Explain this to me please: What's the deal about the Int'l Courts & Bush?

[LynneSin]

I'm reading the article about how Bush is being snubbed in South Africa (that's pretty shameful when a great leader like Nelson Mandela won't be in your presence) and that Bush changed his plans from visiting a military base to visiting a Ford Plant. This change was because South Africa won't support the ban or law or whatever that U.S. citizens can't be prosecuted before an International Criminal Court.

Now my personal thinking is simple. If I commit an internation crime against humanity and I'm a US citizen, then why should I be above the law??!!

Was this an issue under Clinton or any other former elected presidents?

Please help me understand this!

[sendero]

1. I hate to be simplistic...

... but I think they (the Bush* administration) know that many of their actions are questionable and do not want to have to answer to an international court.

They are a lot more confident of being able to spin and control domestic public opinion than world opinion, just look at the leadup to the war.

Their stated objection of a fear of political prosecutions is pure and utter drivel.

edited for the usual typos :)

[LynneSin]

2. This is what I see

If the Bush regime is asked to come before the international courts, they'll just hide out in a country where they can't be touched. They have the money to buy off a government. So I see this law only affecting everyday citizens, which Bush could care less about.

[dpbrown]

3. It's just disdain

Clinton signed on to the court, because he said even though it wasn't perfect, he wanted the US to continue to be part of the nations that continued to work on it.

The court is meant to streamline the process by laying out some of the definitions that currently have to be worked out each time a special tribunal comes into existence (Nuremberg, Lockerbie, Yugoslavia). It's really all about defining the crimes and the jurisdiciton.

Bush and the neocon minions just downright hate international institutions (at least those that are not private and not answerable to the public like the WTO and the World Bank).

The way the court is set up now, the only way it'll ever get a case is if the alleged crime fits one of the categories (i.e., crime against humanity), and the home nation of the alleged perpetrator refuses to make some minimal overture at holding the person responsible.

The "home nation" requirement is so broad, a mere investigation by the home nation can suffice to deny the International Criminal Court of jurisdiction in the matter.

So for Bush and the secretive and corrupt cabal in illegal control of our nation's government, it's all about thumbing your nose at international law, international norms, and international cooperation. For them, might makes right, but more importantly, might makes a profit.

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

edit: code

[Az]

4. The US is above the law

Bush and Co refused to sign on to international law unless US citizens were exempt. Later we refused to send a representitive prosecutor when they were being gathered.

International law was the means by which Saddam should have been prosecuted but since we cut ourselves off from that we got a war all our own.

Simply put Bush and Co know that they have committed crimes against humanities. It would be just plain silly to give the power to prosecute them to anyone else. There are already multiple war crime indictments filed against them (most recently Japan).