So will the USA now join the World Court?

[Winterblues]

Republicans are scared to death of the World Court. They think Americans are somehow special and should not be subject to International Law. I believe Republicans are well aware of all the International Laws that have been broken during the last eight years by Americans and even by our Government. Will this be the next big political battle?

[rockymountaindem]

1. Never n/t

[RB TexLa]

2. Are you kidding? You can't even mention a regional political and economic union

on DU without having the right wing talking points about sovereignty spit up.

[sasquatch]

3. That's because Southern or wanna be Southern Senators like war crimes, torture, treason and tyrrany

It's in their blood read about the battle of Culloden sometime and all of the circumstances surrounding it. Most republicans from the south and their supporters are descendents of the Jacobite forces in that army.

[azurnoir]

4. I hope so n/t

[WilliamPitt]

5. Not so long as any Vietnam combat vet lives

A pilot ordered to blow up a bridge whose munitions killed Vietnamese/Cambodian/Laotian civilians could be charged in such a court, along with the officer who gave the order and the civilian leadership who gave orders to the officer. Even the remotest possibility of this kills our involvement in that court.

[tritsofme]

Except the ICC only has jurisdiction for crimes committed after 2002.

Besides which, the Rome Treaty would never win Senate ratification.

[WilliamPitt]

21. Good to know.

I did not know that. Thanks.

[Hugabear]

24. The US military should not be immune to international war crimes trials

If we can try someone for war crimes that happened long ago, then why shouldn't US servicemen and women be subjected to the same?

I understand where you're coming from, that as long as US veterans would be in danger of being tried for war crimes, it's not likely to happen. It's not just Vietnam vets who could be held liable, I'm sure there would be plenty if Iraq vets who would be in danger also.

But if we're ever going to regain our "moral authority" in the world, then we need to hold our own military to the same standards we demand of other countries.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

6. the USA should be part of International laws

[Mudoria]

7. No

[Romulox]

8. It would be Unconstitutional for the US to join the world court.

It allows, among other things, for double jeopardy.

[RB TexLa]

9. Different charges just like differing federal and state charges for the same criminal act

We already by treaty give power over court decisions. NAFTA allows excessive jury awards to be set aside, it was originally pushed with the idea of protecting US and Canadian companies from Mexican juries but the first use was an Aleee Bameeee jury that awarded something like $50M from a Mexican company for 20 or 30 thousand worth of damage.

[Romulox]

10. No, you're wrong. It would be Unconstitutional for the US government

to extradite an accused for trial in a foreign court for acts committed on US soil after being acquitted in Federal court.

At any rate, double jeopardy is only one issue: the ICJ also does not allow an absolute right to confront one's accusers.

"NAFTA allows excessive jury awards to be set aside"

Double jeopardy has nothing to do with civil trials.

[RB TexLa]

11. So the federal government can not charge someone with a federal crime after a state jury has

acquitted them? I bet the police officers acquitted in state court of beating Rodney King would have liked to have known this.

[Romulox]

13. Read what I wrote more carefully. Since you think that "double jeopardy" applies to civil cases....

you simply don't know what you're talking about (quelle surprise!)

[RB TexLa]

15. There would be different charges just as the federal government and a state can make different

criminal charges for the same criminal act.

They do it all the time.


on edit:
Do you not understand that the US constitution does not dictate what rights Americans or anyone else has before the world court? Those are rights you have in regards to the American government. It's irreverent.

[Romulox]

19. What you're missing is the concept of JURISDICTION

You're right that "two separate sovereigns" (i.e. a US State and the Federal government) may try the same CRIMINAL (not civil! double jeopardy has no application in civil cases) defendant twice for the same crime; where you've lost the plot is with respect to the concept of jurisdiction. Because states and the federal government both have independent bases of jurisdiction in criminal matters, they independently have the power to try criminal defendant.

This would not be true of the ICJ; the ICJ does not have any jurisdiction to try an US citizen for a crime committed on US soil--the only way they could be granted such would be through Constitutional amendment or act of Congress. The first route (which will never happen) would presumably obviate the Constitutional problem. The second would not. Do you see why?

I'll give you a hint: the US government cannot avoid the prohibition on unreasonable search and seizure, for example, by enlisting agents of foreign governments to conduct warrantless searches and claiming that it (i.e. the US Federal government) wasn't conducting the searches...

[RB TexLa]

22. International treaties entered by the US supersede the constitution

even if actions taken under the treaty occurs on "precious," "cherished" US soil.

Other countries have put aside these concerns to join for world justice and the hope of world peace, it's well past time we join the rule of law.

[Romulox]

23. Er, no they don't. I'm going to stop responding to you, as you don't know what you're talking about

[RB TexLa]

25. Good, that was like listening to the ghost of Jesse Helms

[Romulox]

26. Yeah. I know, the US Constitution is SOOOO Rightwing. And facts are for MEANIES!

What an idiot you are. :hi:

[Winterblues]

27. They do not supersede the Constitution but they are "The Supreme Law of the Land"

We are obligated by our Constitution to fulfill any treaty we have ratified.

[Romulox]

28. So long as they are Constitutional. If they are not, then they will be overturned

just like any act of Congress.

[Winterblues]

29. I tend to disagree

The treaties signed with American Indians do not treat everyone equally as the US Constitution dictates yet they remain intact. Like for instance allowing the Indians along the Columbia River to have a larger share of the salmon than other Americans or allowing Native Americans to kill Marine mammels when it is illegal for other Americans to do so. I do not think it would be found Constitutional today to allow one group of "Americans" more rights than any other.. By Treaty though they do indeed have those rights and by the 1924 American Indian Citizenship Act all are Americans even if they were not when those treaties were enacted.

[Romulox]

30. The Indian Treaties may be sui generis, but I'm not sure

that the "right" to take fish from a particular body of water is a Constitutional right. In fact, I'm sure it's not. Moreover, there is no right to be "treated equally" (for example, people are discriminated against based on economic status all the time.) There is, however, a right not to be discriminated against based on certain enumerated characteristics set out in Federal law.

Just by way of example:

Do you think that Congress could enter into a treaty with Canada to make Zoroastrianism the official religion of the US, and that this treaty would become "Supreme Law of the Land" despite clearly violating the First Amendment?

I don't.

[Winterblues]

31. Race being one of those not to be discriminated against.

I would say there is a distinct race discrimination when only Americans of the Indian race can kill Marine Mammals or take majority of the "people's resource" such as fish in Columbia River.

[Romulox]

33. Setting aside that issue for a moment, do you think the US could make Islam our official religion

by way of treaty with Saudi Arabia, thus effectively overriding the First Amendment?

Again, I do not.

[Winterblues]

36. No of course not but I just wanted to point out there are exceptions

Treaties are indeed the "Supreme Law of the Land" but they supposedly can not run counter to our Constitution. The Indian situation is very involved..Sort of a "Reparations" type situation. Didn't mean to be too contrary, just wanted to show an example of things not always being as they should.

[4lbs]

16. It doesn't apply. The CA state charges against those officers were different than

what they had been charged in federal court.

CA state charges were police brutality, excessive use of force, and even assault and battery.

The federal charges were civil rights violations.

That's how one gets around double jeopardy. Charge them with similiar, but different enough legally, crimes so that the double jeopardy alarm doesn't get tripped.

[RB TexLa]

17. It's really irrelevant as the US constitution doesn't apply to the world court.

[Romulox]

20. No, but the US Constitution DOES apply to the US Congress, bonehead. nt

[ProgressiveProfessor]

12. Doubtful

[mmonk]

14. It could agree by treaty to accept certain laws or provisions

but all accepting I doubt because it can only accept laws that do not conflict with the Constitution.

[Fireweed247]

18. Why would any rogue nation join a court who can hold them accountable?

That aspect never made sense to me. Can't they come and get Bush and Cheney and put them on trial anyway? I don't think Hitler would have signed on either.

[BlueMTexpat]

32. This is a niggling little point, but the US

IS already part of the "World Court" which is otherwise known as the International Court of Justice (ICJ). In fact, we even have a justice who sits there.

Here's a quick recap. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Court_of_Justice

Your question is more properly directed towards US membership in the International Criminal Court (ICC or ICCt), established in 2002.

Also from wiki:

"The official seat of the Court is in The Hague, Netherlands, but its proceedings may take place anywhere.<15> The ICC is sometimes referred to as a "world court"; it should not be confused with the International Court of Justice, also known as the World Court, which is the United Nations organization that settles disputes between states.<16>" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court

Here are the official sites:

http://www.icc-cpi.int/home.html&l=en

http://www.icj-cij.org/

Sorry to be a stickler, but the term "World Court" in capitals refers to the ICJ. The ICC is sometimes also more correctly referred to as the "World Criminal Court."

:shrug:

[muriel_volestrangler]

35. Thank you - people inventing new meanings for "World Court" will only confuse things

You're absolutely right - 'World Court' means the International Court for Justice (eg http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2009/01/19/europe/EU-World-Court-US-Mexico.php ), and it helps to keep things clear.

[BlueMTexpat]

37. Thanks for that case!

:hi:

It is SOOO nice to have the adults in charge once again ... the way this whole situation was handled illustrates how BushCo played fast and loose with the Rule of Law even in this situation, aided and abetted by their stacked U.S. Supreme Court.

SO many wrongs to right ... and so many wrongs that never can be righted.

No way, no how ... had Dems or anyone else better let this sorry lot get by with free passes!

[Iggo]

34. If we had any balls, we would.