I think there are two different things here - Tracy is talking about the ability of an international court to indict an American citizen for actions performed either as a member of the armed forces ( a peacekeeper in Bosnia being accused of war crimes or Donald Rumsfeld being accused by a Belgian of war crimes ) or otherwise in performance of his duties as a representative of the government. We have treaties with many countries ( especially those who rely on America for defense ) for this kind of protection. In many cases, criminal acts by Americans - rape, murder etc - the US government may choose to waive this right and hand the culprit over to local justice ( the marines in Okinawa convicted of rape, for example)

The US will probably never agree to turning over full sovereignty to an international tribunal like the one in the Hague, as 1) it would mean we would never provide troops for UN missions - and then who would? 2) this would obviously be used as a political tool as the US is seen as a target by many with less than humanitarian motives.

The thing you are talking about is extra-territoriality for all U.S. citizens abroad. This, of course, should not be granted US citizens any more than any other citizens. If I commit a crime in Germany I can expect to face German justice and rightly so. As private citizens we are all subject to the laws of the countries we choose to visit. We are, after all, guests and in that country only by permission of its citizens through its government.

That is current international law and there is no effort on the part of the US to change that.


>Tracy,
>
>> I will never agree with any international court having jurisdiction over an american citizen before the U.S. courts.
>
>While I think the tendency to stand up for every of your citizens [Iran embassy comes to mind] is applaudable and to be preferred to giving in to terrorists [buying out from africa of german tourists a few months back], I think this is formulated too extreme or encompassing.
>
>What about acts of US citizens abroad ? Why should every [act even if not commited in the US] be judged by US standards ? I realize you spoke about "international courts" probably talking about Den Haag, but why shouldn't a US citizen caught with dope in turkey be judged by that countries harsher sentences for that particular crime, to give a slightly off base argument ?
>Any reason to put US standards always first ?
>Sounds a bit arrogant to me ;-)
>
>regards
>
>thomas