“I am tired of people telling me that the ‘system is broken’”

Well, it is, unfortunately, and the trouble is that too much faith is placed in the Constitution, as if it were incapable of containing nonsense.

And what possible justification can there be in appointing USSC Justices ‘for life’? – there is none, so why don’t you forcibly retire them at age 65, like practically all other public sector employees. Why do you allow the executive to project its political ideology far beyond its term, where democracy cannot reach?

If the system needs big fixes, it’s broken alright!

Posted by Quo Vadis

Already happened (9/11/2001, ‘Bin Laden Determined to Attack Within US’, etc.).

I actually don’t think that’s true. According to the ICC website

The ICC will not replace national courts, but will be complementary to national criminal jurisdictions. The Court will only investigate and prosecute if a State is unwilling or unable to genuinely prosecute. This will be determined by the judges. Unjustified delays in proceedings as well as proceedings which are merely intended to shield persons from criminal responsibility will not render a case inadmissible before the ICC.

does the ICC even have juristiction over countries that are not members?

In theory, even though the US is not a party to the ICC, the ICC has jurisdiction over genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes committed by US troops on the territory of any state which is a party. From the ICC website

The Court may exercise its jurisdiction with respect to the crime of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes either when the situation is referred to the Prosecutor by a State Party or by the Security Council, or when the Prosecutor decides to initiate an investigation his or her own decision and on the basis of information received. However, in this last case, the Prosecutor must seek the authorization of the Pre-Trial Chamber before proceeding with the investigation.

[In the case where the situation was not referred to the Court by the Security Council] the Court may exercise its jurisdiction only if either the State on the territory of which the suspected crime occurred (State of territoriality), or the State of which the person suspected of having committed the crime is a national (State of nationality of the suspected person), is a State Party to the Statute.

If neither of these two States is a State Party to the Statute, the Court will not be in a position to investigate the suspected crimes, except if either the State of territoriality or the State of nationality of the suspected person accepts the exercise of jurisdiction of the Court by declaration lodged with the Registrar.

However, the US has taken aggressive action to prevent the ICC from exercising its jurisdiction over US personnel in accordance with the above. According to Human Rights Watch:

First, the Bush administration negotiated a Security Council resolution to provide an exemption for U.S. personnel operating in U.N. peacekeeping operations. …

Second, the Bush administration is requesting states around the world to approve bilateral agreements requiring them not to surrender American nationals to the ICC. The goal of these agreements (“impunity agreements” or so-called “Article 98 agreements”) is to exempt U.S. nationals from ICC jurisdiction. They also lead to a two-tiered rule of law for the most serious international crimes: one that applies to U.S. nationals; another that applies to the rest of the world’s citizens. ……

Thirdly, the U.S Congress has assisted the Bush administration’s effort to obtain bilateral impunity agreements. The Congress passed the American Servicemembers’ Protection Act (ASPA), which was signed into law by President Bush on 3 August. The major anti-ICC provisions in ASPA are: a prohibition on U.S. cooperation with the ICC; an “invasion of the Hague” provision: authorizing the President to “use all means necessary and appropriate” to free U.S. personnel (and certain allied personnel) detained or imprisoned by the ICC; punishment for States that join the ICC treaty: refusing military aid to States’ Parties to the treaty (except major U.S. allies); a prohibition on U.S. participation in peacekeeping activities unless immunity from the ICC is guaranteed for U.S. personnel….

This is the issue and it’s a matter of trust. Presumably, that ~50% believe that those who have the responsibility to protect the US from terrorist attacks are doing these things because they are necessary. Few people have the knowledge of intelligence requirements and interrogation methods to make the necessary value judgments themselves so they have to trust someone else to make these decisions for them. If you are going to convince that 50% that those responsible should be punished, you are going to have to have to weaken that trust or provide an authoritative voice that is more trustworthy. If this can’t be done, then any attempt to change the policies or punish those responsible will be impossible or at best, fraught with risk of consequences.

Imagine if the UN or the ICC or the German courts or some other entity outside the US managed to convict and punish some US officials or intelligence personnel and thereby affect some change in US policy. Imagine then that a terrorist attack against the US occurs and that someone is able to make a convincing case that the attack could have been prevented had the policy not been changed.

I think that perhaps that whole Depression thing hurt them a bit. Jeez.

“Yes, that is possible. What do you propose? I repeat Barry, what do you propose? Me, I’m playing the optimist. ”

I further boldly predict that almost no one will care, which is not a good sign for the future of American liberty.

This means that the people who did this will have correctly learned that they can get away with such things, that they can profit by such things, and that even general public knowledge of such things isn’t a problem.

The lessons of the GOP for the past six years also includes that a GOP president can tell a Democratic Congress to f*ck off to an extent that I wouldn’t have believed back in 2000, or even 2005. The Democratic leadership in Congress will probably attack the Democratic President (along with the GOP), but all that that will do is demonstrate that the Dem leadership only has the b*lls to attack their own, weakening the Democrats’ power.

In 2013 or 2015, a GOP administration will again take power. Many of the senior people will be middle-management guys from this administration, just as many in this administration were from the Nixon, Ford, Reagan and Bush I administrations. And the one clear lesson they’ll have learned is that they can get away with so very, very much.