by Vince?Daliessio
Supposedly, it was because the International Criminal Court was an usurpation of our national sovreignty, and would expose US soldiers, even in cases of "justified" military action to War Crimes Tribunals. Now we see it's because the admin was planning on maybe committing some "War Crimes" of its own. (I hate to use the phrase, because, after all, War itself is a crime, isn't it?);
(Thanks to Andy for the article)
I go one further than Ralph does - all war is bad and undesirable, even war in self-defense. But just like shooting a criminal in self-defense, it is, in this instance, preferable to the greater evil, that of allowing the crime to proceed. But singling out certain crimes and certain individuals is a slippery slope for sure - one mans' terrorist is another mans' "freedom fighter", and even in a just war we are still vulnerable to the vagaries of an unaccountable court.
An unjust war (one not specifically in self defense) is a war crime for sure. Just reading a great Ralph Raico article (all Ralph Raico articles are great!) that deals with this very subject: http://www.lewrockwell.com/raico/raico20.html
?
