will have an easy time.


The suit against Franks was
dropped.

That it was even brought in the first place is proof enough of what
the ICC would look like.

How does this case disproove that only valid, strong cases will
have any chance of survival in the ICC?


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.

Excuse me, if I believe the US State Departments team of international
law specialists that told the Clinton administration differently.

Former State Department legal advisor Monroe Lei:

http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/icc/facts.htm

"The list of due process rights guaranteed by the Rome
Statute are, if anything, more detailed and comprehensive
than those in the American Bill of Rights. . . . I can
think of no right guaranteed to military personnel by the
U.S. Constitution that is not also guaranteed in the
Treaty of Rome."


Senator Dodd's letter to Powel provides some interesting reading.

http://www.wfa.org/issues/wicc/archi...1/doddltr.html


It will have no jurisdiction over crimes
committed on U.S. soil unless the United States ratifies
its treaty.

We're not concerned with crimes committed on US soil, we're more than
capable of dealing with those. Its the BS lawsuit filed by a Saudi
family against the US in the death of their Taliban son, killed in a
fire fight with US forces that concern us.

Such a case would hardly qualify for an ICC prosecution
unless there was evidence of serious human rights violations.


Then the Bush Administration announced its intention to withdraw
the US signature. If you want to talk about kangoroo politics,
nothing like that has ever been done to my knowledge.

Well, we've never had a President as low as Billy Clinton before
(including Taft and Nixon). Bush was simply doing his job as President
and obiding by the will of those in the other branches of government,
who represent the people of the US.

AMICC list a series of polls that show US public opinion
in favor of ICC to hover around 61-66%.

http://www.amicc.org/usinfo/opinion_polls.html


Regards...