4 ms·

..but on the other hand, the US is not part of the ICC (it hasn't signed the 1998 Rome Statute of the ICC), and it also has this jolly federal law in place (200

by wfn 12y ago

..but on the other hand, the US is not part of the ICC (it hasn't signed the 1998 Rome Statute of the ICC), and it also has this jolly federal law in place (2002): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Protection_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Pr... The new law authorizes the use of military force to liberate any American or citizen of a U.S.-allied country being held by the court, which is located in The Hague. This provision, dubbed the "Hague invasion clause," has caused a strong reaction from U.S. allies around the world [...] http://www.hrw.org/news/2002/08/03/us-hague-invasion-act-becomes-law http://www.hrw.org/news/2002/08/03/us-hague-invasion-act-bec...

dragonwriter 12y ago
This is not entirely correct; the US is not a party to the Rome Statute, true, but it in fact Bill Clinton did sign the Rome Statute, but it was never submitted for ratification, and George W. Bush's administration sent a note purporting to retract the signature (as a means of avoid obligations that attach to signatories to treaties even prior to ratification under the Vienna Convention on Treaties, specifically, the obligation not to work to undermine the treaty's purpose.) The US has engaged more positively (but without any moves toward ratification or even retracting the purported retraction of its signature) with the ICC under the Obama Administration.
- wfn 12y ago
  Thanks for providing these details. (I didn't even know that Bill Clinton did actually sign the statute, even though it was effectively retracted (if only via (GWB) sending a note purporting to retract the signature, as I take it.))
- CWuestefeld 12y ago
  I'm not sure what the president's signature, or retraction of signature, should be expected to mean. The key is its ratification by the Senate.
mcv 12y ago
You don't have to be signatory to the ICC for torture to be illegal. The ICC is fairly recent. We didn't need the ICC at Nuremberg. We don't need it now. It can be prosecuted within the US justice system, or a new tibunal can be created for it.

by wfn 12y ago

dragonwriter 12y ago

This is not entirely correct; the US is not a party to the Rome Statute, true, but it in fact Bill Clinton did sign the Rome Statute, but it was never submitted for ratification, and George W. Bush's administration sent a note purporting to retract the signature (as a means of avoid obligations that attach to signatories to treaties even prior to ratification under the Vienna Convention on Treaties, specifically, the obligation not to work to undermine the treaty's purpose.) The US has engaged more positively (but without any moves toward ratification or even retracting the purported retraction of its signature) with the ICC under the Obama Administration.

wfn 12y ago
Thanks for providing these details. (I didn't even know that Bill Clinton did actually sign the statute, even though it was effectively retracted (if only via (GWB) sending a note purporting to retract the signature, as I take it.))
CWuestefeld 12y ago
I'm not sure what the president's signature, or retraction of signature, should be expected to mean. The key is its ratification by the Senate.

mcv 12y ago

You don't have to be signatory to the ICC for torture to be illegal. The ICC is fairly recent. We didn't need the ICC at Nuremberg. We don't need it now. It can be prosecuted within the US justice system, or a new tibunal can be created for it.