We're curious... did you hear this program even though you're not a regular listener to NPR's Justice Talking? Did both sides in the debate get equal treatment?

Traveling to Amsterdam, we found that one side in the debate, the Pro-ICC side, dominated the audience. It's no coincidence that we were doing the program just a few miles away from the Hague, where the International Criminal Court is based... Yet we worked hard to make sure both sides were heard.

So - we're eager for your thoughts. Please share them here.

Steve Mencher

Producer

NPR's Justice Talking

I listened to the program on the U.S.'s refusal to be part of the ICC and I thought Justice Talking conducted the discussion in a fair and balanced manner. Yes, many in the audience, including Americans, were critical of the U.S.'s refusal to participate - but so are many Americans at home - even in this small town in rural Georgia. I am very disappointed that our government chose to "unsign" the treaty. If the U.S. is sincere in its stated goal to protect human rights, and to improve economic and political conditions around the world, we have a duty to fully participate in the ICC.

I found the irony adorable.

Before and after the international court show and the U.S. constitutional claims, my local station promo-ed a special on justice in West Virginia. Where some people have been jailed for a year or more awaiting trial. So it's just the Fourth

Amendment that needs dissing, right?

The Bush administration cannot possibly sign on to the international criminal court because our President and many in his administration are war criminals. How can we apply justice to Saddam Hussien if we cannot hold our own leader to the same standard? Bush has bombed civilian targets, often using weapons like cluster bombs that result in maiming of small children. He has used depleted uranium ordinance that has poisoned Iraq. He has condoned the systematic torture of prisoners. And he has used false pretenses as Hitler did to justify invasion. It makes me so sad and angry to see so many of my fellow citizens buy into the justifications of empire. Sincerely. John Pritchard

As a US military member, I am presumably one of the potential war criminals that President Bush is trying to protect from the ICC. However, it was explained several different times – and quite convincingly, I might add – that the ICC only investigates cases of extraordinary significance when the suspect’s country is either unwilling or unable to prosecute. In that all military personnel are subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), it would never be the case that a courts martial, if appropriate, wouldn’t be utilized. It might also be interesting to point out that under the UCMJ, one has the right to waive a trial by jury and request to be tried by judge alone. This would be the case whether one was pleading guilty or not and I found it curious that US negotiators considered this such an issue when it’s deemed acceptable practice in our own military legal system.

So far as potential charges being brought against President Bush or Secretary Rumsfeld, I believe it’s ridiculous to even consider the possibility given the nature of the court, the reasons for its existence, and the fact that investigations must be “approved” by the UN Security Council. I can see no reason that the US should not be a signatory to the ICC. If we are to have any credibility, we must support this effort and work toward resolving any flaws in the ICC rather than simply standing against it or selectively giving support to its very important mission.

I am a former American legal clerk for the International Criminal Court in The Hague, Netherlands. I just heard your program on the ICC. The creation of the Court is an amazing step in international criminal law and I thank you for bringing this program to your listeners. I also want to thank you for conducting such a wonderful, balanced dialogue about the Court's purpose and its current important work.

Best regards,

Anna N. Astvatsaturova

To Mr. Pritchard, Stop defaming our President by comparing him to Hitler. That is as disgusting as it is abhorrent. I could make up ambiguous statements saying Mr. Pritchard strolled into the room with a cockiness that mirrored that of Pol Pot on his way to exterminate a village. Linking our Presidents traits with the proven traits of the most evilest men ever born unto society, is vile. Why do you allow your Political affiliation to lead you by the nose as if you were brainwashed. Think for yourselves and stop letting your Liberal leadership fill your head with nonsense.

Ratifying the ICC would be not be advantageous to the United States. President Bush is looking out for our soldiers by not ratifying this. War is a very ambiguous thing. Sometimes one mans terrorist is the others freedom fighter. As the American public President Bush has to convince us that we are in the right and need to go to war. This task is hard enough. If the U.S. joined the ICC, our Presidents would have to convince the world that a problem is occurring and that we need to act militarily to correct it. The problem here is its much harder to convince many different cultures with their own unique history that our view is the right one. We would have to convince the whole world that a certain war would be needed because otherwise countries who opposed the war would see our actions during this war as inhumane. During war people do inhumane things but that is because it is a war. If all the countries would be fighting the same war the same atrocities would be committed on each side and therefore people would act as if they are normal. With only the U.S. fighting a war however, people will not feel that the same atrocities that they might have committed during the same war would be normal. Therefore our troops would be at risk whenever the U.S. would go to war on any type of controversial issue. Not just our troops would be in jeopardy.

Some people believe that the U.S. should become apart of the ICC because it would make us appear to look like we are cooperating, not imperialistic, etc. etc. All of this is probably true, but the question is, when our troops or other major governmental administrators get accused of committing international crimes, what will we do? Will we just turn them over and let them be at the mercy of foreigners? I think that we would then try to refuse to extradite our people that are accused of international crimes, or we might try our best to make sure they are not guilty by means that might be foul, or might seem foul to the other countries in the world. I think that this will cause more face to be lost than what we would gain by becoming apart of the ICC.

One last thing that would affect us negatively if we ratified the ICC is it would open a whole new world of politics that would affect President Bush’s decisions. This would then put a restriction on what our presidents can do. I think that we have done a good enough job to place enough restrictions on our president and do not want outside forces that I am unable to control to have an affect on my president.

I have been experienced more sufferring than you.

 

1. Government  Tax (Worldwide) including Singapore
2. Customs Tax (Worldwide) including Singapore
3. Business Tax (Worldwide)
4. Energy Tax (Worldwide)
5. Transportation Tax (Worldwide)
6. Self Generate Tax (This one really too much by now)

1. Arrogant answer from Singaporean Company/Ministry of Manpower
2. Stupid reasons from Singaporean Directors?Government Officers
3. Lazy colleagues in workplaces
4. Don"t Know much accountant everywhere
5. Unanswered email from everybody that really important in my business
6. Uncooperative partner/Investor worldwide