Why is it?

[C5]

Originally posted by Dan Stack
Outta curiosity, what were the French newspapers like during the French nuclear tests of a few years back that got the rest of the wotrld all upset? (Note, I'm not interested in a debate about the actual tests, more interested in the press coverage.)

Honestly, I don't remember well. I think most newspapers were as upset as the rest of the world (full of columns about how this was very bad for the image of France and scientifical reports saying we didn't need those tests at all, and so on); however, some of them also remarked that other countries did that and got away with it, that some countries were using this as a pretext to complain about France, etc...
But I really can't remember how much of them were in either side. After all, thinking that the whole world is taking sides against France for the pettiest reasons is a rather common view in French newspapers...

[C5]

Originally posted by Dan Stack
Point/counterpoint arguments...

Against:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2002Jun28.html
[/url]

Interesting... it seems from this article that Americans fear the ICC would be used to put American soldiers on trial for any reason they could find.
Another cliché we have about Americans (right or wrong, I don't know) is that they love to press charges for the stupidest thing possible (like the McDonalds coffee cup case, but many others stories like that). Would it be that they fear the ICC because they think it'd lead to similar excesses ?
(this is an honest question, not another mindless critic; I'd been puzzled by Bush's reaction toward the ICC, and try to understand it).

[Dan Stack]

C5, I believe you are essentially correct about the primary concern. I believe the concern is that there is a perception of an anti-US bias at the UN - for example countries like Syria take spots on the human rights commission while the United States has been booted off it.

My personal opinion is I do think the court is, at least in concept, is essentially a good idea, if for no other reason than it prevents "war crime tribunals" with a predetermined outcome. My knowledge of it is not enough to judge how valid the concerns against it are. If however those against it are correct in their concerns, then I essentially agree with those concerns. (I'm never a big fan of trusting that "don't worry, they'd never be so silly as to xxx" where xxx is something absurd but technically possible.)

[Cybrludite]

Well, for starters, we can't ratify the ICC treaty, since it runs afoul of a sizable chunk of Article 3 of the Constitution. If Bush and a super-majority of the Senate were to ratify the treaty, it would be struck down almost immediately by the Supreme Court. It would take a constitutional amendment to avoid that. I'll have to dig out my copy of the Constitution to be sure, but from what I can recall from Civics class, that means super-majorities in the House & Senate, plus a super-majority of State Legislatures.
As for our concerns about ill-treatment on the part of the court, we're seeing that all ready in the hoo-haw over the Bosnia peacekeeping mission. We're asking for the very same exemptions that the European countries have asked for & recieved from the ICC reguarding other peacekeeping missions. The European exemptions never made the news, a non-issue as it were. We ask for the same thing, & everyone starts shouting and frothing at the mouth. It doesn't take a legal genius to see where that is going...

[Bill Harris]

Originally posted by Cybrludite
Well, for starters, we can't ratify the ICC treaty, since it runs afoul of a sizable chunk of Article 3 of the Constitution. If Bush and a super-majority of the Senate were to ratify the treaty, it would be struck down almost immediately by the Supreme Court. It would take a constitutional amendment to avoid that. I'll have to dig out my copy of the Constitution to be sure, but from what I can recall from Civics class, that means super-majorities in the House & Senate, plus a super-majority of State Legislatures.

To enact a new amendment to the Constitution, the proposed amendment must be approved by a 2/3 majority in both the House and Senate and then be ratified by 3/4 of the states.

[Capt.Hunter]

Just to clarify some issues. A person may only be tried in the ICC if there has not been a trial in their home country. It is perfectly acceptable for a case to be brought before a native court and for the person to be cleared of wrongdoing. International observers will need to be onhand to ensure no corruption, but that's par for the course. The US seems to feel that countries where their forces are operating might "make stuff up" to get back at US soldiers. To bring a case before the ICC, however, the accusing country must be signed up to it, which none of the countries where US forces are currently active are.

So, the soldiers still have access to US law, and only if that fails (and provably so) would they be liable to trial in the ICC.

Being a Brit, I don't know much about the US Constitution beyond the 2nd and 5th Amendments, so could someone post a short description of the Third so we know what the objection is?

[Dan Stack]

Actually, it's Article 3. The relevant text is actually pretty short...

Article III

Section 1. The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.


Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.


In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.


The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.


Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.


The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.

I think the issue (I'm not 100% sure) is that it would create a court "superior" to the US Supreme Court.

[Capt.Hunter]

OK, I see where the Constitution might be violated here. However, the darn thing has been amended before...

This sort of reason actually makes some sense, as opposed to the rhetoric we tend to hear from US commentators on the issue over here in Britain. Their point of view is that no-one has the right to try a US citizen outside the US no matter what they've done. That sort of argument annoys me, as the US was a major player in setting up the Nuremburg trials after WWII, but they don't expect other countries to have some legal recourse against US soldiers who commit war crimes? (The simple point here is: don't commit war crimes, and you'll never find yourself in front of the ICC anyway...)

Somehow, I feel this might have to do with the "premptive action" policy Bush is currently touting - under international law, starting a war without provocation is a war crime.

Really, we Europeans do like the US. It does however do some things that are hypocritical, which tends to annoy people (such as myself). Recent examples are:

1) Imposing tariffs on foreign steel imports (a blatant violation of the "free trade" mantra, but I can see why they did it. It's gotta be hard trying to keep your own interests safe while promoting open competition. The issue here is that, had anyone else done this, the US would've been foremost in condemning them for limiting free trade).

2) Researching biological weapons that contravene international treaties whilst attacking "rogue" nations for trying to acquire weapons of mass destruction.

I think some of the problem is that, while most of us can understand why the US does what it does, it will quickly condemn others for doing the exact same thing, and appears to have a "we're the only superpower left, so we can get away with it" attitude. Which, unfortunately, is the case - but then you can't expect people not to bitch about it...