Thanks for posting this, obviously we have a lot of ADD readers who can’t concentrate.
This forwarded email is dated, probably from being forwarded so often so I thought I would do some searching.
Know your enemy...those who are fighting FOR signing w/ICC...
http://www.amicc.org/
and
http://www.iccnow.org/?mod=country&iduct=185
Info from the 2nd link regarding the Rome Statute and the status of the U.S....
“On 31 December 2000, David Scheffer, Ambassador-at-Large for War Crimes Issues under the Clinton Administration, signed the Rome Statute. Signature of a treaty does not create legally binding obligations for the Signatory State, however according to Article 18 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969), a signatory who intends to ratify is bound to refrain from acts which would defeat the object and purpose of a treaty. On 6 May 2002, shortly before the Rome Statute entered into force on 1 July 2002, the administration of US President George W. Bush sent a note to the United Nations Secretary-General “nullifying” the Clinton signature. Since 2009, the US has sent observer delegations to the ICC’s Assembly of States Parties and, more recently, to the Review Conference. The US position has gradually evolved into one of principled engagement with the ICC and strengthened support for the Court’s current investigations and prosecutions. The Obama Administration has stated that it has no intention of ratifying the Rome Statute in the near future.”
However, this is by no means a reason NOT to VOTE. Are the COIN Rules of Engagement Constitutional? Signing with ICC is not.
Thanks for your review and additions/corrections. I sent this reply to the person who sent me the email.