View Single Post
  #223  
Old November 13th 03, 11:11 PM
BUFDRVR
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

The "big guy" on the
block doesn't have to be a bully if he doesn't want to.


If someone runs up and kicks him in the groin he does.

It would be a small price to pay if it will bring more justice
to the world


Spoken like someone with zero chances of being charged by the ICC.

and I don't think the US will have much trouble
defending itself in juridical matters.


Its not beating the trumped up BS cases that concerns us, its dealing with them
over and over again that is of concern.

I really don't see what the US is so afraid of


An endless string of baseless ICC suits filed by both our enemies and a few
non-enemies (Belgium).

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?


Because if it was brought in the ICC instead of Belgian courts, US lawyers
would have had to represent Gen. Franks in the hearings that eventually
dismissed the charges.

Former State Department legal advisor Monroe Lei:


snip

That's two opinions, if I had the time or inclination I'm sure I could find two
disenting opinions.

"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


No one is arguing that the ICC would be locking up US military personnel, just
that the ICC would give a venue for US enemies to engage in "legal warfare",
requiring US lawyers to be in a constant state of defending our citizens. The
US was dragged into the Yugoslavia conflict, but who became the target for the
anti-war crowd? That's right the "big guy on the block".

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


Who would decide if there was sufficient evidence?

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


I don't know who AMICC is, but polls don't mean much to me. The overwhelming
response of US citizens in the form of letters to their congressman oppsing the
ICC were enough to convice both parties that the US should not support the ICC.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"