Cypherpunks asked to help ICC with strong crypto

[Aimee Farr]

A one Nomen said:

> There was an interesting proposal by Dave Del Torto yesterday at SFBAY
> cypherpunk meeting. He suggested that cypherpunks were, sort of, invited
> to help a newly founded international police force. These guys help the
> international court of justice, and track down criminals like Milosevic,
> bin Laden and others. In their investigations they need strong crypto,
> because sometimes they operate in the hostile environments.

Before you support the ICC - know that there is substantial opposition to
this entity, indeed the US was among the last 2 signatories - Clinton signed
on his way out (along with Israel, I think.). Many of you have strong
feelings in regard to the US Constitution, sovereignty, and nation-states. A
copy of my original post of 2/19/01 is below.

Links for information and investigation:
http://iccnow.org (pro ICC)
http://www.thelibertycommittee.org (con ICC)

My personal opinion: neither side has adequately responded to my concerns.
In fact, both sides seem overly emotionally charged... as it always is.
However, the ICC CLEARLY bears the burden of persuasion.

> If any cypherpunk needs a get-out-of-jail pass, this is the chance to
> earn one.

[1] Please send the international immunity pass so I can add this mythical
beast to my form bank.

[2] Heh. You might not make the friends you think. While international human
rights is among one of the most worthwhile endeavors, many members of the
executive branch, legislative branch and most notably - US intelligence
communities and US Military are VIOLENTLY opposed to the ICC. On the other
hand, a number of respected human rights groups that I support are violently
in favor of the ICC. So is the American Bar Association, I believe. And,
nobody likes the bad guys.

> Volunteers should contact Dave.

Obviously, Dave is a good guy, fighting bad guys is a good cause, I do think
the ICC has something to say for itself. I certainly do not support "mass
rapists" and other sick ilk and I think bringing them to justice is a worthy
cause. However, I find "world justice" a problematic concept in practice. I
think the role of the sovereign is to stand between YOU and other
sovereigns, and that war and conflict is always bloody, sick, and never
gentlemanly. I fear the use of treaty-power, and I think it has been
overextended to reach individuals and deny them the protections and rights
of their sovereign.

=====================================
My previous post, edited for clarity:
=====================================

<snip> ... according to some people's opinions of the International
Criminal Court. Many say we will be yielding our sovereignty, our
Constitution, and our procedural protections to this Court. (ICC advocates,
on the other hand, are quick to point out concord between the ICC and the US
Constitution: http://www.wfa.org/issues/icc/usconst.html .)

The ICC is an international court, judging _individuals_, not nation-states,
in regard to:

"the crime of genocide; crimes against humanity; war crimes; and the crime
of aggression." Many have expressed concern over subsequent extensions of
the Court's subject matter jurisdiction.

One commentator stated that even
if a nation is not a party to the Rome Statute, the ICC can still
investigate a crime within that nation according to ICC rules. [I haven't
read all the documentation, and I'm not about to, so I can't say about such
nuances....]
<snip>

********
I invite, acknowledge, and appreciate opposing viewpoints. I admit my fears
in this regard are slippery-slope, but who says this couldn't move into
datacrime/cybercrime, I've already got the cybercrime treaty and
cyberterrorism/INFOWAR is considered an act of aggression everywhere I know.
The UN is a secret court and they strangle press and free speech rights. I
balk at the thought of somebody ripping a fellow-American out of the US
Constitution and imposing their notions of justice, procedure, investigation
and discovery processes, no matter what precedents have been set in this
area. IMHO, the ICC goes too far. That is a political entity.

Is that an American-centric view? YES.

Am I willing to compromise it to catch the worst evils on earth? NO. I've
seen the pictures of horror, I am still unwilling to negotiate away the
constitutional rights of American citizens. You have the right to be judged
by a jury of your peers, not strangers from another country.

Until the ICC addresses these concerns, they can kiss my ass.

~Aimee