Talk:United States and the International Criminal Court

Comment
Hi there! My name is Mirelis Gonzalez and I'm a senior at Syracuse University studying International Relations. As part of the Wikimedia Foundation's Public Policy initiative, I will be editing this entry over the next few weeks. It'd be great if I could have the support of the Wikipedia community, especially those that have been working with the US and the ICC entry. I look forward to editing and working alongside everyone! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.119.216.33 (talk) 20:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Broken Links
Please keep checking links to ensure they are not broken.

"Objections to the ICC under the U.S. Constitution and International Law" link is currently broken - March 7th 2010. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt R Austin (talk • contribs)

Recent Edits (May 11 2008)
The article does not reflect enough the hipocrisy of the usa, that likes to present itself as champion of human right but in fact is afraid that internationally commited crimes be judged by an internation body en par with china and the like. Reminds me of israel refusing an international investigation comition to its killing of multiple turkisch civilians on international waters. It is always better to be judged by oneself. Otherwise president bush and many us army officials would long have been indicted for crimes against humanity.

=
"What the Nethercutt Amendment does is exempt all US nationals and contractors with the US from accountability for widespread and systematic war crimes, crims against humanity, and genocide committed on the territory of a signatory country. " This is entirely POV. The US not being in ICC does not remove all accountability for war crimes, it just removes the US from the ICC. There are other methods of ensuring accountability beyond ICC. Stating that without the ICC there is no American system to stop military members from shooting up kids is obiviously biased for the ICC.

Also, the way this is written seems to imply that the motivation of the amendment was to allow the US to commit genocide. This is not appropiate. The amendment was written for many reasons, many of which are legitmate and not Darth Vadar-like. Chrisofgenesis (talk) 19:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

"axis of impunity 2005".png
IS NOT Npov. Real cute Anti-americanism you guys throw around on wikipedia. I dont know when it was changed, or if it ever was different, but a better title would be 'article 98 agreement map' or something similar. user:Pzg Ratzinger

Grossly POV
The article is littered with POV statements, such as "One might think of the role the U.S. administration or U.S. citizens have played in conflicts around the world in the past,.." user:Pzg Ratzinger

Agreed. This article needs some serious workuser:chrisofgenesis —Preceding comment was added at 08:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

This article is pure garbage as far as POV is concerned. Another egregious example in addition the one mentioned above is this one: "However, knowledge of the Court was limited with only half of the Republicans knowing that the Court was opposed by the US government. Levels of support among Republicans were lower after the interviewees learned that the Court was opposed by the Bush administration." Why is the level of knowledge of Democrats not mentioned? The implication of the above quote is obvious. If you want to believe Republicans are ignorant, that is your prerogative, but keep your political views to yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.28.75.230 (talk) 22:22, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

"article 98" agreements
I might be wrong, but I wonder whether the term "article 98 agreements" can be considered NPOV. After all, it seems to reflect the belief that the bilateral agreements signed by the USA are actually compatible with article 98 of the Statute of the ICC, but that is only the US Government's point of view, and there are some pretty strong arguments against that interpretation. Amnesty International calls them "impunity agreements", but then again of course Amnesty doesn't really aim at being NPOV. So, should the term be changed, and how?

SFinamore 18:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I certainly wouldn't want to call them impunity agreements! I agree though that Article 98 is POV because it infers that they are consistent with the statute which plenty of people contest. I've only ever heard them being called Article 98 or Impunity Agreements - not much middle ground to go on. Perhaps something like "No-surrender" agreements? AndrewRT(Talk) 23:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * "no-surrender" agreements sounds ok, but I'm not able to tell whether that's technically correct. Maybe they could just be called "bilateral agreements", and the content of these agreements could be made clear by the context. SFinamore 12:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The 2nd to last paragraph contains conflicting sentences:

By June 2005 around 100 states had signed a bilateral agreement with the United States, including at least seven of them that signed the agreement secretly. Many of these agreements are with non-States Parties to the Court. 58 of the 100 countries have not signed these bilateral agreements, despite U.S. pressure.

(emphasis added)

How can it be that 58 of the 100 who signed have also not signed them? --Ottos-caretaker 19:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia should (when possible) use the normal words and phrases of common ordinary useage. I have no problem with calling them no surrender agreements - or Article 98, if that is what everyone clls them. We are an encyclopedia, we use the words and phrases in their normal context and we do not make up new ones, or spin them. Raggz 04:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

"Romania was one of the first countries to sign an Article 98 agreement with the United States In response to Romania's action, the European Union requested that candidate countries not sign Article 98 agreements with the United States until the EU ministers had met to agree upon a common position. In October 2002, the Council of the European Union adopted a common position, permitting member states to enter into Article 98 agreements with the United States, but only concerning U.S. military personnel, U.S. diplomatic or consular officials, and persons extradited, sent to their territories by the United States with their permission; not the general protection of U.S. nationals that the United States sought; furthermore the common position provided that any person protected from ICC prosecution by such agreements would have to be prosecuted by the United States. This was in agreement with the original position of the EU, that Article 98 agreements were allowed to cover these restricted classes of persons but could not cover all the citizens of a state."

I expect to delete the text above. Why is it important? Raggz (talk) 08:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Obama
''At least one other Democratic Senator and 2008 Presidential candidate, Barack Obama, promoted resigning the treaty prior to his decision to seek the Presidency. ''

I'm sorry but I don't think this is a valid source per WP:RS. AndrewRT(Talk) 23:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It was meant just as a placeholder, while I was looking for a published secondary source. However, I've been unable to find one.  Will drop reference and tag for fact check, and will just drop entire statement if it's not corroborated within a few days.   MrZaius  talk  01:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Still can't find a verifiable source. Pulled the comment.  Please restore if one arises, however.  MrZaius  talk  09:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Montenegro
MNE signed too the article 98, but it's not on the map... --PaxEquilibrium 15:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Ratification of the ICC Treaty
The article opens with "The status of the United States and the International Criminal Court, amid bipartisan consensus, is that the United States has stated that it does not intend to ratify the treaty creating the International Criminal Court."

There is no citation for this, because the Government of the United States has taken no such position. Many people are confused by the federal system used by the United States, and here is another example of this. Treaties are not ratfied by the Executive Branch, but by the Legislative Branch (Senate). Neither President Clinton nor President Bush has recommended to the Senate that this treaty be ratified. It would be accurate to state this, but NOT that the United States has stated that it does not intend to ratify the treaty creating the International Criminal Court". It would be accurate to state that two presidents have refused to submit this treaty to the Senate for consideration.

There are Senators who want to ratify it, Senators who do not. There is no bi-partisan consensus on this (or anything).

Please revise this to make the opening accurate. Please cite your sources as well. Raggz 03:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * How about this one (cited on the min ICC page - not cited here because I thought it was pretty obvious)


 * "In a communication received on 6 May 2002, the Government of the United States of America informed the Secretary-General of the following:


 * "This is to inform you, in connection with the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court adopted on July 17, 1998, that the United States does not intend to become a party to the treaty. Accordingly, the United States has no legal obligations arising from its signature on December 31, 2000. The United States requests that its intention not to become a party, as expressed in this letter, be reflected in the depositary's status lists relating to this treaty.""


 * AndrewRT(Talk) 15:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

This sentence is too long and confusing: "It can also be argued that such an amendment would be keeping with--and not repugnant to the letter or the spirit of that same Constitution, whose Framers explicitly acknowledged "offenses against the law of nations"[10] (or what we now know as the public international law) as being crimes subject to punishment under the domestic law of the United States, and with the historical role of the United States--a nation whose own Declaration of Independence notes a "decent respect to the opinions of Mankind"--as an advocate for much of the present system of international law, ranging from the issuance of the Lieber Code, to the key role the U.S. played in the Nuremberg Tribunal, to the chartering of the United Nations, to the ICTY, and the ICTR." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.234.222 (talk) 14:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Constitutional Issues
"Commentators have suggested that the treaty could not be ratified without a constitutional amendment, as it creates a court of appeal above the U.S. Supreme Court, which may act if it decides that the United States is unable or unwilling to prosecute any alleged crimes."

This does not offer a citation, but more importantly misses the central issue - the United States Government lacks the authority to enter into any treaty that would deprive citizens of their basic human right of trial by jury. In Europe and much of the world, the basic human right to a jury trial is not recognized, so people from other cultures tend to miss this point because they are not used to thinking about the right to a jury trial as a basic human right. The Constitution of the United States makes this a protected human right, something that the US raised during the drafting of the statute. It is easy to offer citations to prove that the Statute was drafted knowing that the Government of the US lacks authority to join the ICC, if citzens could be tried by judges rather than juries. It was decided to draft the Statute in a way that the US Government lacked authority to ratify. There are many citations for this because it is true.

The quote above is OR, please support it or delete it. Raggz 04:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * There are many citations for this [the Statute was drafted knowing that the Government of the US lacks authority to join the ICC] because it is true
 * Doesn't sound very credible to me, and I followed the drafting process in excruciating detail. Care to provide one of these "many" citations? AndrewRT(Talk) 15:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * "Senator Jesse Helms and others have also vehemently declared the Court an affront to American sovereignty, a danger to our military personnel abroad, an impediment to the US military’s freedom of action, and even unconstitutional. Many of these objections are based on flawed knowledge or understanding of the facts, such as the repeated assertion that Americans tried by the Court will be denied their constitutional rights. In fact, the ICC Statute contains all due process protections with the exception of the right to jury trial." Senator Helms was at that time the most important member of the US Government in regard to the ratification of the Statute. His authority in regard to ratification was far greater than that of President Clinton. He had no authority to negotiate regarding the treaty. Every nation knew these two facts - and also that if the right to a jury trial was not put in the Statute that the US Government would not and could not ratify the Statute. If there was any real desire to include the US, the real issue of juries could have been accomodated. The exclusion of the jury trial was decided upon by people who knew that this meant that the US would not be able to join the ICC. To believe otherwise is to believe that those that drafted the Statute were ignorant of US political realities and processes. I do not believe this to be true. I believe that some preferred that the US be unable to join. Raggz 00:01, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not familiar with the Constitution of the United States so I had a quick read of wikipedia. As per Article Five of the United States Constitution, it appears the constitution may legally be amended in any way it likes, apart from changing the powers of states. There is nothing to suggest this doesn't include removing or limiting the right of a jury trial. I have no idea where you get this idea of a "protected human right". I readily conceed that ratifying the ICC in the US would require a constitutional amendment, including limiting the right of a jury trial and creating an superior appeal court. What more do you want? AndrewRT(Talk) 15:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * We agree then. Basic human rights within the US are those protected by the US Constitution. If I were Chinese and was offered only one human right, I would choose the right of jury trial - because without it, no other right could withstand tyranny. With it, all of the others would be possible to get later. Raggz 23:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The Irish Constitutional Amendment: I just reviewed Andrew's point, that Ireland needed to amend their constitution to join the ICC. In this case, no fundamental human rights needed to be forfeited in exchange for membership - where in the US, several would be compromised by ICC membership. "If the referendum is passed, the State will be in a position to ratify the Rome Statute. The effect of ratification of the Statute will be that some element of sovereignty in criminal matters will be transferred from the potential jurisdiction of the Irish courts to the International Criminal Court."http://www.electionsireland.org/results/referendum/refdetail.cfm?ref=200123R —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raggz (talk • contribs) 06:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

It should also be pointed out, that the use of military tribunals, which has occurred in the United States since the earliest days of the republic without too much of a kerfuffle, also infringes on the right to a jury trial, and is used today, so there would seem to be constitutional ways around the issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.129.64.154 (talk) 13:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The military do not have the right to jury trials or many other fundamental human rights. The US Government likely does have the authority to ratify an ICC treaty that offered the ICC jurisdiction over military personnel. It may not do so for anyone else. Raggz (talk) 08:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The constitutional argument surely cannot be valid, because the United States already has extradition treaties with countries that have no right to jury trials, including Canada and the United Kingdom. Furthermore, some of the countries with which the US has treaties, those using civil law procedures, do not have jury trials and do allow hearsay evidence. It is unreasonable to expect other countries' legal systems to conform with American procedures. What is important is that the foreign systems are fair and that the outcomes would be consistent with that of an American court. --The Four Deuces 23:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The US Constitution specifically does not include military personnel for the right of jury trial, or many other fundamental human rights. Many nations do recognize all of the human rights of military personnel, but the US Constitution does not. It may be "unreasonable to expect other countries' legal systems to conform with American procedures", and the US government does not. It simply lacks the authority to ratify a treaty that denies the fundamental human rights of Americans. Raggz (talk) 08:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, that's not right. The Constitution doesn't specifically exclude the military, the Supreme Court has decided that certain constitutional rights do not apply.  It's an academic argument, because U.S. Servicemembers have a statutory right to a "jury" trial (we call it a "panel" instead of a jury).  It is also not true that we fail to recognize many "human rights" for military servicemembers.  If you think you know of particular "human rights" that we don't have, please be more specific. JCO312 (talk) 05:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Whether or not the Constitution would not allow such a treaty is irrelevant as there exists the possibility of amending it, as other countries have done. Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 11:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No nation has amended their constitution to forfeit any fundamental human right to join the ICC. The Irish never had this fundamental human right, and did not give it up by joining the ICC. The point is that the United States Government lacks the authority to ratify any treaty that forfeits and fundamental human right as the ICC treaty requires. The amendment process often requires a decade or two once initiated. Raggz (talk) 08:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

If you go to the referenced external article "The United States and the International Criminal Court", it does not say that there are any constitutional issues. In fact the implication is that there are no constitutional issues. There is only concern that Americans would not receive due process. Incidentally, it would be practically impossible for the US to amend its constitution to conform to a treaty. --The Four Deuces 18:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Interestingly, another constitutional issue is that the international criminal court affords no protection against double jeopardy; that is, if one is acquitted at trial, the prosecutor can appeal. I understand this is a common feature of the judiciary of some countries, but it would seem to violate a right granted by the U.S. Constitution. 69.251.180.224 (talk) 14:45, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Older edits
The recent edits by Raggz contain some moderations I would accept but also some factual and typological errors.

In the order they were written:

For a number of reasons, the United States decided that the ICC had unacceptable consequences for our national sovereignty

Our national sovereignty??? I am not an American and Wikipedia is not written from the point of view of America. Perhaps their national sovereignty?

...American notions of sovereignty, checks and balances, and national independence.

What so no other countries in the world believe in these things?

There is no mechanism within the court for the United States to effectively control an independent prosecutor who pursued such an agenda

changed to:

There is no mechanism within the court for the United States to be treated fairly a byn independent prosecutor who pursued such a political agenda

I'm a bit annoyed, firstly that someone has put a tag next to this and other statements. Nearly ALL statements - including this one - come straight fromn the main essay cited. NOT EVERY SENTENCE IN WIKIPEDIA REQUIRES A SUPERSCRIPT. Try reading the sources provided FIRST.

Onto your change. LET ME SPELL THIS POINT OUT. The United States wanted the ICC to be only allowed to prosecute if it first had UNSC permission. This is essentially what happened with the ICTFY and ICTR. Under this mechanism the US could veto any investigation it didn't want - regardless of whether it was fair, unfair or just politicaly undesirable. It's not fairness the US wanted - it's CONTROL. Read between the lines and that's obvious.

There are PLENTY of mechanisms within the court to effectively control the prosecutor, including oversight by judges and the Assembly of State Parties. This would ensure that Amercians or indeed nationals of any other coutry are fairly treated. Indeed, judges have already ruled against the prosecutor on issues such as Victims Rights in the Congo case and the initiation of a case in the Central African Republic situation.

The original sentence is accurate and to the point, even if it isn't spun the way you like. The new sentence is incorrect.

The ICC Prosecutor, Mr. Luis Moreno-Ocampo appears to have done just this ...Clearly he then exceeded his authority

Unfortunately this entire paragraph illustrates your misunderstanding of the facts. Again, let me spell this out. The following paragraph is quoted from the http://www.icc-cpi.int/organs/otp.html:

'''The Prosecutor may start an investigation upon referral of situations in which there is a reasonable basis to believe that crimes have been or are being committed. Such referrals must be made by a State Party or the Security Council of the United Nations...In addition to State Party and Security Council referrals, the Prosecutor may also receive information on crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court provided by other sources, such as individuals or non-governmental organisations. The Prosecutor conducts a preliminary examination of this information in every case.'''

So to summarise, the prosecutor is obliged to conduct a preliminary investigation whenever a referral is received from a member country, the UNSC or any individual. THE PROSECUTOR DID NOT IN ANY WAY EXCEED HIS POWERS.

Bilateral diplomacy to advance national interests have ben a standard of international diplomacy for millenia, and these represent routine bi-lateral diplomacy.

This sentence is both superfluous and incorrect. The concept of Nation States and National Sovereignty in the modern sense has only really been around since the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648 (see National_sovereignty) This has only been universal since decolonisation and the foundation of the United Nations. You may be surprised to hear just how recent the idea of equal nation states is.

''the nation where the offense occured is expected to try an accused American in their legal system. If the ICC wanted to try an American for an offense that was legal in the US and also in the other nation, only then would an Article 98 agreement bar their surrender. Americans who violate the laws of other nations are not protected by Article 98 agreements. There is no impunity involved, every nation that signs such agreements may of course continue to prosecute Americans for any violation of their law. ''

Interesting statement. Do you have any source for this assertion, such as a link to an actual signed A98 agreement??

because it was limiting their ability to fight the War on Terror

Any reason why you've deleted this phrase? Seems pretty important to me.

So, to summarise, many of these amendments are flawed and the overall impact is to make the article less accurate than it was before. Therefore I propose reverting the whole change and going back to the article as it was previously. As an offer of compromise, I will hold off doing this for one week to give an opportunity for these concerns to be addressed and/or discussed. If they haven't been addressed by then I will revert, but I hope I wont have to. AndrewRT(Talk) 11:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Response to just one point: There are only two instances of fact at the moment, and both seem warranted to this reader. Those assertions lack clear citations, and are both written in a manner that warrants attribution. MrZaius  talk  11:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Various corrections
I removed a lot of content that was inappropriate, so I wanted to explain my changes here.

In the paragraph which read "For a number of reasons, the United States decided that the ICC had unacceptable consequences for our national sovereignty. Specifically, the ICC is an organization whose precepts go against fundamental American notions of sovereignty, checks and balances, and national independence. It is an agreement that is harmful to the national interests of the United States, and harmful to our presence abroad" I added the introductory line making it clear that this was a quote, and not being presented as fact.

I removed the line "There is no mechanism within the court for the United States to effectively control an independent prosecutor who pursued such an agenda" because it is totally without a source, and violates WP:NPOV.

I removed the paragraph "In general there are insufficient structures to separate the functions of defining, adjudicating and enforcing laws, subject to popular accountability and protection of liberty. This separation of powers is more clearly established in the United States than in Europe, which is why Europeans are generally more supportive of the court" because it is simply the opinion of the editor who wrote it. Whose to say that there are "insufficient structures..."? If there's a source it should be added.

By insisting on a universal principle that certain crimes should always be punished, the court is restricting the flexibility available to the international community in dealing with future circumstances, where a Truth and Reconciliation Commission, for example, may be more effective Again, says who? As far as I can tell, just the editor. This is a controversial statement, and ought to be sourced.

The rest of my edits were similar, where the editor was offering his or her own opinion. Cheers, JCO312 18:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * JCO312 - I like your edits. This is an essay that can grow to become a good article. Your edits will aid this growth because presently this article lacks key citations and makes many unsupported and perhaps unsupportable statements. Raggz 07:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Andrew - you say "Onto your change. LET ME SPELL THIS POINT OUT. The United States wanted the ICC to be only allowed to prosecute if it first had UNSC permission. This is essentially what happened with the ICTFY and ICTR. Under this mechanism the US could veto any investigation it didn't want - regardless of whether it was fair, unfair or just politicaly undesirable. It's not fairness the US wanted - it's CONTROL. Read between the lines and that's obvious." Yes, control is an issue with every nation, particularly the more powerful. How is this relevant? Does a desire for control mean that a nation has abandoned fairness? Are these mutually exclusive? The international community, not the US, wrote the UN Charter. The international community can change the rules of the UN, or can resign from the UN and do whatever they choose. Why are you against the UNSC? It is supposed to be a political tribunal. It is a political tribunal. If the ICC emerges with an analagous role, it will necessarily then also be a political tribunal. There is no court in the world that is not run by a political structure - even though attempts are made (some successful) to largely isolate courts from politics. Don't you get tired of having judges ask you for campaign money every time the elction comes around?


 * Andrew says "There are PLENTY of mechanisms within the court to effectively control the prosecutor, including oversight by judges and the Assembly of State Parties. This would ensure that Amercians or indeed nationals of any other coutry are fairly treated. Indeed, judges have already ruled against the prosecutor on issues such as Victims Rights in the Congo case and the initiation of a case in the Central African Republic situation." What mechanisim will guarantee Americans their constitutional right to a jury trial? To what court does one appeal an ICC verdict?


 * Andrew says: "The Prosecutor may start an investigation upon referral of situations in which there is a reasonable basis to believe that crimes have been or are being committed. Such referrals must be made by a State Party or the Security Council of the United Nations...In addition to State Party and Security Council referrals, the Prosecutor may also receive information on crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court provided by other sources, such as individuals or non-governmental organisations. The Prosecutor conducts a preliminary examination of this information in every case. My source is the ICC Prosecutor's web page. He lists two, you list four. Is the ICC Prosecutor's web page a reliable source? If so, it should stay. If I misread it, it should be edited.


 * "So to summarise, the prosecutor is obliged to conduct a preliminary investigation whenever a referral is received from a member country, the UNSC or any individual. THE PROSECUTOR DID NOT IN ANY WAY EXCEED HIS POWERS." If you read his recent Iraq investigation report - he states that no member nation requested this investigation, but that 525 demands from others were the reason. This sounds like good old political pressure? Read his report, tell me it's not there?


 * Andrew stresses over "Bilateral diplomacy to advance national interests have been a standard of international diplomacy for millenia, and these represent routine bi-lateral diplomacy. What do you want to say about bi-lateral diplomacy? We could debate if the Greek City-States engaged in this, but to what end? The whole Article 98 section implies that there is something subversive, illegal, or improper about normal bi-lateral diplomacy. The US is not an ICC member, is it free to engage in diplomacy involving ICC members? Andrew, what do you want to say about bi-lateral diplomacy? Is it a bad thing when the US engages in it? Why?


 * Raggz said the nation where the offense occured is expected to try an accused American in their legal system. If the ICC wanted to try an American for an offense that was legal in the US and also in the other nation, only then would an Article 98 agreement bar their surrender. Americans who violate the laws of other nations are not protected by Article 98 agreements. There is no impunity involved, every nation that signs such agreements may of course continue to prosecute Americans for any violation of their law. 


 * Andrew objects - "Interesting statement. Do you have any source for this assertion, such as a link to an actual signed A98 agreement??"


 * Raggz:Tell me then, what offense would Spain refer an American to the ICC but not try them herself? I will offer a reliable citation if you wish, but first explain why an American would be tried by the ICC but not by Spain?


 * Raggz: because it was limiting their ability to fight the War on Terror


 * Andrew: "Any reason why you've deleted this phrase? Seems pretty important to me."


 * Raggz:It was deleted because your citation does not have that phrase attributed to Dr. Rice. It IS an important phrase, but is not supported by the citation.


 * Raggz:Don't worry Andrew, if it proves that I am wrong, I will admit this. Raggz 08:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Andrew sez: "...American notions of sovereignty, checks and balances, and national independence. What so no other countries in the world believe in these things?".

I believe that our cultures are different and that we see many things differently. You do not believe that "American notions" differ from those of Europe? This article you will recall is specifically about the US? Take sovereignty, all but five nations partly ceded their sovereignty in 1948 to join the UN. Of those five, two ceeded theirs partly to the EU. This leaves three sovereign nations. Sovereign nations think and act different than (what to call them?) Cooperative Nations. Your POV is that of a citizen of a Cooperative Nation, not that of a citizen of a sovereign nation. You think of cooperative international actions as the norm, and we do not have any problem doing it our way, even if no one else likes this. "No other countries in the world believe in these things?" No Andrew, not in the sense that Americans do. But this is my pov, don't you believe that Americans live in their own world - somewhat isolated from yours? You believe that American and European political cultures are the same? Raggz 10:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

War Crimes
Andrew: "Skeptics say there may be other reasons than those advanced by the Bush administration for frustrating the International Criminal Court. One might think of the role the U.S. administration or U.S. citizens have played in conflicts around the world in the past, i.e. Gulf of Tonkin Incident, My Lai Massacre, aid to Operation Condor through the School of the Americas. Continuing these policies today, under the ICC Statute, could be grounds for prosecution."

This requires revision or deletion.

What charge would the ICC bring for the Gulf of Tonkin Incident?

What charge would the ICC bring for the My Lai Massacre?

What charge would the ICC bring for the Operation Condor?

What charge would the ICC bring for the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation|School of the Americas?

Obviously the ICC would have no jurisdiction over any of these, so why say that it might? If you disagree, please offer the crime and the jurisdiction necessary? Raggz 08:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The point is that in the past, as well as today, US administrations have engaged in activities that arguably can be considered war crimes. Of course the ICC specifically prosecutes war crimes when countries fail to do so themselves, and as such the current administration might be subject of such court proceeding had the ICC any jurisdiction. Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 11:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Andrew - I deleted this: "In light of the overt lack of similar procedural guarantees in recent U.S. Military Commissions held at Guantanamo Bay, international critics have sighted arguments that the failure of the United States to ratify the Rome Statute is hypocritical and unsustainable." You are claiming that the U.S. Military Commissions held at Guantanamo Bay have something to do with the ICC? Many believe that these Commissions (and everything at Guantanamo Bay) are proper and legal and others do not. You have a pov here? Even if we assume that your pov here is correct - why does the ICC come into this? Do you want the ICC to oversee prisoners of war? If not, what role? Why is the decision of the US "unsustainable" - why is it "hypocritical"? I really do not follow your logic here. Feel free to put this back, but please first clarify what you mean? Raggz 10:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Firstly, I didn't add either of these statements. I agree this is off-topic and not particular neutral - I am happy for it to be deleted. AndrewRT(Talk) 15:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow, what a shock. An anti-Bush partisan is using a totally unrelated matter to attack the Bush administration's more recent foreign policy actions.  Evidently the author is clairvoyant and can surmise the Bush administration's "true" motives for opposing the treaty, such that he feels he can definitely state those supposed motives in an article that purports to be encylopedic.  And using My Lai as an example is pathetic for many reasons.  Evidently the idiot who mentioned My Lai is unaware of the criminal prosecutions that did occur, thus the whole "war crimes that states won't prosecute" justification is bullshit.  Moreover, My Lai was not sanctioned by the United States government.  As someone else pointed out, none of the crimes listed could be prosecuted by the ICC due to the whole ex post facto "inconvenience".  Mentioning My Lai is about as relevant as mentioning the Bataan Death March in relation to the Japanese position on the ICC.   And George Bush would have to be able to see into the future to oppose the ICC in 2002 based upon something he did in Iraq, you know, a war that didn't start until 2003.  It is painfully obvious that yet another partisan jackass is trying to use the ICC entry as a forum to bash certain countries and politicians he doesn't like.  The motives are pretty transparent when one sees the individual making such ridiculous assertions uses zmag as a source and also mentions one of the radical left's favorite boogeymen, the School of the Americas.  I am surprised gratuitous mentions of Fox News and Rush Limbaugh were not thrown in for good measure. I get so damn tired of people who try to use Wikipedia as their hobby horse when it comes to political issues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.28.75.230 (talk) 22:46, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Responsibility for edits
Raggz said "If I misread it, it should be edited"

Wrong. If YOU misread it, and YOU made a mistake in your edit, YOU should put it right.

It's not MY job to correct YOUR mistakes. If you can't be bothered to read things properly, even when I point out your mistakes, I will just revert the whole lot. Clock's ticking. AndrewRT(Talk) 15:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * But is it incorrect? Sorry about your clock ... Sure, I will look at it and see if it is accurate and supported. Raggz 18:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The ICC states "Procedure: "The Prosecutor may start an investigation upon referral of situations in which there is a reasonable basis to believe that crimes have been or are being committed. Such referrals must be made by a State Party or the Security Council of the United Nations, acting to address a threat to international peace and security. In accordance with the Statute and the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, the Prosecutor must evaluate the material submitted to him before making the decision on whether to proceed." Note the use of the word "must"

The next paragraph says "In addition to State Party and Security Council referrals, the Prosecutor may also receive information on crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court provided by other sources, such as individuals or non-governmental organisations. The Prosecutor conducts a preliminary examination of this information in every case. If the Prosecutor then decides that there is a reasonable basis to proceed with an investigation, he will request the Pre-Trial Chamber to authorise an investigation." I took the use of the word must to mean must. The second qualifying paragraph might be taken to mean that the word must is badly used in the first paragraph? Raggz 19:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Judges
"Don't you get tired of having judges ask you for campaign money every time the elction comes around"

Judges aren't elected in Britain, or in most countries in the world. AndrewRT(Talk) 15:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Concerns
I asked Raggz to address some signficant concerns about his edits. His reaction was to make even more non-neutral edits such as terming critics of America "Radical Left".

Therefore I think the easiest thing to do is to revert everything back and then start again, putting the more sensible revisions and moderations in.

I hope others will support this move and we avoid an edit war. AndrewRT(Talk) 16:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Aye. — Nightstallion 16:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Radical Left
The Radical Left are in fact US critics. Do you dispute that the Radical Left are quite critical of the US? You will note that this new section has more supporting citations than perhaps all of the rest combined? Why is it "non-neutral" to say that the Radical Left are critics of the US? Read the citations please, the Radical Left is saying that the US policy on the ICC is as described.

Please offer your argument that the Radical Left are not critical of the US rejection of the ICC, perhaps adding a few citations that support your point? There is no edit war here, just the normal give and take, challenge and support that improves controversial topic articles. No, you may not just revert well-supported and "sensible" edits. You can and should challenge and/or revert what seems to you unreasonable. When such is supported by a reliable source however, you might consider offering a contrasting view from another reliable source. WP Policy is not summarized by any one rule other than make the article more useful to the Reader. Generally you should not edit out well-supported edits without careful consideration.

I am curious, why can't there be a section about the views of the Radical Left? Don't they deserve to be heard? The new section allows the Reader full disclosure that this section is necessarily about political POV, a place where the reader can explore the views of the Radical Left on the ICC- and evaluate them. I oppose suppression of these views, they have balue to the Reader, even though this section necessarily has a pov, it adds value. Raggz 19:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I think (and others can correct me if I'm wrong) that part of the criticism is using the term "Radical Left" to begin with. Who says that they are the "radical" left?  JCO312 20:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Are we debating IF there exists a Radical Left - or are we disputing the claim that the Radical Left views the ICC as an important potential means to change US policy and actions? Are we debating if the Radical Left are relevant to ICC politics in the US? It would help me to know the discussion topic(s). I suspect you mean that not every supporter of the ICC treaty is part of the Radical Left? If this is the issue, I agree that someone should edit this in.


 * There are a great many citations already in this section that support the notion that the ICC is important to the Radical Left. If we edit it to the Radical Left & the Semi-Radical Left ... oh forget that ... This article needs to include the views of the Radical Left because these are important to this topic. There needs to be a place where their full pov gets expressed, but their pov should eventually be edited out of the balance of the article. Likewise, the pov of the ICC opponents needs to be fully expressed, these too are important for the Reader. The balance of this article should be attain a NPOV, and you will likely have an important role with this goal. Raggz 22:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The term "Radical Left" is POV, as far as I'm concerned. You're needlessly labeling a group of people, when you could use a less highly charged phrase.  I'm also not thrilled with how you went about this.  You were asked to discuss the changes before you made them, and instead made them and insisted that others discuss it before reverting.  Not a way to promote consensus. JCO312 22:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * What phrase do you suggest? Is the Radical Left an important advocate for the ICC within the US? Note that I have reverted some reversions, but not reverted most. Raggz 23:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what was wrong with the initial word "skeptics." Even then, the section was not written in an encyclopedic fashion (phrases like "One might think" do not sound like presentation of fact to me).  I think that problem has been compounded in the new edits ("radicals look forward to the day...").  Also, you've created an entire chapter allegedly about the "Radical left," when, in fact, 2 out of the three sub-topics are entirely unrelated.  JCO312 23:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * A skeptic is a synonym for the Radical Left? I think not, please try again. President Bush is an ICC skeptic, but is he a member of the Radical Left? Should we move those sections that don't fit - or delete them? I will look at them next time, you are probably right about them. Raggz 00:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Uh, I'm not going to "try again." A skeptic in the context of the sentence makes perfect sense, since it was referencing skeptics of the administration's position.  There's no need to label these people as "radical leftists."  JCO312 00:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Please explain what you mean by skeptic? A skeptic on the administrations view of the future of the ICC? A skeptic of the Administrations position on the ICC? The Administration really has no position that I know of on the ICC, other than for jurisdictional issues. I don't know what you mean. Fine, if you want to have a section on skeptics, I have no real sense of what you mean, but I don't oppose this either.

My prior questions about the "need to label these people as "radical leftists" are unanswered, so I don't understand what you mean. I have three theories about what your concern is. (1) You want to use a less intense synomym. (2) You believe that what I call the Radical Left are not radical at all, but are skeptics of the administration's position. Essentially this position would be that there is no Radical Left? (3) The Radical Left are not strongly associated with the movement within the US to adopt the ICC, but that skeptics are? Help me out, what do you mean? Raggz 03:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * What was written prior to your changes was


 * When it became clear in 2002 that the treaty creating the ICC would receive the requisite number of ratifications to enter into force, the United States began to undertake a number of measures to exempt U.S. nationals from the Court's jurisdiction.


 * Skeptics say there may be other reasons than those advanced by the Bush administration for frustrating the International Criminal Court.


 * That uses the word skeptics in the context of the previous sentence, which makes sense. The problem with your edit is that you are the one deciding that the "radical left" is the group which has these opinions.  There is no citation that says "the radical left believes X."  It is an inflammatory phrase and is simply not necessary. JCO312 04:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you, now I understand. Raggz 05:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Although I appreciate your efforts to correct the issue, "Skeptical Left" is still a phrase that you are using to label a group. As such, it is both WP:OR and WP:NPOV.  I have tried a new approach, which hopefully will lead to consensus.  Also, I changed references to "Crimes of the Bush Administration," since it was presented as fact, not the position of a particular group.  JCO312 02:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'd tend to agree with JCO on that, while I recognise your good intentions, Raggz. — Nightstallion 06:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

US Sovereignty
Andrew, you reverted "as it creates a court of appeal above the U.S. Supreme Court, which may act if it decides that the United States is unable or unwilling to prosecute any alleged crimes." This seems to be OR and is also an inaccurate statement. Under what circumstance would a case denied by the US Supreme Court be heard by the ICC? The principle of complementarity would be violated? If your point is that you believe that the ICC is the means to negate the sovereignty of the United States, why not state this more directly so that the Reader more easily grasps your point? If you believe that the ICC has a US role as a higher court to appeal to when the US Supreme Court decides against your views, this I believe to be inaccurate. Please support your OR before reverting again. The US Supreme Court may NOT be reviewed by the ICC, read page 7 of this reference. Raggz 19:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

International Jurisdiction
REVERTED: "The United States accepts that American citizens who travel to other countries, including troops and politicians, are bound by the laws of those countries. However, it argues that a country can under international law, only delegate the enforcement of those laws to courts with international jurisdiction. The US recognizes the United Nations, has a treaty with it, and so legally the UN has international jurisdiction over Americans that the ICC lacks. Therefore indictment by the ICC (without legal jurisdiction) of any American citizen for any crime would be a breach of American sovereignty."see Madeline Morris, High crimes and misconceptions: the ICC and non-party states, Law and Contemporary Problems, Winter 2001 vol. 64 no. 1 p. 13ff. 

Why was this reverted? This language better explains Dr Morris's paper than did the prior language because this language suggested that (1) somehow Americans abroad have ever been exempted from crimes and (2) that the ICC has jurisdiction to change this. The ICC has zero international jurisdiction, except (1) when a nation state accepts ICC jurisdiction or (2) The UN lends it's international jurisdiction to the ICC. Dr. Morris makes the point that any international court that acts against US nationals without any international jurisdiction denies US national sovereignty. The UN has such jurisdiction but the ICC does not (except by actions of ICC member jurisdiction), do we agree on this? Raggz 19:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

ICC Redefining Crimes
REVERTED without talk: "The ICC has significantly redefined what constitutes crimes, for example, it has broadened the definition of what a "crime against humanity" means." Why was this reverted? It is a factual and most relevant point. The focus of ICC resistance is that the ICC is free to define international criminal law in any way that it decides to. Here is a concrete and documentable case that the ICC is already doing this. Is smoking in public a "crime against humanity" that the ICC has jurisdiction over? The answer is clearly YES, IF the ICC may redefine a "crime against humanity" to include smoking in public. So why was this well-supported and important point edited away without talk? Raggz 19:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I didn't carry out this reversion, however the definition of offences and of the elements of offences was not effected by the ICC, it was effected by the states negotiating the statute, which included states which signed but did not ratify, such as the US. AS a matter of law the definition of "Crimes Against Humanity" is broader in some respects, and narrower in others, than the definition of that crime under ICTY and ICTR, and in customary international law. [See Analysis by Professor Cassese in Cassese et al eds The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: A Commentary (OUP 2002) Vol I, Chapter 11.2 "Crimes Against Humanity" at pp. 373-377].  If the definition of acts constituting a crime against humanity is to be redefined, to include "smoking in public" this would require an amendment to the statute, not by the ICC, but following agreement by the parties. The process is extremely complex and absent consensus of the state parties, requires a 2/3 majority in favour of the change. But even an amendment adopted in such circumstances will not come into force until 7/8 of the State Parties have filed instruments of acceptance. When an amendment has been accepted by 7/8ths of the state parties, any unhappy state party may give notice that it withdraws from the statute. Finally, I need to point out that neither Prof Cherif Bassiouni, to whom you refer by way of footnote, nor any other commentator suggests that these states would include something like "smoking in public". Your suggestion is ridiculous, and runs counter to the concept underlying the offence itself, and would never even be proposed by a state party, let alone be accepted even by one other. For goodness sake! diran 22:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Article 98 Agreements
REVERTED without talk: "No American is immune to prosecution by any nation that they may choose to travel to. Article 98 Agreements offer absolutely no protection to those who have committed crimes abroad. Nations that sign such agreements remain entirely free to enforce their national laws against Americans." Why was this deleted? It is factual and relevant. Raggz 20:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

UN Jurisdiction
REVERTED without talk: "''By international law, questions regarding the interpretation of the UN Charter may only be interpreted by the UN Security Council. The UN Charter requires that all UN members support the decisions of the Security Council, so only ICC members who are not also UN members are free to dissent." '' Do you want a citation of these two provisions of the UN Charter? Do you want the actual text quoted? Don't delete without discussion please. Raggz 20:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I didn't do this revert, however I would be interested in being referred to authoritative sources of international law which provide that questions regarding the interpretation of the UN charter may only be interpreted by the Sec Council. diran 00:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Universal Jurisdiction
The article says

"Many ICC advocates expect the ICC to soon exercise "universal jurisdiction", a legal concept that means that there would be no external limitations upon what the ICC could or could not legally do within the United States, except those imposed by the Rome Statute or by the court upon itself."

This is not sourced, and actually is patent rubbish, being contradictory. The basis for jurisdiction is set out in the statute itself - it is territorial, and active personality, or referral by the Sec Council. So how the ICC could soon exercise "universal jurisdiction" is a complete mystery. There is a considerable feel of "flight of fancy" about many of the contributions to this article. In my view it fails to meet the standards which wikipedia requires [which aren't all that demanding!] diran 22:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Avoiding original research and staying on-topic
I've just removed a shocking amount of original research from this article, much of which was blatantly untrue and embarrassingly misinformed.

Every claim we make in this article should be directly attributable to a reliable, published source. If you can't find a reliable, published source who explicitly supports the point you're trying to make, then you have no business making that point in this encyclopedia.

Also, a lot of the material I deleted did not relate specifically to the relationship between the United States and the ICC. This article is not the place to discuss Moreno-Ocampo's opinions about how the ICC can help nation-states to guarantee the life and freedom of their citizens (unless he, or another notable source, made that point specifically in relation to the relationship between the US and the ICC). Nor is this the place for a general essay on the difference between civil law and common law (unless we're quoting a reliable source who says this is important to the relationship between the US and the ICC).

Sideshow Bob Roberts 01:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Restored critics' opinions regarding the rationale behind objecting to the ICC. Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 12:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Nescio, I've removed again all mention of the My Lai massacre, the Gulf of Tonkin, etc. from the article. The source you cited  doesn't even mention these events, let alone suggest that they are a reason for America's opposition to the ICC.  Please don't restore this stuff again unless you can cite a reliable, published source that explicitly claims that America's opposition to the Court has something to do with My Lai, Operation Condor, the invasion of Iraq, extraordinary rendition, or whatever.  Even if your theory is correct, Wikipedia is not the place to advance original research.  Regards, Sideshow Bob Roberts (talk) 06:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, you might start by reading all sources in that section. They clearly outline the command responsibility regarding actions taken in the war on terror. If you want I can them here. Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 09:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Nescio, I understand what you're saying about command responsibility, but the central point of your edit is that US opposition to the ICC is somehow linked to My Lai, Operation Condor, the invasion of Iraq, etc. None of your sources actually say this.  Unless you can find someone who explicitly agrees with this theory, you can't advance it here (per No original research).
 * I'm particularly disappointed to see that you've restored the following sentence:
 * "They point to the role the U.S. administration or U.S. citizens have played in conflicts around the world in the past, i.e. Gulf of Tonkin Incident, My Lai Massacre, aid to Operation Condor through the School of the Americas.[4]"
 * even though I clearly pointed out that the source you cite makes no mention of Gulf of Tonkin Incident, My Lai Massacre, Operation Condor or the School of the Americas.  This is completely misleading, and a brazen violation of Verifiability.  Please find a source that discusses Gulf of Tonkin Incident, My Lai Massacre, Operation Condor and the School of the Americas in the context of America's opposition to the ICC or remove this from the article.  Sideshow Bob Roberts (talk) 10:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Introduction
"The status of the United States and the International Criminal Court, amid bipartisan consensus, is that the United States does not intend to ratify the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, which established the court as a body to investigate and prosecute genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. Although the then U.S. President, Bill Clinton, signed the Rome Statute, he stated he would not submit it to the Senate for ratification, and only signed so that the United States could participate in negotiations on the court's rules of procedure. Under United States and International Law, a signature is not binding unless and until a treaty is ratified. Commentators have suggested that the treaty could not be ratified without a constitutional amendment."

The introduction does not summarize the key points, so is out of compliance with WP policy. Does anyone want to start on a revision? Raggz (talk) 04:23, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Heritage Foundation POV
Why is there so many references to the POV of the Heritage Foundation? I think their views should be removed, and replaced with those of actual government officials, especially any who are in high office. --Ozhiker (talk) 09:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yep. Raggz has gone and pulled a whole bunch of citations for claims of critics (admittedly in need of formatting), and labelled them all with 'fact' templates, and inserted a whole bunch from the Heritage Foundation - it seems some organisations are more equal than others. Mostlyharmless (talk) 06:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The Heritage Foundation is a reliable source. Would you prefer former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger? I encourgae you to add the opinions of "actual government officials, especially any who are in high office". They would also improve this article. Raggz (talk) 06:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The Heritage Foundation has a well known pro-US pov, even in issues purely of international politics. In principle I'm not against including information from the Heritage Foundation, as long as it's clearly indicated as such, e.g. including information from a Catholic apologist's website in an article on abortion is ok, as long as it's prefaced by "the Catholic apologist John Smith states ..." (Bottom line: say "the US-based Heritage Foundation asserts...", or similar.) 118.90.56.175 (talk) 10:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that inclusion of only the Heritage Foundation views would imply POV. However, replacing them with those officials under the direction of some other partisan figure, such as most "government officials", would also be POV. As many differing views as possible or necessary should be included, with references to who kept in footnotes, as even attributing views to specific groups or people can be POV, an obvious example being "Nazi leader Adolf Hitler says the ICC would provide for fair trials". Int21h (talk) 05:43, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Original Research
"Skeptics have argued there may be other reasons than those advanced by the Bush administration for frustrating the International Criminal Court.[3] They point to the role the U.S. administration or U.S. citizens have played in conflicts around the world in the past, i.e. Gulf of Tonkin Incident, My Lai Massacre, aid to Operation Condor through the School of the Americas.[4] Engaging in such policies today, under the ICC Statute, could be grounds for prosecution."

The claim is that the ICC could have prosecuted: There are no reliable sources offered to support any of these claims. This is all original research. Raggz (talk) 09:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Gulf of Tonkin Incident
 * My Lai Massacre
 * Operation Condor

My recent edits
I have already reorganized and copyedited the first section (due process) of the Alegations section with what I think are fair edits. To be fair, I tried to refrain from removing any material, but I did remove some material that repeated "yada yada it is fair" as these arguments are explicitly stated earlier, and the removal of the "allegation" qualifier on the lack of jury trials and other spurious uses of this and related ("claimed") qualifier. I also renamed the section to reflect that some elements are not just allegations, but seem to be undisputed, ie. the lack of jury trial, so I added "criticisms" in line with related sections.

The lack of a jury trial is major component I changed and organized. I found no citation either on this article or in a Google Books search claiming the ICC actually provides a jury trial, and many other sources claiming, for a fact, it does not. Hence, I removed the "allegations" qualifier. I have also found sources that claim this is the most often criticized component, and a quick Google Books search would seem to confirm.

The intro seemed to be very ... partisan in its tone, attributing the criticisms and allegations to a specific political oriented group, ie. Republican. This seemed POV so I changed it.

Since most of the section mainly included citations referring to military law, I split these paras into a "military justice" section. This is important, because it relies on, and implies, the legality of imposing military law on civilians, and the complementary removal of civilians' Constitutional rights, such as a jury trial by peers. There is a significant number of Americans who believe the draft is illegal, and the debate is still very much alive, to say nothing of it being right or wrong. Hence, it deserves its own section to expand on these issues. Int21h (talk) 05:34, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

The obligations of countries that have signed but not ratified
This article refers several times to the legal obligation of countries not to behave in ways that undermine the object and purpose of treaties; however, as I understand, this obligation is based on the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which was signed but not ratified by the United States. It would be useful for this article to discuss the various points of view regarding this. 69.251.180.224 (talk) 14:58, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Condoleezza Rice on Article 98
I changed the phrasing of this paragraph to better represent what the source actually said. It was difficult to actually see what Rice found was problematic (the withdrawal of military assistance) in the former version of paragraph. This is is more accurate, in my opinion: In March 2006, Condoleezza Rice admitted that the United States' withdrawal of military assistance because of negotiations over Article 98 agreements was "sort of the same as shooting ourselves in the foot" [43] Trmdttr (talk) 13:33, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on United States and the International Criminal Court. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.state.gov/j/gcj/us_releases/remarks/143178.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 13:02, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment
This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Syracuse University supported by WikiProject United States Public Policy and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program&#32;during the 2011 Spring term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:06, 2 January 2023 (UTC)