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).

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.

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.

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.

As such, we know exactly what frivolous lawsuits can do to the people being
sued.

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.

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.

Clinton signed the treaty on December 31, 2000.

On his way out of office Billy did a lot of things including some politically
motivated pardons that *did not* represent the will of the US people, many in
the US government or even people in his own political party.

On May 6, 2002.
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.


BUFDRVR

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