(BUFDRVR) wrote in
:

Try to understand the basics of our legal system. Belgium did NOT
"indict Tommy Franks"

snip a bunch of legalistic crap

Great, he was not indicted, but the problem remains the same.
The US is the universal target for anyones ill feelings,

I'm supprised you admit to that. Perhaps the US should start
to address that and ask themselves "why".

The ICC issue is a good representation. 120 nations agree
on a permanent court that will prosecute war crimes and
secure international justice, but the US, apparently, feels
it shouldn't have to be held responsible for its own breaches
of international human rights and justice.


even Belgians it
appears.

This was an unique Belgian law. It still had to pass through the
Belgian jurisdiction system though, and it belongs to history that
the Belgian court of appeal threw out the law alltogether and
settled for a watered down version. The suit against Franks was
dropped.


Why would the US sign up for a "justice" system that had the
power to idicted, charge etc. our serving generals for doing their
job, *legally*. The US would spend millions of US dollars every year
defending ourselves in this international "kangaroo court".

Comming from a nation where people have a spectacular tradition
for sueing one another for nothing, your statement is more than
amusing.

http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/icc/facts.htm

MYTH: The Court will take on politically motivated cases
against U.S. citizens or soldiers.

FACT: Numerous safeguards in the ICC treaty will prevent
frivolous or politically motivated cases. First, the ICC
will cover only the most egregious international crimes,
defined in ways corresponding closely to the U.S. Code of
Military Justice. It will have no jurisdiction over crimes
committed on U.S. soil unless the United States ratifies
its treaty.

[..]


What made the Bush administration incandescent was the law
which granted courts jurisdiction in all crimes against humanity,
regardless of location or the nationality of victim or perpetrator.

Probably the same thing that gave Clinton pause. You anti-Bush
Europeans continue to look ridiculous when you slam Bush for doing the
same things Clinton did, yet you had no issue with him. Clinton
refused to sign it for the reason I stated above,

Clinton signed the treaty on December 31, 2000. On May 6, 2002.
Then the Bush Administration announced its intention to withdraw
the US signature. If you want to talk about kangoroo politics,
nothing like that has ever been done to my knowledge.




Regards...