And I'm against a company charging, say 49.99$ for a game in an online store for US, Canada and Mexico, and then charging 49.99€ for that same game in Europe. Given that euro is stronger than the dollar, I call that unfair. I've seen this practice many times and I say, any company which does things like that deserves all the pirates they get.
And now something completely different!
And I fully agree that the US is actively undermining the ICC, as any rational country should. You'll note that the ICC charter lacks quite a few protections that US citizens (as well as most other countires' citizens) are entitled to, such as:
Trial by jury - probably not logistically possible, and it's the least problematic of these;
Trial by jury is an inherently unjust and biased system. Instead of a panel of competent, unbiased judges, you have a bunch of civilians who are probably bored, allmost certainly prejudiced, and would like to get it over with as soon as possible. Yeah. That's justice.
It forces the participation of non-member countries - your country does not need to be a party to the treaty that formed the ICC to be subject to it;
Yes, you see otherwise all the international criminals would scamper to whatever country doesn't want to cooperate, like they did at the end of WWII.
Presumption of innocence - nope, they don't really have to prove squat, if you're on trial you're guilty until proven otherwise;
Really, well then why have a court at all? Just take the guys out in the back and shoot them. I haven't heard of such practices on the news though. I might add that "presuming guilty until proven otherwise" is actually a daily practice at the Guantanamo and Abu Graib. Not that anyone gets a trial there.
Right to councel - it's allowed, but not guarranteed as a right;
Trust me, all the big war crime defendants get an attorney to represent them and often have entire legal teams at their beck and call.
No rules of admissability - no control on what can be used as evidence;
If you mean to imply that "I think he did it" can be used as evidence, then you're mistaken. ICC proceedings can take an extraordinary amount of time to complete, precisely because its a very meticulous process involving particulalry nasty crimes.
No rules against self-incrimination - the court can force you and your family to testify against you;
Yes, they poke a cattle prod up your arse until you sing. I hear they still keep the old Inquisition tools in the cellar for the "special" clients.
Lacks impartial judges - the country accusing you is specifically allowed to appoint a judge to sit on your panel, even if there isn't already one there.
Last time I checked, there was more than one judge on a single case. And it in any case beats the jury system. Who is more likely to deliver an impartial and just verdict - a panel of judges, experts chosen for their knowledge of law and objectivity, or a group of laymen who know didly squat about law and come prepackaged with their own ideas of how the law should work?
No form of appeal - if you're convicted, you're done;
Considering that the ICC deals with particulalry nasty stuff like war crimes, I should think so! I don't want Adolf Hitler to appeal, do you? Alas, the tyranny of my mind is not the actual case, thus OF COURSE you can appeal. Don't believe me? Here's their official section dealing with appeals.
No protection against double jeopardy - if you're acquitted, you may NOT be done;
Yeah, what's with that? I mean, I like that "can't touch it" with the US justice system... "yeah, so I ordered the execution of those ten thousand civilians, but you said I didn't and set me free, so NYAH NYAH NYAH! They found the mass graves? Too late, ahahaha!"
It conflicts with the UN charter, in which all members are given the unlimited right to self-defense.
Spot on. Only, self defense should not extend to "don't want to play!" As you said, a lot of head honchos would find themselves in the hot seat and a very embarassing situation would develop where "important" people would have to answer for the same crimes petty warlords are tried for. It might cause the public to think, wait a minute, I thought *they* were the bad guys!
And there would likely be a lot of trouble over that, so maybe its better that the big fishes are untackable. For now.
The point of all this above is to illustrate how propaganda can distort an image of something. People listen to the nay-sayers, not bothering to use their own minds and educate themselves on the subject before passing a verdict (which is why the jury system stinks). Same as you totally misunderstand the way ICC works, people misunderstand the way international law works, and especially, the way law in other countries works.
In most countries, their system of law has been refined through the will of the generations of people who *live* there. It may be different that your country's law, but just because you think its stupid, or unfair, does not mean its country automatically deserves to be attacked or sanctioned.