I suspect very "wise" men have made the act, and thus are responsible for it. If the US has no intention to invade us, why do they have written the act in the first place.
Piet,
Good comments.
Like any piece of legislation, I believe that there is some good and some bad in it. How is that for a diplomatic answer?
Here are the key provisions:
* The act restricts U.S. participation in any peacekeeping mission and prohibits military assistance for those nations that ratify the ICC Treaty, with the exception of NATO member countries and other major allies (Australia, Egypt, Israel, Japan, the Republic of Korea, and New Zealand were cited as members of this category). In addition, it authorizes the President to use "all means necessary and appropriate" to bring about the release from captivity of U.S. or Allied personnel detained or imprisoned against their will by or on behalf of the Court.
* The President may waive this restriction for countries that ratify the treaty if he reports to Congress that such cooperation is in the national security interest of the U.S. and the country has entered into an agreement with the United States protecting U.S. personnel from extradition to the Court.
* The U.S. may not participate in any peacekeeping mission unless the President certifies to Congress that the Security Council has exempted U.S. Armed Forces members from prosecution and each country in which U.S. personnel will be present is either not a Party to the ICC or has an agreement with the U.S. exempting U.S. Armed Forces members from prosecution; or that the U.S. has taken other appropriate steps to guarantee that U.S. Armed Forces members will not be prosecuted.
* No governmental entity in the United States, including State and local governments or any court, may cooperate with the International Criminal Court in matters such as arrest and extradition of suspects, execution of searches and seizures, taking of evidence, seizure of assets, and similar matters.
* No agent of the ICC may conduct in the US any investigative activity. The President should use the U.S. voice and vote at the Security Council to ensure that each resolution authorizing any U.N. peacekeeping operation permanently exempts members of the U.S. armed forces from prosecution by the ICC.
* No classified national security information can be transferred directly or indirectly to the ICC or to countries that are Party to the Rome Statute.
* The President is required to transmit two reports on allied command arrangements. The first must describe the degree to which members of Armed Forces may be placed under the command or operational control of foreign military officers subject to ICC jurisdiction and evaluate the degree of risk in such arrangements. The second must describe modifications to command and operational control arrangements with allies to reduce such risk.
In my opinion Piet, the key problem comes from the fact that the previous administration signed on to the Treaty and at the same time issued recommendations against presenting it to Congress for ratification. This combined with the fact that the U.S. is involved in operations around the world, seems to have pushed lawmakers into action. Unfortunately, as it is always the case, lawmakers produced a legislation that leaves many questions unanswered. They were very careful not to define the meaning of
"all means necessary and appropriate", however I am confident that invading The Hague does not fit the bill.
Christian
And Americans still wonder why people all over the world dislike their attitiude.
