Talk:Sovereignty of the UN Organization
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The Bush administration strongly opposes the ICC apparently because of concerns that the court might engage in political show trials against American soldiers and citizens. These fears are misplaced: Only countries whose legal systems cannot or will not adjudicate cases involving genocide, war crimes or crimes against humanity are within the reach of the court. Manipulation of the kind feared by some U.S. officials is virtually impossible. A sound system of checks and balances keeps the ICC's procedures from being abused. The prosecutor, for instance, must obtain permission from a pretrial chamber of judges before he can initiate investigations or serve indictments. States can appeal these decisions if they believe their own courts have adjudicated matters properly. Because the United States has a functioning criminal justice system capable of addressing allegations of gross abuse, U.S. citizens have nothing to fear from the International Criminal Court. Dictators, corrupt armies and armed groups in failing states do. [1]
If the US has such an admirable criminal justice system, then why are ICC supporters so keen on getting the US on board? If American "fears" that the ICC would determine that the US "cannot or will not adjudicate cases" are so laughably absurd, then why is it so important that the US commit itself (in advance) to ICC scrutiny and judgments?
They cannot have it both ways. If the US is already upholding the highest standards of justice, then signing or not signing one more treaty will have no effect on American conduct. It won't make Americans any more or less likely to commit crimes such as genocide. So, NOT joining the ICC system will do no harm at all.
If not participating in ICC courts will do no harm, than why are people so adamant and strident of their criticism of the US refusal to participate?
It can only be two things:
- They don't really regard the US as having such a high regard for justice that ICC overview is superfluous; in other words, they are lying when they US fears are groundless: they fully intend to hold America's feet to the fire the moment it ratifies the treaty; or,
- They are well aware that the US has a sufficiently high regard for justice, but they have some ulterior motive. One can only speculate, but it's probably political: a campaign of selective prosecution, hypocritically charging the US with all sorts of "crimes" while making no more than a token effort to hold dictatorships like the axis of evil to account.
Either way, it looks like America is the target. And since they say it's not so, either my analysis is stupid, or they're a bunch of liars. Well, I'm usually right about stuff like this . . . -- Uncle Ed (talk) 14:33, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
- I think the above blurb by the article's creator shows that this article is a joke in terms of POV. Also, there seems to be little relation between the title and the content, which is almost entirely editorial in nature. Pascal.Tesson 22:49, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
