I strongly disagree-this action (not a snub) has been a clear signal to the "international community" that mostly does not respect the rule of law (not to confuse w/ rule of bureaucrats)-unless it is convenient for them (or used against the US)-that they will not be able to flaunt the law in their image and use it as a crutch to beat us over the head with it. Like the UN, the court in Hague is selective.

Now, for all those uppity libs-abortion is against the law in most countries in the World-are you going to follow this example?

"abortion is against the law in most countries in the World"

Under all circumstances? Nope, wrong, incorrect.

"The snub has been seen as a symbol of U.S. contempt for the rule of law."

That is a completely dishonest way of framing the situation. Utter nonsense.

"Of the many issues that have soured relations between Europe and the United States under the Bush administration, few have been as poisonous as America's refusal to join the world's first permanent war crimes court in The Hague. The snub has been seen as a symbol of U.S. contempt for the rule of law. Only by aligning America again with international law can the damage inflicted on America's image and appeal by the Bush administration be undone."

Fuck that...when Europe adopts Sharia law I would just as soon still follow our constitution and laws without ANY influence from Europe.

Question being who should be the first one up on charges, Bush or Cheney?

The snub has been seen as a symbol of U.S. contempt for the rule of law.

And rightly so.

America has gone from being percieved as "A Nation of Laws" to "A Nation that considers itself above the laws of Man and God".

Tsk tsk, sez Spud.

Question being who should be the first one up on charges, Bush or Cheney?

~Nutcase

Both.

Cheney doesn't allow Chimpy to get near a court of law w/o his presence so let them both waltz into the ICC holding hands as always.

Be Well.

The grandiose claim the Hague represents the "rule of law" is no more sensible or legitimate than some idiot televangelist claiming to speak for God. Wackos and their followers can annoint themselves whatever exhalted positions they choose but that doesn't mean sane people have to buy into it.

We can be a nation ruled by laws without participating. Any claim to the contrary just flat out isn't true.

Can we really be the guest of honor at an international "we hate America" party?

Uh, no thanks. Equating the Hauge w/ the rule of law is ludicrous!

cohen can stick it where the sun don't shine.

cohen can stick it where the sun don't shine

Cohen likely DOES DO THAT on a regular basis with his booyfriend.

FACT!

There are many reasons not to join "that Court." Anyway, our Constitutional provisions are superior to treat obligations, so we would be out of synch with many of the provisions of law of other jurisdictions.

For example, freedom of speech guaranteed by our Constittution is relegated to inferior status under European doctrine, and certain speech is crininalized there that is not here.

And why not adopt sharia law provisions if we pick and choose. Being a homosexual, or insulting Allah or Muhammed, are a status or acts punishable by death in some jurisidictions. If we want to subject ourselves to"other law," a reduction in our freedoms, why "The Hague?"

So called international law also, for example, limits the way pirates are fought, providing that a proactive assault on pirates is not permissible, nor are raids on their bases. So we'd be required to behave as emasculated victims emulating the Europeans, fettered by nonsensical "rules." Certainly, we wouldn't want to commit "the crime" of interdicting pirates without being limited by "The Hague" rules.

Why would we want to hamper our self-defense activities to conform to the mandates of some people, who have demonstrated repeatedly that they are quite inept in many areas?

Why would we accept their ban on capital punishment?

What about conduct toward refugees?

Our values and their values are not the same. It would require gross modification of our ways to subject ourselves to their mandates. And why would we think that they have developed a response in any way superior to ours, or in any way better for us, if operative.

What is the motivation for joining "the Hague?" Who is proving what to whom and for what purpose?

Finally, what is the incentive of joing "The Hague?" What benefit does it confer on us as a nation. Does it impair or facilitate our ability to respond?

The ultimate question is "What's in it for us?" And none of this "feel good" nonsense. If you want to feel good, we'll take up a collection for you and buy you a vibrating chair. I won't contribute, but some may.

Would even undertaking treaty obligations contrary to our Constitutional provisions, be reasonable? Why do it? Then when push comes to shove, we say to them "Fie on you!"

Very informative. Thank you.

You don't want to join an International Criminal Court? Then stop invading other countries.

If you've done nothing wrong, what's there to hide?

Such a nice thread for the America is evil crowd.

Then we can sign on to this also....
Lawyers call for international court for the environment
A former chairman of the Bar Council is calling for an international court for the environment to punish states that fail to protect wildlife and prevent climate change.

In 1998 the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court was adopted by a vote of 120 to 7, with 21 countries abstaining. The seven countries that voted against the treaty were China, Iraq, Israel, Libya, Qatar, the United States, and Yemen.

Israel, too! What a surprise!!!

If you've done nothing wrong, what's there to hide?
#14 | Posted by Derek_Wildstar

LOL, is this how you feel about warrantless wiretapping too?

I find it interesting that the same crowd that thinks a NWO is in the works and opposes such an action wants to take steps to further such a concept by accepting international courts. Then it's just a step away from creating international executives and leaders (UN excepted, as they are largely impotent).