American exceptionalism will allow war criminals to march away scot-free.

Yeah, right. Seriously. Let's throw these criminals to the exclusive jurisdiction of Ethiopia and Somalia.

While the American drive to resist internalization is sometimes petty and really just kinda trivial (most notably with the refusal to adapt the metric system) and sometimes slightly more drastic (refusal to reform health care and refusal to pay most UN dues), this is yet another instance where American refusal to sign onto an international initiative will mean that either justice will not be served or lives will be lost. It is really sad to see, given that the US tries to uphold a reputation as a guiding light for human rights, freedom, and justice.

 

A fine point.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...s-immune-from-prosecution-for-war-crimes.html

 

Yes, because neighboring countries that object to their citizens being tried by international courts will surely welcome Libya's facade of justice. If the lynchings don't happen before that is. That's exactly what a young democracy needs, a heavy and emotionally scarring caseload that will burden any developing legal system for years or a boatload of dead bodies that are a stark reminder of the lack of the rule of law in its' own borders.

Beyond that though, the whole statute is politically motivated. The best way to put it would be to say that the US is looking out for the sovereignty of countries. The worst way to look at it, which is often the lens that America herself portrays at say China (ex: on Darfur and non-intervention in Sudan) is that Americans are refusing to embrace the very same principle of the universality of human rights that has been the cornerstone of American foreign policy and is shielding criminals from justice.

And how in the hell can you even define a nation like Somalia as a sovereign nation? More like sovereign basket case. What kind of justice will Somalian mercenaries face if they are exempted from the proceedings of international law?