The Rome Statute is the international treaty that addresses and provides for the prosecution of war crimes.
The US objects to the Rome Statute for the reasons that FS has identified above and because the Rome Statute does not grant the types of judicial procedures that the US believes are fundamental to a fair trial.
Isn’t it a bit sanctimonious of you to regard your own legal system as the only one against which all others are measured? Man, you are so arrogant (not you personally) but your idea that this is so.[/quote]
I don’t think it is sanctimonious at all. Where would BruneAle prefer to be tried… in the US or in Saudi Arabia? Why should the US defer to “international standards” when such are clearly not as high as those found in the US?
The Rome Statute places signatory nations under the jurisdiction of the ICC at the Hague, grants ICC prosecutors extraordinary powers and grants ICC officials lifetime immunity. I don’t think I like the sound of that.
The Rome Statute gives the ICC the right to review US court decisions and re-try individuals if the ICC determines decisions “were not conducted independently or impartially,” or were for the purpose of “shielding the person concerned from criminal responsibility.” Can you not see the possibility for political persecution here?
The ICC also does away with rights gauranteed to US citizens under the Constitution, such as the right to confront one’s accusers, due process, trial by jury, a public and speedy trial by an impartial jury, and protection from cruel and unusual punishments.
Particularly with respect to the rights raised in the paragraph immediately above, I prefer the US standards over those of the ICC, and yes, I most certainly do believe that the US system, at least when measured against the ICC system, comes out on top.
You are certainly entitled to disagree, however.