The UK (and others) legality issue re. Iraq war.
Who is in and who is not ... ICC (International Criminal Court)
We and other accomplices are IN .. the USA is OUT.
Tone was getting out on a limb here then, iffy at best legality for us, quite clear cut for the USA no possibly binding legal issues.
What is the point of these instruments which cost taxpayers a fortune and really mean SFA ???
![Wink ;) ;)]()
![COE_logo.gif](http://cm.coe.int/images/COE_logo.gif)
See History of the war advice argument Link to Sunday TimesThe Sunday Times said:Why has America not had the same problems?
America's laws are different and it has not signed up to the International Criminal Court, which came into effect in 2002. Also, public support for the war was much stronger in America than in Britain; fewer people cared whether it was legal or not.
Who is in and who is not ... ICC (International Criminal Court)
We and other accomplices are IN .. the USA is OUT.
http://www.legal.coe.int/criminal/icc/Default.asp ICC said:6. In a communication received on 6 May 2002, the Government of the United States of America informed the Secretary-General of the following:
"This is to inform you, in connection with the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court adopted on July 17, 1998, that the United States does not intend to become a party to the treaty. Accordingly, the United States has no legal obligations arising from its signature on December 31, 2000. The United States requests that its intention not to become a party, as expressed in this letter, be reflected in the depositary's status lists relating to this treaty."
Tone was getting out on a limb here then, iffy at best legality for us, quite clear cut for the USA no possibly binding legal issues.
What is the point of these instruments which cost taxpayers a fortune and really mean SFA ???