So the ICC is widely advertised as a "just" court for the prosecution of "war criminals." ICC officials deny that it is a political tool to be used against the United States. Ah well, lets see:

http://www.nationalpost.ca/world/story.html?id=ECE98D7D-B287-47A5-90FB-A76063AD1B4E

War crimes case planned against U.S.

UNITED NATIONS - A coalition of lawyers and human rights groups yesterday unveiled a bid to use the UN's new International Criminal Court as a tool to restrain American military power. I thought this was a "just" court to allow for the prosecution of war criminals?

In a move Washington said vindicated U.S. claims that the court would be used for political purposes, the rights activists are working to compile war crimes cases against the United States and its chief ally in Iraq, Britain. Ya, isn't it funny that it would be the anti-American crowd that would be bringing these things up?

"There is a way that the United States can be accused ... of aiding and abetting war crimes," said Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights.

The U.S. last year renounced the ICC, predicting it would become a political tool for opponents of U.S. foreign policy to launch frivolous prosecutions against U.S. military and diplomatic personnel.

"It appears they are trying to manufacture a case against the United States," said a senior official with the Bush administration. "So this clearly would be an example of the type of politicization that we're concerned with." Exactly.

As a non-member, the United States would normally be outside of ICC jurisdiction unless it was suspected of crimes in a country that is an ICC member, which Iraq is not.

But the fact that Britain is a member has given the rights activists a springboard for a case that argues U.S. air raids that killed civilians were war crimes. Oh give me a break. So they are saying that if a war breaks out and a civilian is killed that automatically constitutes a war crime?

"The U.S. used bombers that took off from England ... and from Diego Garcia, also U.K. territory," said Mr. Ratner, referring to a British Indian Ocean island possession.

Britain, as an ICC member, could be prosecuted on a much wider array of activities that resulted in civilian deaths, the activists said. I hope Britain has the balls to pull out of the ICC. Now.

Both U.S. and British officials have repeatedly said their forces make maximum efforts to avoid civilian casualties and never target civilians, which would violate the 1949 Geneva Conventions.

Rights activists joining Mr. Ratner yesterday were Phil Shiner of the British-based Public Interest Lawyers, and Roger Norman of the Committee on Economic and Social Rights.

They said five eminent international lawyers will outline a case against the United States and Britain next month for submission first to an international "alternative" court called the Permanent Peoples' Tribunal in Rome, then the prosecutor's office of the ICC in The Hague. Who the fuck are all these courts? I've never head of the People's Tribunal in Rome. That sounds suspiciously like some communist thing. "The people's" will.

People who had volunteered as Saddam's "human shields" will be among those contributing testimony. "Any evidence we can get hold of, we will present," Mr. Shiner said. "The [ICC] prosecutor would have a duty to investigate if there was credible evidence."

Mr. Shiner said the activists' case will probe the coalition's use, or suspected use, of cluster bombs, depleted uranium ammunition and fuel-air explosives.

These weapons are unauthorized, he claimed, because they "can't distinguish between civilian or military" targets. And regular munitions can distinguish between civilians and military targets right?

A cluster bomb consists of a canister that breaks apart to release a large number of small bombs. Because it has no precision guidance, it can wander off target if dropped from medium to high altitudes. Some of the bomblets typically do not explode, presenting a long-term threat to civilians.

While coalition forces say they do not use such bombs in civilian areas, U.S. forces launched an investigation into reports U.S. cluster bombs killed at least 11 civilians in Hilla, a city 100 kilometres south of Baghdad and the scene of heavy fighting.

Depleted uranium ammunition can pierce armour. But as a by-product of uranium enrichment, depleted uranium is mildly radioactive. It is also a heavy metal, and therefore potentially poisonous. "We know it has been used," Mr. Shiner said. However, he admitted the use of fuel-air explosives, which create giant fire balls, is not certain.

Mr. Shiner said the activists' case would also question coalition "methods," citing strikes on shopping markets and an attack that resulted in the deaths of two journalists at the Palestine Hotel in Baghdad. The United States and Britain have said at least one market strike may have been caused by Iraqi anti-aircraft fire. U.S. forces said U.S. troops were returning fire from suspected Iraqi forces in the Palestine Hotel.

The Bush administration official said: "This is a baseless accusation and we'll treat it as such."

The ICC opened its doors for evidence collection on July 1, 2002, and has jurisdiction over crimes committed after that date. Canada is a strong supporter of the court. Philippe Kirsch, a Canadian international law specialist, is president of 18 ICC judges, but a prosecutor has yet to be selected.

In 2000, the prosecutor for the UN's special war crimes court for the former Yugoslavia threw out a bid by activist groups to prosecute NATO for war crimes over the 1999 bombing of Kosovo.

That experience provided lessons, however.

"We wouldn't be wasting our time if we didn't think this was credible," Mr. Shiner said.

The rights activists also said yesterday the United States should rethink its rejection last week of an ad hoc UN court to deal with the past crimes of Saddam's regime and any crimes by Iraqis against coalition forces. The U.S.-proposed alternative was "victors' justice," according to Mr. Ratner.

The United States is in the process of identifying Iraqi jurists who can help create new Iraqi courts that will try key members of Saddam's regime for past crimes. Washington also reserves the right to try Iraqis itself for war crimes committed during the current conflict. Among those alleged crimes are mistreatment of coalition prisoners and the deceptive use of the white surrender flag.

Because Iraq is not a member of the ICC, Saddam Hussein cannot be brought before it.Well isn't that nice.


Now on a side note, if they put the U.S. on trial and all those judges from Syria, Iran, Pakistan, France, and Germany find the U.S. guilty of violating International Law or war crimes or something, erm, what exactly do they plan on doing? Pass more resolutions?

What, exactly is your reasoning for the USA not to join the ICC? Is it the fact that the US is guility of the majority of international crimes that take place? Is it the "I'm above the Law syndrome and no one can tell me what to do"? What is the harm in the USA joining the ICC?

Oh give me a break. So they are saying that if a war breaks out and a civilian is killed that automatically constitutes a war crime?

If the US can invade another country, for any reason, they should and must be held responsible if war crimes are commited. I find it down right sick that the USA could complain about Suddam when the fact that the USA invaded Iraq was a violation of UN mandate itself.

I thought this was a "just" court to allow for the prosecution of war criminals?

The judges will decide if claims are just... The legal system can only work if you are free to file complaints.

Don't worry too much about your American pals... they have made unilateral agreements with many countries to escape prosecution. They also have many means of pressure to avoid that justice will be done. (which could just as easily prove them to be not guilty)

So they are saying that if a war breaks out and a civilian is killed that automatically constitutes a war crime?

Read the Geneva and Hague conventions... I'm sure the judges will do that too. Somewhere it says that attacks must discriminate between civilians and combatants. That excludes the use of poison gas for example. It is possible that this also excludes bombing a town from kilometers up in the sky. The judges will rule if this is the case.

I hope Britain has the balls to pull out of the ICC. Now.

Having balls would be: staying in. They know the Conventions. I'm sure they lived by them.

And regular munitions can distinguish between civilians and military targets right?

It's hard to distinguish with a cluster bomb. Easier with a bullet. See the difference?

what exactly do they plan on doing?

The santions would be in the ICC Statute... welcome to read them there. I'm sure they don't say: attacking the country that is convicted. Thank God.

What, exactly is your reasoning for the USA not to join the ICC? Maybe because it wouldn't be fair? Please sir, explain to me how you would want to elect fair and impartial judges.

Is it the fact that the US is guility of the majority of international crimes that take placeSo the U.S. is worse than Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, Saddam, and so on?

Is it the "I'm above the Law syndrome and no one can tell me what to do"? Almost, not quite. First, there is no such thing as INTERNATIONAL LAW. Law implies a higher authority. There is no higher authority than a nation's sovereignty. No nation has the right to tell another nation what to do. Even if it is the majority of nations. The world isn't a democracy. When conflict happens, diplomacy is tried and then war. That is the game.

So, yes, the United States, and the rest of the world, are all above this "international law" thing. No one is subject to it unless they submit to it, and under no circumstance does the United States or any other country have to submit to such a farce.

USA invaded Iraq was a violation of UN mandate itself. I don't give a fuck for U.N. mandates.

The judges will decide if claims are just... The legal system can only work if you are free to file complaints. Where is the jury?

Don't worry too much about your American pals... they have made unilateral agreements with many countries to escape prosecution. They also have many means of pressure to avoid that justice will be done. (which could just as easily prove them to be not guilty) So what prevents other nations from making deals? Is this what you call a fair court? Where all the judges are bribed by half the nations in the world?

You just made an excellent point NOT to join the ICC.

Read the Geneva and Hague conventions... I'm sure the judges will do that too. Somewhere it says that attacks must discriminate between civilians and combatants. That excludes the use of poison gas for example. It is possible that this also excludes bombing a town from kilometers up in the sky. The judges will rule if this is the case. Get real. There is no way you can wage war if you can't kill civilians. Tragic, but true.

It's hard to distinguish with a cluster bomb. Easier with a bullet. See the difference? So you're saying all fighting has to be done on the ground with bullets... More deaths will be the result, on the U.S. side. Do you support more deaths? You sure make a nice argument for it.

The santions would be in the ICC Statute... Who is going to apply sanctions on the U.S.? PLEASE, tell me. We're the biggest market. It would hurt us, but it would be suicide for any nation to put sanctions on the United States.

Get real.

First, there is no such thing as INTERNATIONAL LAW. Law implies a higher authority. There is no higher authority than a nation's sovereignty. No nation has the right to tell another nation what to do. Even if it is the majority of nations. The world isn't a democracy. When conflict happens, diplomacy is tried and then war. That is the game.
we're all doomed, i just know it...

Where is the jury?

I thought you didn't like communist people decide stuff?

So what prevents other nations from making deals? Is this what you call a fair court? Where all the judges are bribed by half the nations in the world?

Some of the countries who have signed the Rome treaty on the ICC make deals with the US. Not the judges. The judges are not bribed.

The ICC is a 'deal'. The deal to see justice done.

Get real. There is no way you can wage war if you can't kill civilians.

'Collateral damage' must be minimised. Dropping bombs from the heavens might prove not to be cautious enough to comply with international law. But I'm not the judge.

So you're saying all fighting has to be done on the ground with bullets... More deaths will be the result, on the U.S. side. Do you support more deaths? You sure make a nice argument for it.

Weapons that can discriminate are allowed. Some are ruled out by specific treaties. Like anti personnel mines. There's a clear difference between a flamethrower and a bullet, between a rocket from a ship aimed at the centre of a city and a bombardment of a tank convoy.

It would hurt us, but it would be suicide for any nation to put sanctions on the United States.

Individual war criminals can be punished too.

First, there is no such thing as INTERNATIONAL LAW. Law implies a higher authority. There is no higher authority than a nation's sovereignty. No nation has the right to tell another nation what to do. Even if it is the majority of nations. The world isn't a democracy. When conflict happens, diplomacy is tried and then war. That is the game.

That is just not true. There is ius cogens, which is recognized by all countries to be international law. Like not using dum dum bullets.

There are treaties, which are signed and thus binding for the countries who sign. One of these is the UN Treaty. It is International Law, without a doubt.

I don't give a fuck for U.N. mandates.

The US did. Until the last moment, they tried to get a UN mandate for the war. Then they insisted that the previous resolution PERMITTED war... never did they say that they had an inherent right to war. Cause they don't have it. Only in case of self defence, which only includes reaction to direct violation of sovereignity.

They're interesting points, Jerrek:I thought this was a "just" court to allow for the prosecution of war criminals?And we shall see. A "coalition of lawyers and human rights groups" does not an International Criminal Court make.

If twenty people set out to build a case against you as, say, a subversive (you hint that you think of yourself as somewhat anarchic), would you blame the court or the idiots that hauled you there?Ya, isn't it funny that it would be the anti-American crowd that would be bringing these things up?Well, for all the talk of WMD and sponsoring terrorists, the one group of people who seem determined to never be held accountable for their acts and contributions are Americans.

Where, for instance, do you propose we haul Hussein and his regime for prosecution? Let's haul Donald Rumsfeld into the same court for aiding and abetting crimes against humanity.Exactly.Seems you and the Bush administration have something in common.

However, have you ever watched our American prosecutors "build" (manufacture) a case against a suspect? In California, we saw the beginning of the end of "innocent until proven guilty" (e.g. O.J. Simpson), and even when the prosecutors had a map of the defense, they could not manufacture a case to go through, around, or over it. And it's becoming more and more like that: pick a suspect, consider him guilty, and do whatever you have to do to make it look that way, regardless of whether it's right or not. I might point to Utah, and the investigation of the kidnapping of Elizabeth Smart; the wrong suspect died in custody. They wanted so badly for Ricci to be guilty that they never pursued the "Emmanual" lead.

All the manufacturing of a war crimes case does is take the facts at hand and looks for a device in the structure that allows them to be used. Bush pulled out of the ICC because, in part, it did not provide the same protections to American citizens that the Constitution did; in other words, it did not provide American soldiers prosecuted under the ICC with the same Constitutional protections that the administration is working so hard to suspend at home, especially against Muslims.Oh give me a break. So they are saying that if a war breaks out and a civilian is killed that automatically constitutes a war crime? No, there are necessary wars, but we haven't had one in ages. If an illegal (in violation of prior international obligations to due process) war breaks out and a civilian dies ... then you've got an issue.I hope Britain has the balls to pull out of the ICC. Now.When civility is too much of a headache, just withdraw from civility? That's more an American trait than a British one.Who the fuck are all these courts? I've never head of the People's Tribunal in Rome. That sounds suspiciously like some communist thing. "The people's" will.Well, why don't you go out on the internet and find out? Seems simple enough. :rolleyes: And regular munitions can distinguish between civilians and military targets right?If I fire a bullet at someone, I can hit him or not. Maybe I'll miss and kill a civilian. But a cluster bomb? If I hit my target, I also hit about thirty others.

Did you ever, on the Fourth of July, stand on the terrace, light a belt of 500 Black Cats, and throw it into the crowd below? What's the problem, after all? You're "just setting off some fireworks."Now on a side note, if they put the U.S. on trial and all those judges from Syria, Iran, Pakistan, France, and Germany find the U.S. guilty of violating International Law or war crimes or something, erm, what exactly do they plan on doing? Pass more resolutions? Good point.

Depending on how many rounds it goes and how far we push it, the result might be that more civilized nations will accept the tragic necessity of another fleet of 757's crashing into our cities. Was WTC an act of terror or an act of war?

Of course, when American terrorists shooting civilians call Arabs attacking coalition soldiers "terrorist", I think I understand why people have a hard time distinguishing between WTC as an act of terror and WTC as an act of war.

Look, every time the world makes an agreement, the civilized nations are committed to it until the US wants to break it. And then we hear about "necessity" and so forth.

One of these days the world will stand up to the US; whether or not we're surprised will tell us much about what the world will need to do at that point.

A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away .... Jerrek, would you side with Coruscant (http://www.theforce.net/theater/shortfilms/troops/)?

Why is it that the evil things that prior empires have done are noble when we undertake them in the US? The US has built and held WMD in violation of its agreements; the US has used WMD; the US has used WMD against its own people; the US has staged an illegal invasion of a foreign country; the US has thumbed its nose and given the finger to the international community. The US has announced its plan for military and political domination of the Arab world. We pretend that we're noble and wonderful and while the US is a better shot than you'll get pretty much anywhere in the world, that doesn't mean the dream will last forever.

I remember one US soldier quoted in the news, speaking of civilian casualties, as saying, "The chick was just in the way." Now, while practice and principle are two different things, I remind everybody that we did not send conscripts to fight this war; all of our soldiers were volunteers, and while it's nice to bring as many home alive as possible, it is their job to kill and die on command; dying randomly is not the job of Iraqi civilians. In principle, the soldiers have an obligation to take fire. Now, similarly, American husbands, in principle, have an obligation to not beat their wives. Practice and principle are two different things. But that's why the world wants courts for war crimes. The US gave better care to the lives of its soldiers than it did to the civilians it claims to liberate. Mere convenience is not an excuse for butchering civilians as we did. If we're the good guys, leave the murdering of women and children to the bad guys.

I would be pleased to see Rumsfeld prosecuted for aiding and abetting Hussein's crimes against humanity; I would like to see George W. Bush prosecuted for the damages caused by the US refusal to establish law and order for political reasons. No, I wouldn't like the idea of American soldiers inside a mosque shooting at people, either, but that's one of the things the war dogs should have thought of before going into Iraq.

In the long run, the legitimacy of the charges "manufactured" against the Bush administration will speak much; also of importance will be the structures by which the prosecution becomes possible. Consider in the US--many times, if the state courts fail to convict someone the state wants badly, they'll haul the suspect into Federal Court on tax evasion, civil rights, or other federal charges in order to circumvent double jeopardy. Some of these federal cases have merit; others don't.

So it will be with any charges against the ICC; it might be that the interested parties have a definitive logical chain that will get them what they want; how reasonable the circumstances are will speak much.

Oh, and to revisit: I thought this was a "just" court to allow for the prosecution of war criminals?

Would it be just if only some of the guilty were charged with crimes? Justice demands equality; "the son of a bitch had it coming" isn't a defense that works in a US court, so why would we expect the world to buy it? We've broken laws; we're actually hiding from the structure that can most effectively punish the guilty specifically because the administration knew this was coming.

If I broke into your house and knocked you cold, would "I needed the Tylenol in his bathroom to alleviate someone's suffering (e.g. "headache")" be a proper defense? Hell, I broke the law, but it was for a good cause, and you happened to get in the way ....

Or was there a better way to get the Tylenol?

:m:,
Tiassa :cool:

I thought you didn't like communist people decide stuff? I fail to see what a jury has to do with communist people? A trial should be in front of a jury of your peers, where the crime was committed. If the U.S. is accused of warcrimes in Iraq, pull some citizens in Iraq and ask THEM what they think.

The judges are not bribed. So the judges are completely immune from bribery and corruption?

The ICC is a 'deal'. The deal to see justice done. Justice as in, try the United States but not Saddam?

I'm not interested in that "justice."

Dropping bombs from the heavens might prove not to be cautious enough to comply with international law. There you go with that "law" thing again.

Weapons that can discriminate are allowed. Some are ruled out by specific treaties. Like anti personnel mines. There's a clear difference between a flamethrower and a bullet, between a rocket from a ship aimed at the centre of a city and a bombardment of a tank convoy. You made absolutely no point that I can see in that paragraph.

Individual war criminals can be punished too. Like Saddam who has been offered sanctuary in multiple countries? And Idi Amien who is living a rich lifestyle in Saudi Arabia? Nice try.

That is just not true. Substantiate that.

There are treaties, which are signed and thus binding for the countries who sign. Treaties does not imply law. If I make a treaty with my neighbor not to walk over his lawn does not mean it is a criminal offense to walk over his lawn.

The US did. Until the last moment, they tried to get a UN mandate for the war. You know why? Bush is bending over backwards to help out Blair. Very honorable from him.

Where, for instance, do you propose we haul Hussein and his regime for prosecution? Let's haul Donald Rumsfeld into the same court for aiding and abetting crimes against humanity. Iraq. Let the Iraqi people judge Hussein.

Well, why don't you go out on the internet and find out? Seems simple enough. I'm not interested in keeping up with Europe's fetish of creating international courts like multiplying rabbits.

If I fire a bullet at someone, I can hit him or not. Maybe I'll miss and kill a civilian. But a cluster bomb? If I hit my target, I also hit about thirty others. So you also only support ground forces firing individual shots at people, and thus creating a higher fatality rate among American soldiers? More death is what you want?

Look, every time the world makes an agreement, the civilized nations are committed to it until the US wants to break it. And then we hear about "necessity" and so forth. Well then, let us end AMERICAN IMPERIALISM RIGHT HERE. We should withdraw from the U.N. because of all the treaty violations, and we should also withdraw from the ICC because we don't want to extend our influence in the world.

the US has used WMD against its own people; Citations please.

the US has staged an illegal invasion of a foreign country Illegal implies some sort of law. I fail to see which law the U.S. has violated. They are merely enforcing resolution 1441.

US has thumbed its nose and given the finger to the international communityYou mean, Britain, Australia, Poland, Denmark, + crap load of other nations?

I remember one US soldier quoted in the news, speaking of civilian casualties, as saying, "The chick was just in the way." Citations please.

I would be pleased to see Rumsfeld prosecuted for aiding and abetting Hussein's crimes against humanity; I would like to see George W. Bush prosecuted for the damages caused by the US refusal to establish law and order for political reasons. And in your next post you will of course ask, "Why do people call me anti-American?" That is borderlining treason.

Tell me one thing. If you were drafted, would you obey your Commander-in-Chief or would you disobey him, be court martialed, and stand up against your own people?

Would it be just if only some of the guilty were charged with crimes? Justice demands equality; Equality so that, "Like Saddam who has been offered sanctuary in multiple countries? And Idi Amien who is living a rich lifestyle in Saudi Arabia? Nice try."

Hah. Joke.

And in your next post you will of course ask, "Why do people call me anti-American?" That is borderlining treason.
Ney, just someone exercising their right of speech.

Tell me one thing. If you were drafted, would you obey your Commander-in-Chief or would you disobey him, be court martialed, and stand up against your own people?
Really good point! Let's follow our leaders blindly, where ever they send us! Let's obey their every command, whatever the possible result!

Damn, i'd be really a lousy soldier.

Ney, just someone exercising their right of speech. Perhaps, but does freedom of speech include you helping the enemy? Suppose you know the location of your own people, but you are against what they're doing. Should you have the right to tell the enemy the location?

Really good point! Let's follow our leaders blindly, where ever they send us! Let's obey their every command, whatever the possible result! When you're in the military, that is required from you. You are free to have other opinions, but in the military, you obey the chain of command.

Damn, i'd be really a lousy soldier. I think the majority of Europeans follow your line or reasoning, which is why Europe is always in the shitter.

If the US does not abide by international law, then no country should. Every country should be able to do what they think is right. If that means building Nuclear Weapons Programs, then so be it. Just because the US is the biggest bully on the block, that should not give it carte blanche to do what it wants while it denies to the rest of the world {or at least 3rd world countries} the same that it does.

If we push for international business, we should have an international law. If a US corporation has offices in all parts of the world and the US military can be called in to ensure the rights of "US interest" all over the world - damned the country they may be in - then the US should be held responsible for whatever it does against that countries population.

The Nuremberg trials convicting Nazis after World War II gave the idea a generally positive tenor. And the United States has been the prime mover for additional international criminal tribunals in the former Yugoslavia, Iraq, Cambodia and - belatedly - Rwanda. America's refusal to support a permanent court, therefore, has led to charges of hypocrisy. The influential British magazine the Economist concluded: "America clearly believes in building a system of international justice, but on one vital condition: that such a system does not apply to America itself." http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a384f2fad5083.htm

The World Court has the power to adjudicate cases brought before the court by any member state against any other state. It does not have jurisdiction over individuals. It does not have any enforcement mechanism of its own to compel compliance.
The World Court can be effective if its decisions are supported and enforced by the Security Council. It can never enforce a decision rendered against one of the 5 permanent members, since each of the 5 possesses a veto. When the court decided against the United States in a claim brought by Nicaragua, and authorized reparations to be paid, the United States refused to recognize the jurisdiction of the court. http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/westn/worldcourt.html

I will never apologize for the United States
of America. I don't care what the facts are.
George Bush{1}
This is a very good reason why the US won't join (http://members.aol.com/superogue/sorry.htm)

Summaries of the Decisions /Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua/Nicaragua v. USA/Judgment of the Court of June 27,1986 (http://www.virtual-institute.de/en/wcd/dec0102.cfm)

Originally posted by Jerrek
Illegal implies some sort of law. I fail to see which law the U.S. has violated. They are merely enforcing resolution 1441.

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/index.html

As a member of hte United Nations, the United States has the obligation to uphold the charter. They went into Iraq to take Saddam out, they went in for a regime change. That action violates the sovereignty of hte Iraqi nation, it does not matter if Saddam was "evil" or not. Evil is relative.

As for your original whining in this topic, as Tiassa pointed out, a coalition of lawyers and human rights activists is not hte ICC. They most likely will not get anywhere with their case.

To your whining about the ICC not prosecuting Saddam, its because THEY HAVE NO WAY OF DOING SO!! Iraq is not a member nation. And even if they could, do you really think there would be an unbiased trial for Saddam? Likely not. So why is it okay for him, and not for the US??

A trial should be in front of a jury of your peers, where the crime was committed
So this is why 'Iraqi war criminals' will be punished under United States law?

Please sir, explain to me how you would want to elect fair and impartial judges.

How can you elect fair an unbiased judges in any legal system?

Sounds to me like you have a problem with law itself Jerrek, not just the ICC:rolleyes: