Talk:United States and the International Criminal Court

message: Hi there! My name is Mirelis Gonzalez and I'm a senior at Syracuse University studying International Relations. As part of the Wikimedia Foundation's Public Policy initiative, I will be editing this entry over the next few weeks. It'd be great if I could have the support of the Wikipedia community, especially those that have been working with the US and the ICC entry. I look forward to editing and working alongside everyone!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.119.216.33 (talk) 20:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: The article does not reflect enough the hipocrisy of the usa, that likes to present itself as champion of human right but in fact is afraid that internationally commited crimes be judged by an internation body en par with china and the like. Reminds me of israel refusing an international investigation comition to its killing of multiple turkisch civilians on international waters. It is always better to be judged by oneself. Otherwise president bush and many us army officials would long have been indicted for crimes against humanity.
=========
 
"What the Nethercutt Amendment does is exempt all US nationals and contractors with the US from accountability for widespread and systematic war crimes, crims against humanity, and genocide committed on the territory of a signatory country. " This is entirely POV. The US not being in ICC does not remove all accountability for war crimes, it just removes the US from the ICC. There are other methods of ensuring accountability beyond ICC. Stating that without the ICC there is no American system to stop military members from shooting up kids is obiviously biased for the ICC. 
Also, the way this is written seems to imply that the motivation of the amendment was to allow the US to commit genocide. This is not appropiate. The amendment was written for many reasons, many of which are legitmate and not Darth Vadar-like.
Chrisofgenesis (talk) 19:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent Edits (May 11 2008)

message: "What the Nethercutt Amendment does is exempt all US nationals and contractors with the US from accountability for widespread and systematic war crimes, crims against humanity, and genocide committed on the territory of a signatory country. " This is entirely POV. The US not being in ICC does not remove all accountability for war crimes, it just removes the US from the ICC. There are other methods of ensuring accountability beyond ICC. Stating that without the ICC there is no American system to stop military members from shooting up kids is obiviously biased for the ICC. 
Also, the way this is written seems to imply that the motivation of the amendment was to allow the US to commit genocide. This is not appropiate. The amendment was written for many reasons, many of which are legitmate and not Darth Vadar-like.
Chrisofgenesis (talk) 19:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: =

message: The article is littered with POV statements, such as "One might think of the role the U.S. administration or U.S. citizens have played in conflicts around the world in the past,.."  user:Pzg Ratzinger
Agreed. This article needs some serious workuser:chrisofgenesis  —Preceding comment was added at 08:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Grossly POV

message: I might be wrong, but I wonder whether the term "article 98 agreements" can be considered NPOV. After all, it seems to reflect the belief that the bilateral agreements signed by the USA are actually compatible with article 98 of the Statute of the ICC, but that is only the US Government's point of view, and there are some pretty strong arguments against that interpretation. Amnesty International calls them  "impunity agreements", but then again of course Amnesty doesn't really aim at being NPOV. So, should the term be changed, and how?
SFinamore 18:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I certainly wouldn't want to call them impunity agreements! I agree though that Article 98 is POV because it infers that they are consistent with the statute which plenty of people contest. I've only ever heard them being called Article 98 or Impunity Agreements - not much middle ground to go on. Perhaps something like "No-surrender" agreements? AndrewRT(Talk) 23:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "no-surrender" agreements sounds ok, but I'm not able to tell whether that's technically correct. Maybe they could just be called "bilateral agreements", and the content of these agreements could be made clear by the context. SFinamore 12:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia should (when possible) use the normal words and phrases of common ordinary useage. I have no problem with calling them no surrender agreements - or Article 98, if that is what everyone clls them. We are an encyclopedia, we use the words and phrases in their normal context and we do not make up new ones, or spin them. Raggz 04:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "article 98" agreements 

message: At least one other Democratic Senator and 2008 Presidential candidate, Barack Obama, promoted resigning the treaty prior to his decision to seek the Presidency. 
I'm sorry but I don't think this is a valid source per WP:RS. AndrewRT(Talk) 23:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was meant just as a placeholder, while I was looking for a published secondary source.  However, I've been unable to find one.  Will drop reference and tag for fact check, and will just drop entire statement if it's not corroborated within a few days.  MrZaiustalk 01:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Still can't find a verifiable source.  Pulled the comment.  Please restore if one arises, however. MrZaiustalk 09:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Obama 

message: MNE signed too the article 98, but it's not on the map... --PaxEquilibrium 15:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Montenegro 

message: The recent edits by Raggz  contain some moderations I would accept but also some factual and typological errors.
In the order they were written:
For a number of reasons, the United States decided that the ICC had unacceptable consequences for our national sovereignty
Our national sovereignty??? I am not an American and Wikipedia is not written from the point of view of America. Perhaps their national sovereignty?
...American notions of sovereignty, checks and balances, and national independence.
What so no other countries in the world believe in these things?
There is no mechanism within the court for the United States to effectively control an independent prosecutor who pursued such an agenda
changed to:
There is no mechanism within the court for the United States to be treated fairly a byn independent prosecutor who pursued such a political agenda
I'm a bit annoyed, firstly that someone has put a  tag next to this and other statements. Nearly ALL statements - including this one - come straight fromn the main essay cited. NOT EVERY SENTENCE IN WIKIPEDIA REQUIRES A SUPERSCRIPT. Try reading the sources provided FIRST.
Onto your change. LET ME SPELL THIS POINT OUT. The United States wanted the ICC to be only allowed to prosecute if it first had UNSC permission. This is essentially what happened with the ICTFY and ICTR. Under this mechanism the US could veto any investigation it didn't want - regardless of whether it was fair, unfair or just politicaly undesirable. It's not fairness the US wanted - it's CONTROL. Read between the lines and that's obvious.
There are PLENTY of mechanisms within the court to effectively control the prosecutor, including oversight by judges and the Assembly of State Parties. This would ensure that Amercians or indeed nationals of any other coutry are fairly treated. Indeed, judges have already ruled against the prosecutor on issues such as Victims Rights in the Congo case and the initiation of a case in the Central African Republic situation.
The original sentence is accurate and to the point, even if it isn't spun the way you like. The new sentence is incorrect.
The ICC Prosecutor, Mr. Luis Moreno-Ocampo appears to have done just this ...Clearly he then exceeded his authority
Unfortunately this entire paragraph illustrates your misunderstanding of the facts. Again, let me spell this out. The following paragraph is quoted from the http://www.icc-cpi.int/organs/otp.html:
The Prosecutor may start an investigation upon referral of situations in which there is a reasonable basis to believe that crimes have been or are being committed. Such referrals must be made by a State Party or the Security Council of the United Nations...In addition to State Party and Security Council referrals, the Prosecutor may also receive information on crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court provided by other sources, such as individuals or non-governmental organisations. The Prosecutor conducts a preliminary examination of this information in every case.
So to summarise, the prosecutor is obliged to conduct a preliminary investigation whenever a referral is received from a member country, the UNSC or any individual. THE PROSECUTOR DID NOT IN ANY WAY EXCEED HIS POWERS.
Bilateral diplomacy to advance national interests have ben a standard of international diplomacy for millenia, and these represent routine bi-lateral diplomacy.
This sentence is both superfluous and incorrect. The concept of Nation States and National Sovereignty in the modern sense has only really been around since the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648 (see National_sovereignty#Territorial_sovereignty) This has only been universal since decolonisation and the foundation of the United Nations. You may be surprised to hear just how recent the idea of equal nation states is.
the nation where the offense occured is expected to try an accused American in their legal system. If the ICC wanted to try an American for an offense that was legal in the US and also in the other nation, only then would an Article 98 agreement bar their surrender. Americans who violate the laws of other nations are not protected by Article 98 agreements. There is no impunity involved, every nation that signs such agreements may of course continue to prosecute Americans for any violation of their law. 
Interesting statement. Do you have any source for this assertion, such as a link to an actual signed A98 agreement?? 
because it was limiting their ability to fight the War on Terror
Any reason why you've deleted this phrase? Seems pretty important to me.
So, to summarise, many of these amendments are flawed and the overall impact is to make the article less accurate than it was before. Therefore I propose reverting the whole change and going back to the article as it was previously. As an offer of compromise, I will hold off doing this for one week to give an opportunity for these concerns to be addressed and/or discussed. If they haven't been addressed by then I will revert, but I hope I wont have to. AndrewRT(Talk) 11:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Response to just one point: There are only two instances of  at the moment, and both seem warranted to this reader. Those assertions lack clear citations, and are both written in a manner that warrants attribution. MrZaiustalk 11:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Older edits 

message: Andrew: "Skeptics say there may be other reasons than those advanced by the Bush administration for frustrating the International Criminal Court. One might think of the role the U.S. administration or U.S. citizens have played in conflicts around the world in the past, i.e. Gulf of Tonkin Incident, My Lai Massacre, aid to Operation Condor through the School of the Americas. Continuing these policies today, under the ICC Statute, could be grounds for prosecution."
This requires revision or deletion. 
What charge would the ICC bring for the Gulf of Tonkin Incident?
What charge would the ICC bring for the My Lai Massacre?
What charge would the ICC bring for the Operation Condor?
What charge would the ICC bring for the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation|School of the Americas?
Obviously the ICC would have no jurisdiction over any of these, so why say that it might? If you disagree, please offer the crime and the jurisdiction necessary? Raggz 08:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The point is that in the past, as well as today, US administrations have engaged in activities that arguably can be considered war crimes. Of course the ICC specifically prosecutes war crimes when countries fail to do so themselves, and as such the current administration might be subject of such court proceeding had the ICC any jurisdiction.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 11:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Andrew - I deleted this: "In light of the overt lack of similar procedural guarantees in recent U.S. Military Commissions held at Guantanamo Bay, international critics have sighted arguments that the failure of the United States to ratify the Rome Statute is hypocritical and unsustainable." You are claiming that the U.S. Military Commissions held at Guantanamo Bay have something to do with the ICC? Many believe that these Commissions (and everything at Guantanamo Bay) are proper and legal and others do not. You have a pov here? Even if we assume that your pov here is correct - why does the ICC come into this? Do you want the ICC to oversee prisoners of war? If not, what role? Why is the decision of the US "unsustainable" - why is it "hypocritical"? I really do not follow your logic here. Feel free to put this back, but please first clarify what you mean? Raggz 10:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Firstly, I didn't add either of these statements. I agree this is off-topic and not particular neutral - I am happy for it to be deleted. AndrewRT(Talk) 15:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Wow, what a shock.  An anti-Bush partisan is using a totally unrelated matter to attack the Bush administration's more recent foreign policy actions.  Evidently the author is clairvoyant and can surmise the Bush administration's "true" motives for opposing the treaty, such that he feels he can definitely state those supposed motives in an article that purports to be encylopedic.  And using My Lai as an example is pathetic for many reasons.  Evidently the idiot who mentioned My Lai is unaware of the criminal prosecutions that did occur, thus the whole "war crimes that states won't prosecute" justification is bullshit.  Moreover, My Lai was not sanctioned by the United States government.  As someone else pointed out, none of the crimes listed could be prosecuted by the ICC due to the whole ex post facto "inconvenience".  Mentioning My Lai is about as relevant as mentioning the Bataan Death March in relation to the Japanese position on the ICC.   And George Bush would have to be able to see into the future to oppose the ICC in 2002 based upon something he did in Iraq, you know, a war that didn't start until 2003.  It is painfully obvious that yet another partisan jackass is trying to use the ICC entry as a forum to bash certain countries and politicians he doesn't like.  The motives are pretty transparent when one sees the individual making such ridiculous assertions uses zmag as a source and also mentions one of the radical left's favorite boogeymen, the School of the Americas.  I am surprised gratuitous mentions of Fox News and Rush Limbaugh were not thrown in for good measure. I get so damn tired of people who try to use Wikipedia as their hobby horse when it comes to political issues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.28.75.230 (talk) 22:46, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  War Crimes 

message: Raggz said "If I misread it, it should be edited"
Wrong. If YOU misread it, and YOU made a mistake in your edit, YOU should put it right.
It's not MY job to correct YOUR mistakes. If you can't be bothered to read things properly, even when I point out your mistakes, I will just revert the whole lot. Clock's ticking. AndrewRT(Talk) 15:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But is it incorrect? Sorry about your clock ... Sure, I will look at it and see if it is accurate and supported. Raggz 18:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The ICC states "Procedure: "The Prosecutor may start an investigation upon referral of situations in which there is a reasonable basis to believe that crimes have been or are being committed. Such referrals must be made by a State Party or the Security Council of the United Nations, acting to address a threat to international peace and security. In accordance with the Statute and the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, the Prosecutor must evaluate the material submitted to him before making the decision on whether to proceed." http://www.icc-cpi.int/organs/otp.html Note the use of the word "must"
The next paragraph says "In addition to State Party and Security Council referrals, the Prosecutor may also receive information on crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court provided by other sources, such as individuals or non-governmental organisations. The Prosecutor conducts a preliminary examination of this information in every case. If the Prosecutor then decides that there is a reasonable basis to proceed with an investigation, he will request the Pre-Trial Chamber to authorise an investigation." I took the use of the word must to mean must. The second qualifying paragraph might be taken to mean that the word must is badly used in the first paragraph? Raggz 19:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Responsibility for edits 

message: "Don't you get tired of having judges ask you for campaign money every time the elction comes around"
Judges aren't elected in Britain, or in most countries in the world. AndrewRT(Talk) 15:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Judges 

message: Andrew, you reverted "as it creates a court of appeal above the U.S. Supreme Court, which may act if it decides that the United States is unable or unwilling to prosecute any alleged crimes." This seems to be OR and is also an inaccurate statement. Under what circumstance would a case denied by the US Supreme Court be heard by the ICC? The principle of complementarity would be violated? If your point is that you believe that the ICC is the means to negate the sovereignty of the United States, why not state this more directly so that the Reader more easily grasps your point? If you believe that the ICC has a US role as a higher court to appeal to when the US Supreme Court decides against your views, this I believe to be inaccurate. Please support your OR before reverting again. The US Supreme Court may NOT be reviewed by the ICC, read page 7 of this reference. http://www.dgroups.org/groups/fipa/public/docs/Doc_Marcelo_Stubrin_Corte_Penal_-_ENG.pdfRaggz 19:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  US Sovereignty 

message: REVERTED: "The United States accepts that American citizens who travel to other countries, including troops and politicians, are bound by the laws of those countries. However, it argues that a country can under international law, only delegate the enforcement of those laws to courts with international jurisdiction. The US recognizes the United Nations, has a treaty with it, and so legally the UN has international jurisdiction over Americans that the ICC lacks. Therefore indictment by the ICC (without legal jurisdiction) of any American citizen for any crime would be a breach of American sovereignty."see Madeline Morris, High crimes and misconceptions: the ICC and non-party states, Law and Contemporary Problems, Winter 2001 vol. 64 no. 1 p. 13ff.  
Why was this reverted? This language better explains Dr Morris's paper than did the prior language because this language suggested that (1) somehow Americans abroad have ever been exempted from crimes and (2) that the ICC has jurisdiction to change this. The ICC has zero international jurisdiction, except (1) when a nation state accepts ICC jurisdiction or (2) The UN lends it's international jurisdiction to the ICC. Dr. Morris makes the point that any international court that acts against US nationals without any international jurisdiction denies US national sovereignty. The UN has such jurisdiction but the ICC does not (except by actions of ICC member jurisdiction), do we agree on this? Raggz 19:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  International Jurisdiction 

message: REVERTED without talk: "The ICC has significantly redefined what constitutes crimes, for example, it has broadened the definition of what a "crime against humanity" means." Why was this reverted? It is a factual and most relevant point. The focus of ICC resistance is that the ICC is free to define international criminal law in any way that it decides to. Here is a concrete and documentable case that the ICC is already doing this. Is smoking in public a "crime against humanity" that the ICC has jurisdiction over? The answer is clearly YES, IF the ICC may redefine a "crime against humanity" to include smoking in public. So why was this well-supported and important point edited away without talk? Raggz 19:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I didn't carry out this reversion, however the definition of offences and of the elements of offences was not effected by the ICC, it was effected by the states negotiating the statute, which included states which signed but did not ratify, such as the US. AS a matter of law the definition of "Crimes Against Humanity" is broader in some respects, and narrower in others, than the definition of that crime under ICTY and ICTR, and in customary international law. [See Analysis by Professor Cassese in Cassese et al eds The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: A Commentary (OUP 2002) Vol I,  Chapter 11.2 "Crimes Against Humanity" at pp. 373-377].  If the definition of acts constituting a crime against humanity is to be redefined, to include "smoking in public" this would require an amendment to the statute, not by the ICC, but following agreement by the parties. The process is extremely complex and absent consensus of the state parties, requires a 2/3 majority in favour of the change. But even an amendment adopted in such circumstances will not come into force until 7/8 of the State Parties have filed instruments of acceptance. When an amendment has been accepted by 7/8ths of the state parties, any unhappy state party may give notice that it withdraws from the statute. Finally, I need to point out that neither Prof Cherif Bassiouni, to whom you refer by way of footnote, nor any other commentator suggests that these states would include something like "smoking in public". Your suggestion is ridiculous, and runs counter to the concept underlying the offence itself, and would never even be proposed by a state party, let alone be accepted even by one other. For goodness sake! diran 22:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ICC Redefining Crimes 

message: REVERTED without talk: "No American is immune to prosecution by any nation that they may choose to travel to. Article 98 Agreements offer absolutely no protection to those who have committed crimes abroad. Nations that sign such agreements remain entirely free to enforce their national laws against Americans."  Why was this deleted? It is factual and relevant. Raggz 20:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article 98 Agreements 

message: REVERTED without talk: "By international law, questions regarding the interpretation of the UN Charter may only be interpreted by the UN Security Council. The UN Charter requires that all UN members support the decisions of the Security Council, so only ICC members who are not also UN members are free to dissent."  Do you want a citation of these two provisions of the UN Charter? Do you want the actual text quoted? Don't delete without discussion please. Raggz 20:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I didn't do this revert, however I would be interested in being referred to authoritative sources of international law which provide that questions regarding the interpretation of the UN charter may only be interpreted by the Sec Council. diran 00:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  UN Jurisdiction 

message: The article says
"Many ICC advocates expect the ICC to soon exercise "universal jurisdiction", a legal concept that means that there would be no external limitations upon what the ICC could or could not legally do within the United States, except those imposed by the Rome Statute or by the court upon itself."
This is not sourced, and actually is patent rubbish, being contradictory. The basis for jurisdiction is set out in the statute itself  - it is territorial, and active personality, or referral by the Sec Council. So how the ICC could soon exercise "universal jurisdiction" is a complete mystery. There is a considerable feel of "flight of fancy" about many of the contributions to this article. In my view it fails to meet the standards which wikipedia requires [which aren't all that demanding!] diran 22:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Universal Jurisdiction 

message: "The status of the United States and the International Criminal Court, amid bipartisan consensus, is that the United States does not intend to ratify the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, which established the court as a body to investigate and prosecute genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. Although the then U.S. President, Bill Clinton, signed the Rome Statute, he stated he would not submit it to the Senate for ratification, and only signed so that the United States could participate in negotiations on the court's rules of procedure. Under United States and International Law, a signature is not binding unless and until a treaty is ratified. Commentators have suggested that the treaty could not be ratified without a constitutional amendment."
The introduction does not summarize the key points, so is out of compliance with WP policy. Does anyone want to start on a revision? Raggz (talk) 04:23, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Introduction

message: Why is there so many references to the POV of the Heritage Foundation? I think their views should be removed, and replaced with those of actual government officials, especially any who are in high office. --Ozhiker (talk) 09:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep. Raggz has gone and pulled a whole bunch of citations for claims of critics (admittedly in need of formatting), and labelled them all with 'fact' templates, and inserted a whole bunch from the Heritage Foundation - it seems some organisations are more equal than others. Mostlyharmless (talk) 06:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Heritage Foundation is a reliable source. Would you prefer former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger? I encourgae you to add the opinions of "actual government officials, especially any who are in high office". They would also improve this article. Raggz (talk) 06:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Heritage Foundation has a well known pro-US pov, even in issues purely of international politics. In principle I'm not against including information from the Heritage Foundation, as long as it's clearly indicated as such, e.g. including information from a Catholic apologist's website in an article on abortion is ok, as long as it's prefaced by "the Catholic apologist John Smith states ..." (Bottom line: say "the US-based Heritage Foundation asserts...", or similar.) 118.90.56.175 (talk) 10:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heritage Foundation POV 

message: "Skeptics have argued there may be other reasons than those advanced by the Bush administration for frustrating the International Criminal Court.[3] They point to the role the U.S. administration or U.S. citizens have played in conflicts around the world in the past, i.e. Gulf of Tonkin Incident, My Lai Massacre, aid to Operation Condor through the School of the Americas.[4] Engaging in such policies today, under the ICC Statute, could be grounds for prosecution."
The claim is that the ICC could have prosecuted:
* Gulf of Tonkin Incident
* My Lai Massacre
* Operation Condor 
There are no reliable sources offered to support any of these claims. This is all original research. Raggz (talk) 09:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original Research 

message: I have already reorganized and copyedited the first section (due process) of the Alegations section with what I think are fair edits. To be fair, I tried to refrain from removing any material, but I did remove some material that repeated "yada yada it is fair" as these arguments are explicitly stated earlier, and the removal of the "allegation" qualifier on the lack of jury trials and other spurious uses of this and related ("claimed") qualifier. I also renamed the section to reflect that some elements are not just allegations, but seem to be undisputed, ie. the lack of jury trial, so I added "criticisms" in line with related sections.
The lack of a jury trial is major component I changed and organized. I found no citation either on this article or in a Google Books search claiming the ICC actually provides a jury trial, and many other sources claiming, for a fact, it does not. Hence, I removed the "allegations" qualifier. I have also found sources that claim this is the most often criticized component, and a quick Google Books search would seem to confirm.
The intro seemed to be very ... partisan in its tone, attributing the criticisms and allegations to a specific political oriented group, ie. Republican. This seemed POV so I changed it.
Since most of the section mainly included citations referring to military law, I split these paras into a "military justice" section. This is important, because it relies on, and implies, the legality of imposing military law on civilians, and the complementary removal of civilians' Constitutional rights, such as a jury trial by peers. There is a significant number of Americans who believe the draft is illegal, and the debate is still very much alive, to say nothing of it being right or wrong. Hence, it deserves its own section to expand on these issues. Int21h (talk) 05:34, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  My recent edits 

message: This article refers several times to the legal obligation of countries not to behave in ways that undermine the object and purpose of treaties; however, as I understand, this obligation is based on the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which was signed but not ratified by the United States.  It would be useful for this article to discuss the various points of view regarding this.  69.251.180.224 (talk) 14:58, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  The obligations of countries that have signed but not ratified 

message: I changed the phrasing of this paragraph to better represent what the source actually said. It was difficult to actually see what Rice found was problematic (the withdrawal of military assistance) in the former version of paragraph. This is is more accurate, in my opinion: In March 2006, Condoleezza Rice admitted that the United States' withdrawal of military assistance because of negotiations over Article 98 agreements was "sort of the same as shooting ourselves in the foot" [43]
Trmdttr (talk) 13:33, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Condoleezza Rice on Article 98 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on United States and the International Criminal Court. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add  after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.state.gov/j/gcj/us_releases/remarks/143178.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:02, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified