Well, it seems like the US government finally realized that further degradation of foreign relations could start to show its negative impact on the country and that the unilatteral approach is not the brightest possible idea for solving troublesome situations. Oh, well, better late than never.

___________________
1+1=10

The US was only trying to secure in one document what they had been individually getting from many nations around the world - waivers from prosecution. As it states in the article, however, it didn't matter whether we we got the immunity or not. We're not subject to the ICC, since we didn't sign on to the treaty. Rather than have the immunity resolution fail, the US withdrew it.

It hardly means the US has assented to the treaty.

quote:

None of the alleged U.S. war crimes in Iraq would have fallen under the International Criminal Court's jurisdiction as neither Iraq nor the United States signed on to the ICC treaty.

___________________
FLUSHED THE JOHNS!

Now that only leaves the likes of China, Russia, India a bunch of the Middle Eastern countries to name a few who have not ratified or even acknowledged the ICC's existence but the U.S. is the only one being criticized, hypocrisy at its best. Why would Russia when they commit beastial acts in Chechnya, China with their army in Tibet, we all know how great both of their domestic justice system is but they have the audacity to crititicize the U.S, okay.

___________________
Trance = Heart, Mind, Body and Soul all in 1

Current fav. Global Experience = Madras

As far as I know, the ICC still violates the U.S. Constitution. Article III, Section 1 says that the highest court the United States can have is the Supreme Court. It says that Congress can only establish Courts that are inferior to this Supreme Court. The way the ICC would work, it would actually in certain situations be able to trump the rulings of the Supreme Court. It also in some circumstances does not allow for a trial by jury, the right to know one's accusers as well as double jeopardy protection, again all rights established under the U.S. Constitution. I do not see a need for this court, but as said before the U.S. continues not to ratify the ICC, so there really is no story in the U.S. dropping its resolution attempt.

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono As far as I know, the ICC still violates the U.S. Constitution. Article III, Section 1 says that the highest court the United States can have is the Supreme Court. It says that Congress can only establish Courts that are inferior to this Supreme Court. The way the ICC would work, it would actually in certain situations be able to trump the rulings of the Supreme Court. It also in some circumstances does not allow for a trial by jury, the right to know one's accusers as well as double jeopardy protection, again all rights established under the U.S. Constitution. I do not see a need for this court, but as said before the U.S. continues not to ratify the ICC, so there really is no story in the U.S. dropping its resolution attempt.

Yes the ICC does supercede the constitution and not only that, the court would have jurisdiction of crimes committed anywhere within the US and over any case even if that person were to be tried and acquitted by a jury.

The only ramifications of this decision is that the US will probably be less likely to send peacekeepers abroad. Much to the satisfaction of most of the world I'm sure, except for the country that needs the peacekeepers.

___________________
Retro ...

ohh the hypocracy! how many other countries haven't ceded power to the ICC?

what the f**k EVAR!!!!!!!!!!

It's a meaningless move.

The American Servicemembers' Protection Act prohibits U.S. cooperation with the ICC and authorizes the President to use "all means necessary" to free U.S. personnel detained by the ICC.

The translation is that whether or not U.S. personnel have "immunity," it would be a bad idea to try to detain them, unless you're fond of seeing your cities turn to rubble.

Yes that would make US even more popular than it is now, blowingup somebody becouse they are detaining a guilty person.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Moongoose Yes that would make US even more popular than it is now, blowingup somebody becouse they are detaining a guilty person.

I'm sure. But at this point it ought to be rather obvious that the US doesn't particularly care about popularity.

So where's the discussion about procecuting terrorist bastards like Al-Zarqawi and his band of thugs in the UN? Guess they figure the US will take them about with firepower and they won't have to worry about it. Beheading people without trials seems to be their norm.

quote:

Originally posted by NYCTrancefan Now that only leaves the likes of China, Russia, India a bunch of the Middle Eastern countries to name a few who have not ratified or even acknowledged the ICC's existence but the U.S. is the only one being criticized, hypocrisy at its best. Why would Russia when they commit beastial acts in Chechnya, China with their army in Tibet, we all know how great both of their domestic justice system is but they have the audacity to crititicize the U.S, okay.

The reason why the US is being criticized more than the others in this case, is because we haven't given up on you guys yet
Seriously, the US portrays itself as a modern free nation with a belief in personal responsibility. Furthermore, as far as I know the US was a driving force for the establishment of the UN. China, on the other hand, puts little effort into being percieved as your moral equivalent. The same can be said about Russia.