Edwards says he will have US be part of ICC

[quinnox]

I disagree with him on this one. I don't think the US should answer to any higher authority than its own court.

[ibegurpard]

1. Why?

Why should we be exempt from it if no one else is? I agree with him on this.

[Walt Starr]

3. Yep, that's one that goes into the Pro column for Edwards

It means Bush* and company could be brought up on war crimes charges.

[MercutioATC]

2. I agree with him (for a change)

I think that we should be a signatory to the ICC. No single nation should consider itself to be the sole judge of what is proper. By not participating, we tell the world that we consider ourselves to be above the law (which, frankly, this administration does).

[Maple]

4. If the US operates in the rest of the world

then it operates under international law.

[Terwilliger]

5. which means you think the UN is irrelevant

so, what Dem platform does that cover?

[AnnabelLee]

6. Good on Edwards

I agree with him.

[Syn_Dem]

7. I agree

It can be another check...who knows, if the we were members of the ICC now maybe Shrub wouldnt get away with this much bullshit.

[AP]

8. This is one of my top 10-15 political issues today

Having the rule of law and justice oversea cross-border activities in the are of foreign policy -- one which has the power to imprison people for violating the law -- is a sure route to sane foreign policy.

Is any other candidate talking about this issue?

[Jack Rabbit]

9. A point for Edwards

The saving grace of the so-called Blair Democrats is that while they are wrong about the war on terror generally and the invasion of Iraq specifically, they are reasonable and prudent men. They respect process. Bush, on the other hand, is a law unto himself and will cast asunder any obstacle, no matter how sacred or inviolable, that stands between him and the object of his lusts.

While they appear foolish in supporting Bush in a war against terrorists that he is not really waging and appear gullible for having bought Bush's pack of lies about the justification for the invasion of Iraq, it would not be right to conclude that things would be no different under a President Edwards, a President Kerry or a President Lieberman. Any of these men would have respected the process and sought genuine support before pursuing action against Saddam. I do not believe that had they no more success than Bush had that they would have proceeded with the invasion.

Thus, in taking this stand, Edwards shows why he would make a better President than Bush. The same can be said of Lieberman, Kerry and Gephardt. Should one of these men become President, he won't always be right from the start, but he will proceed with more deliberation, listen to a broader range of opinion and advice and base his decision on concrete facts rather than attempting to make the facts fit a rashly conceived course of action. By respecting prcess, these men are far more likely to arrive at the right conclusion, even if they don't see it from the start.

[Muddleoftheroad]

10. How?

How does he plan on getting this through the Senate? It will die the same way Kyoto did.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

11. Disagree!

It's fine if you don't want to answer to this court of the International Community.
However, if you don't, then you should not answer to other International authorities too, such as the U.N.
At the same time you should not take part in the International Community at all. If you are going to be part of the
International Community as so many here at DU believe in, then you must play by the rules.

[DrGonzoLives]

12. That's silly

Basically, then, other countries have to answer to this court, but not us? We can do whatever we want and get away with it? That's ridiculous.