Why has the United States decided not to become a member of the International Criminal Court?
370145
The U.S. Constitution is the "Supreme law of the land." No treaty adopting the criminal law of an international body can overrule the protections contained in the first ten amendments (The Bill of Rights). \n\nThus, the only way that the U.S. could become a member of the International Criminal Court, such that the Court's decisions would have binding effect on U.S. citizens, would be if the U.S. Constitution were amended to include this provision.\n\nI cannot imagine the conditions which would be necessary for a super-majority (2/3rds) of the U.S. Congress and all of the 50 States to vote to enact such an amendment. \n\nTherefore, our membership in the International Criminal Court would be a meaningless jesture, because its rulings could not be imposed on anyone in the United States.
688146
Well, key isolationist move was Senate refusal to ratify the Treaty of Versailles, which would have dedicated US troops to support the League of Nations, which was proposed by President Wilson.  This kept the US out of the League, which was a failure (before being resurrected as the United Nations which is, as we know, also a failure).
200769
I don't believe that the USA has the right to involve in other countries politics. It might be done because it is helpfull for the country (oil in iraq?). But I believe that bigger organisation should do it if we're talking about a dictatorship or corruption.
419474
USA doesn't accept because Israel don't and they think that Ham mas will encourage Palestinian to resist the Israel occupation so they didn't accept it cause they ant them to stop fighting and to give their land to Israel.cause there is no Justice in this world
1096839
Before you go off on rants you should really read the decision. The court left open the possibility of congress enacting new law allowing tribunals.\n\nI also feel the need to point out that these are not American citizens, and as such are not subject to the same rights as American citizens. They are also not true enemy combatants which does not make them subject to the Geneva Convention. The Supreme Court has once again over stepped it bounds, and in essence have just ratified a treaty with terrorists which is completely outside their juristiction.\n\nDon't misunderstand I am not trying to slap you down, or denigrate your opinion, just trying to give clarification. I do not believe this decision is a good one for anyone involved. For Americans it puts our safety in jeopardy yet again. It also places the lives of the same people it is designed to help in jeopardy. Consider this, when faced with the reality that we cannot safely detain enemy non- combatants what will the result be on the battlefield? I can tell it isn't going to be altruistic in nature.\n\nDeeJay I don't remember the rights of Americans ever being an issue in this case. In fact in cases where American Citizens have been accused of the same acts they have been tried in American criminal courts with full constitutional protection.
915725
Actually, there is not anyone or anybody, that has binding power over the U.S., but it is on a voluntary basis that the U.S. could bring the dispute to the United Nations, or to the International Court in Hague, and then the U. S. could agree to be bound under whatever was decided.\n\n For example, for action against Iraq, Bush wanted to just go ahead and act against Iraq; but some people in his administration asked that Bush go through the United Nations so, that it has some type of world policy platform. BUT, the U.S. is not under any obligation to obey the United Nations at all. It is a voluntary agreement.
453924
Educate yourself on this issue. You will find that you are wrong. It is up to the United Nations Security Council, not America.\n\nI am American and I don't want war or nukes. I also don't want to be blamed for the actions of the security system set up by the global powers.
92892
cause it isn't the "Humane" thing to do, the U.S. wants to show that it has compassion for criminals and are willing to serve him justice so we can look like good people to the rest of the world who already think we are animals, besides the U.S. government already has him under control, though they probably won't admit it.
1072446
Only Australia and Indonesia. The United States has a "judicial assistance agreement" with procedures for mutual legal assistance, but not extradition.
943524
You know, there were a lot of people in the U.S. Armed Forces (myself included) that would have jumped at the chance to go in to Rwanda and put a stop to the genocide.  I'm not 100% sure about this, but I believe the reason we did not get involved is the U.S. has a long-standing policy of not getting involved in civil wars like the one in Rwanda unless we're asked for help.  The governments of Bosnia and Kosovo requested U.S. aid, including military aid, in the mid-1990's when their civil war was raging with Serbia and Herzegovina and we responded.  There was no such request made by the Rwandan government.\n\nP.S.:  I'm very sorry to hear that your days left here on Earth are few in number.  Don't know if you believe in God, but I hope and pray that He will be with you and comfort you in your last days.\n\nP.P.S.:  Please DO NOT believe everything the mainstream media is trying to sell you.  It's almost entirely a tissue of lies.  There WERE stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction recovered in Iraq, we DID capture or kill hundreds of al-Qaeda operatives (I have colleagues in all the branches of the service that have seen the WMD stockpiles and the captured/killed al-Qaeda operatives with their own eyes), and the assertion that our military members are killing innocent men, women and children is an out-and-out falsehood -- it's the terrorists and the factions that are fighting for power that are killing innocent civilians.  Our troops are doing everything humanly possible to keep the number of injured/killed non-combatants to a minimum.
1145796
With the latest reports out of Iraq and across the world, it is evident that the United States has broken many of the U.N. charter rules.These include torture and the basic rules of war. I know that this is an unpopular choice, but sometimes the correct response is not always the most popular.
445048
Why not? America has all the money in the world. Everybody should be tried for one reason or another.\n\nAt least we will be busy.
485340
History judges us all and this particular war may be judged either way. Most opinion points towards it being pointless and a massivley needless loss of life. The pre-texts on going to war had alot of fabrications and in reality the US wanted control of the oil flow and also the middle east is a strategic part of the world. Those are two reasons for the invasion. \n\nIraq didn't have WMD and was halfway around the world with no way of threatning the US. If people would like to say that it was harbouring terrorists then most nations on earth are guilty as most terrorists live in obscurity and the domestic security services haven't tracked them down. Any nation is guilty of harbouring terrorists has the security services haven't stopped them from entering. \n\nSaddam was however guilty of inhuman acts and Iraq was a country denied some basic human rights. Those are two good reasons for the invasion. That can't however be used alone as many other countrys have the same problems and these are dealt with by the UN the same should have been for Iraq. Unfourtunatley the UN is often seen as doing very little a for example Sudan, Sierra Leone and Somalia. All we can do for these countries is send aid which sometimes gets confiscated.\n\nHistory will be the judge and we have to be content with that for now.
805447
International law - no grounds for it.\n\nA stronger case could be made for treason trials for several Democratic leaders.  Are you in?
596018
Because International Court of Justice is toothless and cannot impose any sanctions on Israel. \nSo Israel does not feel compelled to follow this decision unless some military or economic sanctions will be imposed in Israel.
937614
A lot of the reason why the United States did not intervene was because of how the situation in Somolia was handled.  The US was too scared to get involved in anothe African conflict.\n\nAlso, the US has a history of not intervening unless there is profit.  Just look at how long it took for the US to join in the war against Nazi Germany!!  And even then, it was only because we were directly attacked.
803557
I agree with you, but as someone else said the US does not recognize  the World Court, (Bush's decision,) I wonder why? In my books, Henry Kissinger would be the 1st up against the wall. \n\nI really cannot believe that after all that has come to the service, people like LYRA still refuse to accept reality. \n" There are none so blind as those who will not see"