why is America still against the International CRiminal Court?
448419
Because it sacrifices our sovereignty to a foreign body
1040980
America doesnt hate other countries. We just fight with them lol
161051
I just read through those six answers you got-it amazes me.  Firstly, America is about 200 years old, that means so many civilizations and cultures existed before you existed, so it is NOT the best place in the world.  Secondly, 78% of all Europeans voted that they hated America, and 90% of the rest of the world voted that they do. The Europeans also voted that the number one terrorist state was Israel and number two slot went to America. For all of you  who are in la la land, this is a fact.  The question asked, was a very interesting one, but nobody answered it.  And please...believe me, nobody is jealous of you..ha hah...And for the fact that all Iraqi's and Afghani's are "grateful" for the American illegal invasion of their countries?  Excuse me, are you living in the real world, everyday those people live through a "september 11" day, EVERYDAY...everyday, their lives are ripped apart because of American policy, and that's the reason the world hates you, because your policies are strategies for terrorism, fix yourselves before you even think of fixing other cultures....nobody respects you so long as you don't respect others. Except for those few educated, moral people who are brave enough to speak up against the wars, against the hypocrisy, against the administration, those people are admired and those people are an example of true democracy, if they remain safe, unlike Cindy Sheehan who was locked up just for wanting to protest!  What happened to your democracy?  I'm sorry you don't have one, you think you do, but you don't. This is in answer to all who answered you, it wasn't answering your question, hope I don't sound harsh but this is my opinion.  May we all live to see a peaceful world one day soon.  Long live Oprah, Michael Moore, Cindy and other anti-war protestors...and peaceful people of the world.
813494
I think that the war has evolved into something so different than when it originated, that the majority of Americans could probably care less what happens to Saddam, especially since everyone knew that he was guilty - I mean really, how could the government NOT charge him?  To do so would cause even more anarchy then there already is.  \n\nMy guess is that America is pissed of at enough things run by the government that this verdict will have no effect whatsoever.
985647
Very good question...\n\nMy answer is merely opinion. I think Bush has not been charged with war crimes, while he clearly has committed them, because the USA is currently the only superpower.\n\nThink about it... what if Germany had been the only superpower during WW2 and had won? The world wouldn't have been able to charge Hitler with war crimes.
1046843
2000, when the Supreme Court decided that a fair and accurate recount must be stopped. Read the dissents in that case (see link below).\n\nAnd I think Mr.Danger's title is more accurate, though I prefer "Commander in Sheik". Captures the flavor better.\n\nYou've hit the real problem though. Hypocrisy. This administration would never tolerate another country doing what they claim is justified. \n\nRegardless of whether we like North Korea or Iran or not, if Germany or England or Brazil tried to tell the US that it could not engage in particular research or test weapons in international waters, the US would tell them to go bleep themselves. And then defend their rights with force.\n\nAnd every other country that has invaded another sovereign nation because they didn't like the way things were being handled has been denounced as tyrants. But it's alright for the US to do it?\n\nAnd the US denounces other countries (well, they used to last decade) for torturing people or violating civil rights. But the current administration can ignore not only its own Constitution but many international treaties (signed and ratified), because it feels like it?\n\nHypocrisy has always bothered me. And the current US administration is the best case for why in at least the last century.
1078670
That might be possible if it wasn't for the fact that many of these organizations are opposed by the USA. Many of these are out to bring the USA to bear for war crimes and crimes against humanity, which is in the interests of everybody.
537909
This is not new.  Successive US governments have failed to acknowledge one of the most basic ethical rules of diplomacy - i.e. that a principle applies equally to all states.\n\nFor example, if you claim you believe in democracy, then that applies equally to French, US or Venezuelan democracy.  If you claim to believe that torture is wrong, then torture in a Pakistani or Iranian prison is no better or worse than torture in Guantanamo or Baghram, Afghanistan.  If you claim to believe in the rule of international law - oh, I forgot, the US doesn't.  The US has blocked the extradition to other countries of terrorists working for - or with links to - the CIA.\n\nSo this is quite normal for US governments.  Democracy is only really acceptable if other states elect who the US government favour.  International law applies to all countries - the US governement would say - as long as we agree with it.  And torture is OK for us because we have special reasons for doing it but we do not accept that anyone else might.\n\nIt is worthy of note that despite the shameful arrogant hypocrisies of successive US governements, all the most recent US Presidents have made a big noise about their 'Christian Faith' and claim to 'speak regularly with God'.  What exactly is it that sets Bush (just one example) apart from, say, the (current) Iranian 'supreme' leader, Ali Khamanei?  Both were 'democratically elected', both are religious bigots who still live in the 14th Century, both literally believe in prehistoric works of fiction on the basis of no empirical or provable evidence, and both wield huge power over the lives - and deaths - of the world's population.  Isn't it time we grew up and recognised these as people who belong on the margins of our society and not at its centre?
370145
The U.S. Constitution is the "Supreme law of the land." No treaty adopting the criminal law of an international body can overrule the protections contained in the first ten amendments (The Bill of Rights). \n\nThus, the only way that the U.S. could become a member of the International Criminal Court, such that the Court's decisions would have binding effect on U.S. citizens, would be if the U.S. Constitution were amended to include this provision.\n\nI cannot imagine the conditions which would be necessary for a super-majority (2/3rds) of the U.S. Congress and all of the 50 States to vote to enact such an amendment. \n\nTherefore, our membership in the International Criminal Court would be a meaningless jesture, because its rulings could not be imposed on anyone in the United States.
676461
United States of America (only its leaders, why punish people for what leaders do???) is the country that is most suited to be thrown in Jail. Mind it , not its people but their leaders who wage wars, who bring sanctions on poor countries etc which is but against Humanity.
562555
Because the United States has not threatened to annihilate another country.
33497
Bush going to war violates international law but it does not constutute war crimes such as genocide. According to the Un resolution 1441:\n\n"The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations."\n\nTherefore the US can not declare war alone, it must do so in conjunction with the UN, this is why there was a coalition of the willing not the UN as one body. And this statement cites sanctions as appropriate actions not an invasion. Also this statement in effect recalls previous resolutions that list it's expectations of Iraq and calls for continued weapons inspections to which the inspectors found no weapons and concluded the resolution had been abided by.\n\nWith that said the US has commited war crimes, I think obvious example might be (I apologize for the spelling) Abu Grahib or kidnapping suspected terrorists from other countries and not labeling them as prisoners of war and therefore not abiding by the Geneva conventions in providing those prisoners with what the conventions declare them access to. Bush himself declared this a war on terror. As to whether Bush ordered these events to happen despite some evidence is still somewat inconclusive. However when he uses the words dead or alive and attempts to have bills blocked that reiterate the US stand against torture then something is amiss, and as commander in cheif it is his responsibility to ensure this does not occur which has not been done. However, he will never be convicted or tried.
466325
Illegal according to whom?  It's well within the bounds of US law.  Do you mean international law?  If international law worked, there would be no Saddams or Irans to deal with.  But that's what Americans do best.  Dealing with the sh*t the rest of the world produces.
478985
The United States must abide by laws that govern such things as international trade and human rights.  The United States, as is with every other nation, is not required to abide by the edicts passed by the United Nations.  \n\nIf they elect not to abide by a law that it feels is unfair or against the United States' interests they can refuse to uphold that law.  The consequences could include cooled relationships with other countries, embargos and even U N sanctioned war.
739459
Vanman8u's answer is case in point:  Bush is de facto guilty (no stated crime, no defense) but due process for terrorists.\n\nWhat a country.
1160297
I completely agree with you. There is entirely too much anti-Americanism. Being a Canuck myself, I have nothing but respect for the American people. Now, having said that, here comes the reason for the US bashing that is happening all around the world.\n1. America has become the police of the world, and many people would choose their own bad governments rather than a just and benevolent foreign government.\n2. That just and benevolent government mentioned above is strangely missing from your country. I always found the US Constitution to be a thing of genuine beauty. Does it not say that you are responsible to throw off such governments that detract from the rights of the people?\n3. American Foreign Policy, for the protection of American business interests, not the mutual betterment of all nations.\n4. The attitude that Americans have about their culture and country. The self proclaimed best country on earth, sounds arrogant, and nobody likes an arrogant person.\n5. The fear mongering being put forth by the American media machine. Hasn't anyone noticed that the hard won rights of the individual are disappearing in the name of security? I hope you enjoy living in your police states of the future.\nAs for a Third World War, where can we stand? In line with Bush's for or against policy? If that is my choice, then I must stand against. I now, always have and always will stand against tyranny and evil, even when that repression is claimed to be for my own safety. \nAs for wanting into the US, because you have greater freedoms than most, but not all.
342249
nah, hes done worse. Im sure if the international community wasnt scared of the states, he could be brought up for war crimes. technically invading a county is against the law in international court.