4 ms·

“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime

“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.”

arcticbull 4y ago
Which is all fine and good until you go committing war crimes on foreign soil in regions that may not have proper legal frameworks. Committing war crimes in Iraq for instance. Which is kind of where the whole ICC thing comes into play - it's not really for like, speeding tickets. The US had the opportunity during development of the framework to engage and ensure all the other terms could be fairly met. Note that the text you quoted was also an amendment to what was meant to be a living document, albeit long since ossified.
- dogma1138 4y ago
  The US did tried to do that, it was overruled which is why the Clinton administration voted no. The US government is not allowed to participate or facilitate a criminal prosecution that would deny a US citizen their constitutional rights there has been a Supreme Court case about this already ironically in 1998 which was also one of the triggers for voting no. On a side note the ICC is terrible, any party can bring up a case, there is no separation of duties, no defined scope and no right of appeal. The ICC is nothing more than virtue signaling, and should never been established in its current form the world was just too high on its own supply of late 90’s hopium at that point to care.
  - pyuser583 4y ago
    What was the court case?
    - dogma1138 4y ago
      UNITED STATES v. BALSYS https://via.library.depaul.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1711&context=law-review https://via.library.depaul.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1...
  - flangola7 4y ago
    Any argument that contains the phrase "virtue signaling" can be safely discarded.

arcticbull 4y ago

Which is all fine and good until you go committing war crimes on foreign soil in regions that may not have proper legal frameworks. Committing war crimes in Iraq for instance. Which is kind of where the whole ICC thing comes into play - it's not really for like, speeding tickets. The US had the opportunity during development of the framework to engage and ensure all the other terms could be fairly met. Note that the text you quoted was also an amendment to what was meant to be a living document, albeit long since ossified.

dogma1138 4y ago
The US did tried to do that, it was overruled which is why the Clinton administration voted no. The US government is not allowed to participate or facilitate a criminal prosecution that would deny a US citizen their constitutional rights there has been a Supreme Court case about this already ironically in 1998 which was also one of the triggers for voting no. On a side note the ICC is terrible, any party can bring up a case, there is no separation of duties, no defined scope and no right of appeal. The ICC is nothing more than virtue signaling, and should never been established in its current form the world was just too high on its own supply of late 90’s hopium at that point to care.
- pyuser583 4y ago
  What was the court case?
  - dogma1138 4y ago
    UNITED STATES v. BALSYS https://via.library.depaul.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1711&context=law-review https://via.library.depaul.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1...
- flangola7 4y ago
  Any argument that contains the phrase "virtue signaling" can be safely discarded.