USA v. ICC
As John Locke taught us, our knowledge comes from our experience. The mayhem of war is something I do not understand, for I have not experienced it.
Thus far, I have refrained from commenting on these situations (e.g., Haditha). However, there are many that are consumed by these events: Michelle Malkin and Congressman Murtha, to name but two, for nobler or lesser reasons. Both are engaged in promoting their brand of factionalism.
The New York Daily News reports,
For me, I am thankful the United States is not a signatory to the Rome Statue.
In December 2000, President Bill Clinton signed the Rome Statue during the final days of his presidency, and on the very last day the statute was open for signing, knowing it would not be ratified. In May 2002, President George Bush "nullified" that signature. Arguably, one of Bush's finer moments.
Later, Ambassador John Bolton was quoted (NYT) as saying "abrogating the American signature" was "the happiest moment in my government service."
Internationalists and NGOs were indigant. For example, William Schultz, executive director of Amnesty International, claimed we were driven by "unfounded fears of phantom prosecutions...." (emphasis mine)
The Coalition for the International Criminal Court (CICC) tells us:
Does anyone seriously believe, if we were signatory to the Rome Statute, the ICC would not be investigating these events as war crimes?
Thus far, I have refrained from commenting on these situations (e.g., Haditha). However, there are many that are consumed by these events: Michelle Malkin and Congressman Murtha, to name but two, for nobler or lesser reasons. Both are engaged in promoting their brand of factionalism.
The New York Daily News reports,
The new cases bring to 12 the number of servicemen facing the death penalty for actions on the battlefield.Other investigations are on-going. Regardless of the outcome of the resulting court martials, I will not stand in judgment of these soldiers.
Military law experts could not recall a previous time when so many troops faced capital punishment, suggesting the heightened awareness of commanders to the impact of atrocity allegations on the Iraq war effort.
For me, I am thankful the United States is not a signatory to the Rome Statue.
In December 2000, President Bill Clinton signed the Rome Statue during the final days of his presidency, and on the very last day the statute was open for signing, knowing it would not be ratified. In May 2002, President George Bush "nullified" that signature. Arguably, one of Bush's finer moments.
Later, Ambassador John Bolton was quoted (NYT) as saying "abrogating the American signature" was "the happiest moment in my government service."
Internationalists and NGOs were indigant. For example, William Schultz, executive director of Amnesty International, claimed we were driven by "unfounded fears of phantom prosecutions...." (emphasis mine)
The Coalition for the International Criminal Court (CICC) tells us:
Since 2002, the United States has launched a full-scale multi-pronged campaign against the International Criminal Court, claiming that the ICC may initiate politically-motivated prosecutions against US nationals.The CICC's 2,000 NGOs were apoplectic our government obtained Bilateral Immunity Agreements (BIAs) and enacted the American Servicemembers' Protection Act (ASPA) to protect our troops from being subject to the conventions of the International Criminal Court.
Does anyone seriously believe, if we were signatory to the Rome Statute, the ICC would not be investigating these events as war crimes?
posted by Tony Harrison at 11:17 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home