Sovereignty v. global justice [was... Mohammed gets Miranda]

[Aimee Farr]

[I refrained from posting yab, but Declan's latest Politech "FC: U.N. hopes
to shut down accused Rwandan journalist's web site" gigged me.]

Phillip H Zakas said:

> hmm.  does this mean le/intelligence agencies will soon need to have a
> warrant to perform wiretaps on overseas communications?  And if
> no warrant,
> can collected evidence eventually be disallowed if foreign suspects are
> brought to us courts?  slippery slope.

Or, no slope ... 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....]

Yet another ill wind for criminal nation-states, sheltering sovereigns, and
putative techrepublics.

	A:mee