Democracy in jeopardy

Hardly any conversation these days digresses to the topic of the U.N.'s International Criminal Court (ICC). Because it doesn't appear to be a pressing issue, many Americans are completely clueless of the extent ICC could affect them. But beware if you are or know somebody who wears the uniform. \nClinton instated the ICC as a last minute executive order. ICC enters the U.S. into an international tribunal, in which many other countries have already opted to participate. The ICC would replace other tribunals, such as the Rwanda and Yugoslavia war crimes tribunals. Bush has refused to participate.\nAlthough the court claims it will limit its trials to serious war offenders, if you are in the U.S. service, members of governments such as Cuba and Libya could try you in court. \nInternational war crime tribunals threaten American democratic ideals. Other countries have abandoned basic rights America deems intrinsic to its citizens. The real threat lies in the possibility that one day the ICC may decide to try a U.S. citizen, even a president, of war crimes. Other countries do not provide the same constitutional justice that the U.S. gives to its defendants, such as the right to a speedy trial, pleading the fifth, etc. These would disappear as laws and emerge instead as historical, lofty ideals. Because the U.S. entitles these rights to its citizens, why should they be required to give them up?\nThe U.S. should hold war crime tribunals of its own. When other countries operate under laws neglectful of democratic principles, the U.S. must defend itself. U.S. operative war tribunals protect U.S. citizens by creating precedence to other countries that violation of basic human cooperation will not be tolerated. If other countries choose to deny rights to their citizens, they must still realize that the U.S. ensures its citizens democracy. When countries create governments founded on anything other than democracy, the mindset is hostile to democratic governments. \nThe U.S. leads the world with an example of an ideal democratic government, which gives fair protection to its citizens. Freedom, equality, justice -- the U.S. has shown every country that these principles work. It would be backtracking if we decided now to yoke ourselves with countries that continue to treat their citizens harshly and refuse to adopt more democratic standards. \nInstead, the U.S. should continue to use its democratic example as a plea for other countries to likewise turn to democracy. In the past the U.S. has been somewhat successful. When we stick to our guns, we can intimidate tyrants to adopt democratic methods. When we back down, as we would if we join the ICC, countries continue to treat their citizens unfairly. For example, the U.S. could refuse to allow China to trade with the U.S. until Jiang Zemin's Draconian treatment of citizens ended. We have turned our head the other way, and allow Zemin to continue its harsh regime; the U.S. has given China little incentive to become democratic. \nThe U.S. is a powerful country mainly due to our sovereign democratic ideals. We should continue to press other countries to turn to democracy, but we should not apologize for our success by retracting from our stance. As long as we stay out of the ICC, democracy will benefit the U.S. If we join, well, you've been forewarned.