Because all U.S. citizens should have the protection of their Constitutional rights, regardless of where they are located.

 

Just giving a scenario in which your Constitutional rights would be null and void.

 

That's not how it works at all hahahahahahaha. Weren't you the one who brought up jurisdiction? So the whole world is in US jurisdiction? Give me a break...

 

OK, well here's another scenario where your Constitutional rights become null and void: you commit mass murder under the guise of military action in a foreign country.

 

So in your world all American's abroad would no longer have U.S. Constitutional protection? or would it just be servicemembers?

 

At what point did said American's lose their Constitutional rights? When they put on the uni? When they were accused..possibly falsely? When they were put on trial? When they were executed?

 

Are you under the impression that if you commit a crime in a foreign country that you get to come back the the US for a trial? Wrong. You get tried by the country where you commit the crime, under their rules. Don't you remember the kid that got caned in Singapore? This brings up the issue of false accusations...oh yeah...that's why there's an international court system for war crimes...



of course you think the US military should be exempt from that process...

 

Wrong. It is often dependent on the crime...however with servicemembers it is always U.S. jurisdiction first.

Why not answer any of my questions?

 

Because your questions are what are known as leading questions, which are not worth answering.



http://www.un.org/law/icc/statute/99_corr/2.htm

War crimes= international jurisdiction

 

http://www.state.gov/t/pm/rls/othr/misc/23425.htm

American Service-Members' Protection Act


Right back at you.

Highlights

On July 17, 1998, the United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, meeting in Rome, Italy, adopted the `Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court'. The vote on whether to proceed with the statute was 120 in favor to 7 against, with 21 countries abstaining. The United States voted against final adoption of the Rome Statute.

Ambassador Scheffer went on to tell the Congress that: `Multinational peacekeeping forces operating in a country that has joined the treaty can be exposed to the Court's jurisdiction even if the country of the individual peacekeeper has not joined the treaty. Thus, the treaty purports to establish an arrangement whereby United States armed forces operating overseas could be conceivably prosecuted by the international court even if the United States has not agreed to be bound by the treaty. Not only is this contrary to the most fundamental principles of treaty law, it could inhibit the ability of the United States to use its military to meet alliance obligations and participate in multinational operations, including humanitarian interventions to save civilian lives. Other contributors to peacekeeping operations will be similarly exposed.'.

Any American prosecuted by the International Criminal Court will, under the Rome Statute, be denied procedural protections to which all Americans are entitled under the Bill of Rights to the United States Constitution, such as the right to trial by jury.

Members of the Armed Forces of the United States should be free from the risk of prosecution by the International Criminal Court, especially when they are stationed or deployed around the world to protect the vital national interests of the United States. The United States Government has an obligation to protect the members of its Armed Forces, to the maximum extent possible, against criminal prosecutions carried out by the International Criminal Court.

In addition to exposing members of the Armed Forces of the United States to the risk of international criminal prosecution, the Rome Statute creates a risk that the President and other senior elected and appointed officials of the United States Government may be prosecuted by the International Criminal Court. Particularly if the Preparatory Commission agrees on a definition of the Crime of Aggression over United States objections, senior United States officials may be at risk of criminal prosecution for national security decisions involving such matters as responding to acts of terrorism, preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and deterring aggression. No less than members of the Armed Forces of the United States, senior officials of the United States Government should be free from the risk of prosecution by the International Criminal Court, especially with respect to official actions taken by them to protect the national interests of the United States.

It is a fundamental principle of international law that a treaty is binding upon its parties only and that it does not create obligations for nonparties without their consent to be bound. The United States is not a party to the Rome Statute and will not be bound by any of its terms. The United States will not recognize the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court over United States nationals.

Nothing in this title shall prohibit the United States from rendering assistance to international efforts to bring to justice Saddam Hussein, Slobodan Milosovic, Osama bin Laden, other members of Al Queda, leaders of Islamic Jihad, and other foreign nationals accused of genocide, war crimes or crimes against humanity.


Suck it

 

Alright, so the US didn't agree to it even though pretty much everyone else did...have you seen the list of other countries who didn't like that treaty? Great company...


way to keep civil too...are you in HS?


And anyway, this all started with me asking a simple question. What is wrong with an objective international trial for war criminals regardless of their country of origin? I see your points about not having the country where the war is prosecute and hold the trial...but what is there to be affraid of with an international one? A 'global conspiracy'? Or do you want to presearve the right of American soldiers to be tried by a clearly biased system. It's the same thing as being tried by the country where the war is only with the potential for the opposite bias.

 

Who cares what everyone else does especially if they don't deploy their troops in U.N. peace keeping missions like we do.

As for keeping it civil....I find it difficult to be civil to someone who support stripping the rights of citizens, especially those serving

 

Have the rest of the world elevate their legal systems to include protections granted under our Constitution and our Bill of Rights and I would consider supporting a treaty similar to the Rome one.

 

If I remember correctly, wern't there about a hundred or so civilians found and released by marines about a year ago that were being held and tortured in a secret underground facility by the iraqi army?

Would you seriouslety want an American, or anyone for that matter tried in an Iraqi court?

 

Unexcusable and not so surprising to me.

A lot of these men are on the breaking point we only read about in history books.