I did my speech about the ICC. do you want a copy?
its actually 81 ratifications now, so you'd have to change the 69.
SP: to persuade my audience that America partaking in the International Criminal Court will not put our military personel in any serious danger and will make our international reputation stronger.
C.I. America should support the International criminal court because doing so will offer more protection from malicious prosecution for American troops, and abiding by this treaty will help repair our relationship with our allies
Main Points
I. Joining the court doesn’t put American personnel at much risk
II. abiding by this treaty will help repair our relationship with our allies
Introduction
Rather than try to grab your attention, or shock you, I would like to devote my introduction to explaining to you all exactly what the International Criminal Court is (it is abbreviated as ICC sometimes), and why it exists, so you will better understand what this speech is about.
I would also like to throw some terminology to you so you understand the basics of what I am saying
Roman Statute- The treaty that represents the ICC, and the explanation of the court(s) activities & capacities.
Ratification – to sign the treaty, and essentially say you want to play an active part in the court and that you are willing to make it a part of your domestic law
Signature – to sign the treaty, and essentially say you are not opposed to the courts existence
ICC – abbreviation for International Criminal Court
Individuals who commit heinous crimes against humanity (such as torture, massacre of civilians, enslavement, forced starvation, etc) against people in their own country or a country they have dominated usually never have to worry about prosecution due to the fact that that particular countries domestic judicial system is either too cowed to prosecute the oppressors or they are of the same opinion as the persecutors. So many nations realized that an International Criminal Court (rather than a national criminal court) was needed to protect basic human rights. A court that was independent of nationality, that was only loyal to human rights, not politics.
In 1998, Many countries in the U.N. decided that a permanent court needed to be established in order to prosecute potential human rights violators and violators of basic international law. A vote was taken, and 148 countries voted. Nineteen countries abstained from the voting, 120 voted to create a permanent court and 7 voted not to. In order for the court to become a reality, and not just a treaty on a piece of paper, 60 nations had to ratify the Roman Statute (the name of the treaty that the International Criminal Court was based on). On April 11, 2002, the 60th ratification was attained. As we speak today (6-24-02), there have been 69 ratifications and 139 signatures.
However, America has been consistently opposed to the creation of the International Criminal Court. Of the seven countries who voted no on the issue of should the world create an International Criminal Court, America was one of them. In fact, just two months ago president Bush officially ‘unsigned’ the Roman Statute. The main reason we oppose the International Criminal Court is because our leadership fears that this court will be used as a weapon to maliciously prosecute us.
C.I. America should support the International criminal court because doing so will offer more protection from malicious prosecution for American troops, and abiding by this treaty will help repair our relationship with our allies
(Transition: How would the court be used to maliciously prosecute Americans? There is one main reason, we are hated the world over).
Body
I. Abandoning the court offers little, if any protection from prosecutions
Imagine for a second that the U.S.S.R. is still in existence, and an international court is being designed. What do you think the Russians would do if they thought that the court would have judges and prosecutors such as Ronald Reagan or Jesse Helms? They would react with fear over the fact that they may end up being maliciously prosecuted by individuals looking for any excuse they can find to bring them to trial. This is why the American government doesn’t support the I.C.C. American leadership fears that a mid east Palestinian, an Iraqi, a Chinese nationalist, etc. might one day end up as a judge or prosecutor, and look for any excuse he can find to bring us to trial. However these arguments are false on a variety of levels.
A. In order for an individual to become a judge or prosecutor, that individual’s home country has to have ratified the Roman Statute
1. Neither China, Iran, Iraq have done so, or appear to be planning to do so anytime. So there would be no prosecutors or judges from these countries.
2. The majority of the ratifications are from our allies. Every NATO country (except U.S.A. and Turkey) and every country in the European Union has ratified the Roman Statute. The judges would consist of our allies, not our detractors.
B. The American Bar Association says the odds of being maliciously prosecuted are slim
1. In July of 2000, the ABA sent Monroe Leigh to speak for them at a congressional hearing. They stated that there are a variety of safeguards to prevent malicious prosecutions
a. a three judge panel needs to approve of a prosecution before it can be enacted
b. the defenses capacity to throw out or appeal a malicious prosecution
c. the fact that a malicious prosecutor or judge is in risk of losing his job.
C. The International Criminal Court is just that, an International Criminal Court.
1. No matter whether America supports the court or not, we can still be prosecuted by it for serious war crimes, making the purpose of abandoning the court moot, removing our signature only put another nail in our coffin when it comes to our foreign relations.
(Transition: I am not exceptionally big on international politics, but even I know that our international reputation has been sliding downhill for a few years now).
II. abiding by this treaty will help repair our relationship with our allies
A. we can’t be trusted anymore
1. In order to refuse to abide by the International Criminal court, America must ignore the fact that we signed the treaty in 2000, and in doing so we stated that we would not oppose the ICC. When President Bush stated two months ago that he would not take the ICC seriously, and would consider any attempt to prosecute Americans as an act of war, he was nullifying our trustworthiness, saying to the world, ‘we may say something on paper, but our actions can’t be trusted. We may abandon the treaty later’.
2. our current political leadership has also abandoned a few other treaties we have already signed such as the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties or the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. Basically saying, you can’t trust us anymore. We may sign a treaty, but the second it stands in our way it becomes ‘a scrap of paper’. This also gives the impression to the rest of the world that it is ok to sign a treaty saying you are going to do something, then change your mind later.
B. many of the attacks against the International Criminal Court are untrue.
1. If you read about this issue you will hear things like ‘the ICC doesn’t offer protection against double jeopardy, it is contrary to our constitution, it denies people the right to remain silent, etc.’
To quote Gary Dempsey, a foreign analyist ‘American defendants brought before the ICC, moreover, will not be accorded the rights guaranteed to them by the U.S. Constitution — the right to a trial by jury, the right to confront witnesses against them, the right to compel witness in their favor, and the right against double jeopardy.’
a. There are about 20 untrue accusations that I won’t go into because of time constraints. How do I know these accusations are untrue, when the American Bar Assocation sent Monroe Leigh to speak for them in congress in 2000, he took with him all the false accusations hurled against the ICC and showed how and why they were false by showing where the Roman Statute said the opposite. He would show that Article 20 of the Roman Statute protects individuals from double jeopardy, that Article 67 gives the accused the right to confront witnesses, etc. If you don’t believe me, I can give you the official websites of the American Bar Association and the website for the official code of the Roman Statute so you all can see for yourselves exactly how distanced from reality many of the attacks against the court really are. The only true statement is that the ICC doesn’t offer a trial by jury. What do you think that says to our allies? You can’t trust us, not only do we abandon treaties, but our government is run by unreasonables.
C. Speaking of our allies, I should touch on them too. Almost all of our allies (meaning 17 of the 19 NATO countries and all 15 of the European Union countries) have ratified the ICC, while we consider any attempt by it to prosecute us to be an act of war. This is straining our relationship.
To quote Jack Straw, foreign minister of the United Kingdom, when he was talking to Colin Powell about the ICC “the US does not want to be in a head-on clash with Europe".
1. Was this a threat? Doubtfully, it was probably more of a warning, as our conduct in the last decade or so is making us appear very unilateral in the international spotlight.
2. According to the BBC, the president of Russia & France and the foreign ministers of most European countries are becoming fed up with our isolationism & unilateralism in the war on terror.
3. Perpetual opposition and isolation in the global community will only make this worse
D. I said in the introduction, only seven countries out of 148 voted not to create an International Criminal Court.
1. These seven were Yemen, Qatar, Israel, America, Iraq, China and Libya.
2. Of the seven out of 148 who voted no, we shouldn’t have an international criminal court, five are renowned for large scale human rights abuses or funding terrorism according to the state department and human rights watch. America siding with terrorist and despotic countries in its opposition of a court designed to prosecute human rights abuses will only make us look foolish when we say to the international community ‘human rights are very important to us’.
E. In response to the International criminal court, legislation sponsored by Jesse Helms called the ‘serviceman’s protection act’ has been passed. It is designed to make it illegal to cooperate with the court.
1. The Hague Invasion Act is a part of the serviceman’s protection act. It states that we will do anything in our power, including using force, to rescue American citizens who are being tried at the International Criminal Court. In essence we will be committing acts of aggression against our own allies such as the Netherlands, Germany, the U.K., France, Canada, etc. to name a few.
2. Think of what that will do for our reputation, threatening to go to war with our allies because some of our military and politicians are being tried for crimes against humanity.
To quote Judge Richard Goldstone, the first chief prosecutor at The Hague war crimes tribunal
"The US have really isolated themselves and are putting themselves into bed with the likes of China, the Yemen and other undemocratic countries,"
Conclusion
I. By abandoning, and turning against the International criminal Court we may, at best, experience slightly less legal prosecution. At worst, our refusal to agknowledge treaties will further alienate us from our allies and cause serious harm to our reputation. None of the countries we fear are going to become judges or prosecutors, and even if they did there are a variety of safeguards to prevent them from abusing their powers. Not only that, but by refusing to partake in the ICC we are sending signals to the rest of the world such as ‘we don’t really take human rights seriously’ ‘we can’t be trusted’ or ‘we are a nation run by extremists, willing to ignore physical evidence and turn against our allies’.
II. I don’t know if anyone cares, but I have a variety of postcards you can send to your senator if you want them to show more support for the International Criminal Court
Incidentally, while I was began writing this speech on June 18th, there were 68 ratifications. I just found out that Brazil became the 69th ratifier on June 20th, 2002.
Bibliography
Print
Kolasa, Blair; Meyer, Bernadine. Legal Systems. 1978. Prentice Hall. Englewoods Cliffs, New Jersey.
Shirer, WIllaim. The Rise And Fall of the Third Reich. Simon & Schuster, 1960. New York, New York.
Internet
American Bar Association. Testimony before the 106th congress. July 25 2000. June 14 2002.
www.abanet.org/poladv/testimony/intl072500.html
BBC staff reporting. Germany warns US against unilateralism. BBC. March 12 2002. June 22 2002.
news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/europe/newsid_1816000/1816395.stm
Council for a livable world. US foreign policy turns unilateralist. January 2002. June 15 2002.
www.clw.org/control/bushunilateral.html
Dempsey, Gary. Not so supreme court. National Review. April 9 2002. June 20 2002.
www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-dempsey040902.asp
Hoyos, Carola. US warned not to risk rift with Europe over treaty. Financial times.com. March 27 2002. June 15 2002.
http://news.ft.com/ft/gx.cgi/ftc?pagename=View&c=Article&cid=FT34QC6GAZC&live=true&tagid=IXLMS1QTICC
Human rights watch homepage. 22 June 2002. June 22 2002.
www.hrw.org
Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below 
"
