Two more nations won't prosecute Americans in international court

Tuesday, April 6, 2004 8:13PM EDT

Two more nations won't prosecute Americans in international court


By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

CRAWFORD, Texas (AP) - President Bush announced agreements with another two countries to exempt Americans from prosecution by the International Criminal Court, which it staunchly opposes.

The 1998 Rome Statute establishing the International Criminal Court has been ratified by 90 countries, but the court faces opposition from the United States. Bush administration officials fear that Americans, particularly soldiers abroad, could fall victim to politically motivated prosecutions.

The Bush administration has signed bilateral treaties with more than three dozen countries that have agreed not to hand over American citizens to the court.

The latest, according to a statement released by the White House on Tuesday, are the Central African Republic and Guinea.
(snip/...)

http://newsobserver.com/24hour/world/story/1270336p-8355404c.html

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Well, well, well. Just in time for Aristide's threat of lawsuit concerning his kidnapping to Central African Republic, too. Nice work.

I wonder if there'll be a "distraction".

the World Court is a farce. It proved that last week when they refused to prosecute over 100 criminals. Americans should be tried in American Courts.

It seems the World Court is more a politcal orginazation than a judicial entity.

The last American successfully tried for war crimes was lieutenant William Calley, for the My Lai massacre.

Calley was sentenced to life in prison but was immediately released by President Nixon and only served three and a half years of "house arrest " in his quarters at Fort Benning, before a federal judge released him permanently.

He became the "heroic" subject of a number one song on the American charts and is today a successful insurance broker.

So much for American "justice".

to try more than 100 criminals last week, or are we supposed to simply take your word for it?

If you could fill in a few details like who they were, and how you found out about it, it would be helpful to Democratic readers.

If I remember my history, western powers imposed this legal doctrine over many countries in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Basically it said westerners were only to be tried by western courts even if they committed crimes in other countries. It infuriated the nationalist Chinese, among others.

Only "terrible accidents" and "understandable errors of judgement under pressure of combat".

Heck, you only have to look at many comments on this site to realize that most Americans would rather feel sympathy, and create excuses, for American soldiers who commit war crimes than actually prosecute them.

So they are doing every bloody thing under the sun to prevent a court
from being able to indict them. It is not about american soldiers
abroad. They have already shown they don't give a rats ass about
american soldiers... it is their own chicken necks they're worried
about.

The "world court" as some posters have said, is not the same as the
international criminal court. The former is an arbiter of
international treatys, and not for trying individuals.

Surely I "know what you meant"... but use the proper terms. The
ICC is a wise and healthy thing to have, and should be the center
peice in the police actions against would-be terrorists. That said,
given that bush and the american military are the primary world
terrorists, of course they must emasculate the court.

The whole thing makes americans the butt of a legal joke. When
war criminals are running the place and set up the laws to be above
the law, it pretty much removes all moral authority of law in the
US. Do what you want, if you can get away with it. THat is their
message to people the world over.