USA - Rome Statute - ICC

ꕤ Info ROME STATUTE as marked USA & ISRAEL - 'UNSIGN' AS SIGNATORIES TO ROME STATUTE [Click on Image for Clear View, or link to article(s)] Jurist [Click on Image for Clear View, or link to article(s)] USA THREATENS MILITARY FORCE IF USA BROUGHT BEFORE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT American Free Press [Click on Image for Clear View, or link to article(s)] American Free Press [Click on Image for Clear View, or link to article(s)] US-NATO / CIA PROPAGANDA SELLING AFGHANISTAN WAR USA UNSIGNING ROME STATUTE USA THREATENING MILITARY ACTION RE BRINGING USA BEFORE ICC CIA PROPAGANDA & MEDIA CONTROL - GENERAL Page | Link ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- COMMENT As at 2015, USA is not party to the Rome Statute (nor is Israel ... and some others). However, both USA and Israel were parties to the Rome Statute, but both 'unsigned' themselves -- in the US case, by the Bush-Cheney administration in 2002 (post invasion of Afghanistan, and just prior to illegal invasion of Iraq). I'd forgotten that the US has threatened to USE FORCE if its citizens were brought before the International Criminal Court (ICC), per the Rome Statute. How shady is this?   And how hypocritical is it to then expect (and lobby) to bring other states before the ICC for war crimes prosecution?  Especially states targeted for regime change:  Libya and Syria. -------/\/\/ Edit  |  March 2016: In the lead-up to the establishment of the ICC, USA signed up to the ICC just before the December 2000 deadline: -- to ensure that it would be a State party to the agreement -- that could participate in DECISION-MAKING on how the Court works To make certain it would remain immune to prosecution: Washington began to negotiate bilateral agreements with other countries, insuring immunity of US nationals from prosecution by the Court. As leverage, Washington threatened termination of economic aid, withdrawal of military assistance, and other painful measures. Washington ... has no intention to join the ICC, due to its concern about possible charges against US nationals. https://www.globalpolicy.org/international-justice/the-international-criminal-court/us-opposition-to-the-icc.html 'Hague Invasion Act'  - Servicemembers Protection Act (ASPA) (2002)   In addition: US threatens military force if personnel held at The Hague: -- U.S. President George Bush -- 3 August, 2002, signs: -- Servicemembers Protection Act (ASPA) (2002) -- dubbed the 'Hague Invasion Act' -- because the law:     -- law authorises the use of US military force     -- to liberate any American or citizen of a US-allied country     -- being held by ICC in The Hague -- USA punishing those that ratify ICC treaty     -- Servicemembers Protection Act     -- provides for withdrawal of US military assistance     -- from countries ratifying the ICC treaty     -- reconstructs US participation in UN peacekeeping, unless US obtains immunity from prosecution     -- but provisions may be waived on 'national interests' grounds -- however, the US has written into law, the provision that the US may:     -- assist internationally to 'bring to justice' those accused of:         -- genocide;         -- war crimes;         -- crimes against humanity;     -- including assistance with efforts of ICC. *USA makes an exception of itself and its partners in crime. http://www.globalissues.org/article/490/united-states-and-the-icc [Think I might need to re-work this untidy post some time  :)  ] ꕤ