None of you get the idea. i didn't say i wanted the U.S. to join the ICC. i said i was bothered by the fact that we were holding peacekeeping missions hostage with our veto power unless we got our way.
It isn't like the E.U. can't do peacekeeping w/o us. We are just saying
USA - 'we want exemption from the ICC when we do peacekeeping missions with you guys, if we don't get it we will veto the resolution to renew the peacekeeping mission in bosnia'
E.U. - 'if the ICC bothers you, then don't peacekeep with us. We can do it ourselves'
USA - 'nope, we want to peacekeep with you, but we have to be immune. Either let us peacekeep with you AND be immune, or we will make it so no one will be peacekeeping at all'
Come on people, this isn't an opportunity to show how big a dick your country has. this is an issue of humanitarian aid & international cooperation. Jesus Christ.
Ah well, i just read that the mission was extended for 12 days. I don't think we should be forced to cooperate with those we don't like, but we shouldn't hold things like peacekeeping hostage until we get our way. We should just pull out.
Anyway, every 1st world country except Japan & USA have ratified the ICC, so at least 25 of the countries are our allies.
Smegma - entertaininly enough i was just reading that article. That is one of the few pieces of valid argument against the ICC i have ever seen. Most arguments are right wing extremists who would oppose anything done by the UN. Seeing as how america is using the security council as a political weapon, it is entirely possible that the ICC will become a political weapon. That doesn't mean it should be abandoned altogether, just reformed.
Manny - If the UN is worthless, why have UNICEF & WHO almost eradicated polio, and why does WFO provide food for millions each year. According to the UN (I can't find independent statistics) Water purification & vaccinations by UNICEF & WHO save 4.5 million lives a year. hardly a worthless organization.
warik - yes i am american, i could care less if it is 'liberal' to give a shit about global issues (the insult liberal is usually thrown in issues like this), yes i support a court that is designed to try crimes against humanity, a possibility of a mild inconvenience isn't enough to deter an effort to provide valid international legal protection. And you & Smegma's arguments are rehashes of the same right wing knee jerk reactions the ICC has had to face since day one.
The ABA (400,000 AMERICAN lawyers who have legal expertise) have taken most of your arguments and addressed them already, 2 years ago.
http://www.abanet.org/poladv/testimony/intl072500.html
Thus, if the United States is to retain and be permitted to exercise its nationality jurisdiction over its nationals for offenses committed abroad, it must have the agreement of the territorial sovereign. When American tourists travel abroad they naturally come under the jurisdiction of the territorial sovereign. The same is true when non-Americans come to the United States. They become subject to United States territorial jurisdiction for offenses committed in U.S. territory.
If the U.S. were to reject the Treaty of Rome for an International Criminal Court, the effect would be that Americans, whether military or civilians, would be subject to the jurisdiction of the territorial sovereign for offenses committed in that territory. Thus, some kind of an international agreement is necessary.
Can the ICC be used as a weapon? yes, the same way we are using the security council as a weapon. However i the risk is worth it to me.
Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below 
