The US and the International Crimimnal Court

[kalian]

http://empirewatch.org/pages/_archives/ICC/pages/US_efforts.html

the U.S. government is actively seeking bilateral agreements with as many countries as possible, evoking Article 98 of the Rome Statute, in order to exempt U.S. officials from prosecution by the ICC. the Bush administration is reportedly threatening economic sanctions such as the termination of millitary aid if countries do not comply with U.S. demands.

On 2 August 2002, President George W. Bush signed the supplemental appropriations bill, making the American Servicemembers' Protection Act binding U.S. national law. This act includes a provision that authorizes the use of military force to free any citizen of the U.S. or ally country being held by the Court in The Hague. In addition, the law provides for the withdrawal of U.S. military assistance from countries ratifying the ICC treaty, and restricts U.S. participation in United Nations peacekeeping unless the U.S. obtains immunity from prosecution. There is a clause, however, that allows the President to waive these provisions on basis of "national interest."

...more...

Something that we have forgotten: the US believes itself to be
"above" international law...thus, they can behave like they have
during these past 2 years. There will be no Nuremburg trials for the
US and its leadership...why? Because the US says so! Now, imagine
if Hitler would have done the same thing before starting WWII...?
:eyes:

[mike_c]

1. you're on a roll today kalian....

Keep up the good posts! Of course I'm not getting any work done while I argue with the cheerleaders for imperialism....

[Turbineguy]

2. Well, there is

the general "Let's get those Americans!" mentality. But trials would fail to convict. Then there's the "I don't want a trial cuz I'm guilty" PNAC view.

Personally I would not mind too much seeing William Kristol's new shaved headed weight lifter room mate wipe that smirk off with the words: "From now on, you' my bitch!"