About that "universal jurisdiction" thingie: not true. German law does not state German prosecutors/courts have "universal jurisdiction" in all criminal matters.
The problem is on another level.

Basically, a German prosecutor will prosecute crimes if a. either the perpetrator or the victim is German (active and passive personality principle) or b. the crime took place on German soil (crime scene principle, "Tatortprinzip"). That's the starting point.

So what, do you ask, is the fuss all about? Well, as always in all matters related to law, there are exceptions. The exception in this case is given by the new German International Criminal law (Völkerstrafgesetzbuch) which was put into effect on june 30th 2002. That law is actually based on generally accepted principles of international law (in this case, the famous "Weltrechtsprinzip") and states that for certain crimes (i.e. war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity) German judicial authorities have jurisdiction even if there is no tie to Germany otherwise. In these cases (and in these cases only) do the German judicial authorities have jurisdiction. That's what the fuss is all about.

So what's the reason for all this? Well, actually the German legislative only acted on principles that have already been established in international law for quite a long time, notably in the Geneva convention. And these principles do not only confer jurisdiction on Germany, but on any other state as well. Theoretically, Rumsfeld could therefore get indicted in any other country. Methinks he'd be better off getting indicted in Germany ;-).

More importantly, the law recognizes the principle of subsidiarity. If American authorities start criminal procedures against Rumsfeld, German authorities will not prosecute (well, actually, they'd have a choice, but somehow I doubt they would even investigate if they can wriggle out of a potential international crisis in any way ;-)). And that's even if the American authorities decide not to prosecute, if the reasons for that decision conform to US legal standards.

So in short: nichts wird so heiss gegessen wie es gekocht wird.

Interesting article by Prof. Bothe of the University in Kassel on that problem: http://www.uni-kassel.de/fb5/frieden/regionen/Irak/folter-kurzgutachten.html

Ahem, it's still "European", if you please. "Euro" is a currency, you Dollar, you ;-). And I take it by "PNN" you actually mean "CNN", right?

@ Don and JW:

As for the ICC: that's another huge can of legal worms.

The ICC was created by multilateral agreement between the states party to it. The US aren't party to it, for reasons best known to the Bush administration (well, actually they stated they were afraid American soldiers and government officials might be tried under ICC rules; turns out even their retired defense secretary would have been eligible for the tender ministrations of the Hague judges, so it seems to be a good thing they stayed away from the ICC ;-) ). Jurisdiction of that court is not really the issue here, since it is undisputed: the ICC only has jurisdiction in states party to it or that have entered into an agreement with the ICC over its jurisdiction. In plain Texan english for certain American presidents: ain't no such "phenomena" as "universial joorisdiction" at the ICC ;-).

Not quite the same as the German International criminal law. Don't compare apples and oranges here.

Ah. Yes. Ok, i confess I'm an ignoramus. Who's "Hattie", what's a "demo" (well, I do know the term "Demo", but it's German, and I take it it's not exactly what you mean :-)) and why are you always bashing our currency :-D.

Seriously, though: I know the Clinton administration had concerns about the ICC. Those concerns were not quite the same as the ones voiced by the Bush administration. May I quote "euro"-Clinton: "In signing (the Rome Statute)…we are not abandoning our concerns about significant flaws in the Treaty…The US should have the chance to observe and assess the functioning of the court, over time, before choosing to become under its jurisdiction. I will not, and do not recommend that my successor, submit the Treaty to the Senate for advice and consent until our fundamental concerns are satisfied."

In other words: Clinton wanted to join (and, indeed, he signed the Rome Statute in 2000), but he wanted to watch how things developed first before ratifying it.

Bush's approach is quite different: it's basically "kill the ICC". Period. No participation, no support at all, just blatant denial, and a very active lobbying effort to prevent other countries from joining. The reason given is, indeed, that there is a possibility that American servicemen and government officials might be tried.
Whatever your take on the ICC, there is no denying that it was Bush who killed US participation in the ICC, not Clinton.

"Deutsche Welle which I believe is the official propaganda arm of the Germany government refers to Euro law makers."

Indeed, just like Fox News is the official propaganda arm of the Bush government, right? As for that "Euro" bit, DW does not have the tendency to use the word as a derogatory term, AFAIK. Hence my somewhat caustic comment.

"You must come from the Jorg school of posting but that can wait for another day and topic."

Seems to be an insider of this blog. Clarify, please: what is the "Jörg school of posting"?

"I will try to focus only on former POTUS Clinton and the ICC. Pres Clinton was much loved by the euros because he signed lots of things which were their pet rocks."

Mhmm. Right. And these "pet rocks" would be...?

"He was up to a point sincere in his efforts such as pointing out reasons why Kyoto or the ICC would never become US law because it would fail in the Senate. Even when these reasons were pointed out to the euros they were not addressed. Knowing as written these would never be ratified Pres Clinton was free to sign them."

What is it to be, joe? Either Clinton was a "euro" and signed off on every "pro-euro" bill he could get his hands on, or he wasn't and just "made nice" to the "euros" by signing bills he perfectly knew would not fly, in which case he was anything but "pro-euro". Get your argument straightened out.

But we're digressing: I know Bush is not responsible for everything that goes wrong in the world. I didn't say that.

Oh, and I do have a cursory grasp of the American system of government, don't worry. I think I did understand that at the time, there was a republican majority in congress. Which is still not necessarily a reason why the Rome statute and the Kyoto agreement would not have passed if amended in the ways Clinton proposed.

Anyway, blaming Clinton (OR congress, which, like I said, was firmly in republican hands until only very recently) for Bush's ruthless crusade against the ICC (and Kyoto, incidentally) is just wrong. Bush, or members of his administration, take your pick, wanted to kill the ICC and tried his/their damnedest to do so. Clinton did not nullify the signature on the Rome Statute, Clinton did not refuse to participate even as an observer state, Clinton did not sign off ASPA (thanks for reminding me of that one). ASPA, by the way, originated within the republican party; it got introduced by Sen. Helms, if I'm not mistaken. Also, if he didn't like it, why didn't Bush veto it, hmmm?

So do me a favor, spare me the "it's all Clinton's fault" rhetoric. Old argument. And unlike wine, it doesn't age well. The policies on the ICC and Kyoto are Bush's policies, not Clinton's.

First things first: I notice you didn't respond to my comment on Clinton being a "Euro" or on Sen. Helms introducing ASPA. I can't help but wonder why.

As for DW, it's not quite a "propaganda" arm of the German government. Like ARD or ZDF, it's an "Anstalt des öffentlichen Rechts". It would take quite a while to explain to you what that means, but you can rest assured it does not mean they're a propaganda arm of anybody. In fact, among other things, it means they're bound by law to remain unbiased, especially towards the government. You are probably referring to the fact that DW, unlike ARD or ZDF, is financed by federal funds. That is not due to them being a "propaganda arm", that's due to the fact that, like the BBC World Service, their purpose is to broadcast beyond the borders of Germany and for a large part in languages other than German. Like I said, long and complicated story, but nothing to do with propaganda.
As for Fox News: privately owned, sure. Unbiased? Yes, right, pull the other one.

But, like you said yourself, we're digressing.

"Once again you misstate your case about the vote in the US Senate for the American Service members Protection Act (ASPA). The vote was 78 -21 for passage. Of those voting for passage there were 32 demo and 46 Republicans; against 18 demos and 3 Republicans and one member did not vote."

Nope, it was 75-19 on the last amendment (July 24 2002). You're referring to the first vote on December 7 2001. So much for getting the facts wrong. And if I was picking nits I'd say on both votes there was one Independent caucused with the Democrats, but who could theoretically have led to a tie in votes with the vice president's vote breaking the tie, so in fact your allegation that the senate was "demo" at the time is not true.

Ah well, whatever. You're using the old tactic of diverting the argument, so perhaps I`ll have to clarify (again) what I mean: neither the Clinton administration nor the "demos" as you call them, were quite as radical as the Bush administration in fighting the ICC or Kyoto. I won't repeat all the stuff I stated earlier since you don't seem inclined to answer, so we'll leave it at that.

"As you stated you have a cursory grasp of the American system of government then you are aware of several things about the Office of the President of the United States. The first of these is each President regardless of party or party in control of Congress seeks to retain the power of the office."

I don't know how to translate the German word "Binsenweisheit". Truism? Doesn't really reflect what I mean, so I hope you speak German.

"Also no President will submit to the Senate a treaty for ratification that he feels will not be ratified. Failure would in fact diminish the power of the office. This is why you see the most recent former two POTUS working together on many issues. It is one of the smallest clubs in the world."

So? How does that relate to our argument? Bush could've done it like Clinton: try to get the kinks in the Rome statute straightened out before getting it ratified. He didn't. In fact he did quite the opposite. He did everything in his (considerable) power to completely sink the ICC. Not amend it, mind, but sink it.

@ Don:
"I think people's minds may change about the ICC. But if you want to change people's minds to be more positive on ICC I can tell you precisely how not to proceed. Do NOT make efforts to indict high US officials for 'war crimes' in European courts. This includes Geberal Tommy Franks, Donald Rumsfeld, and even Henry Kissinger....."

Yes and no. High officials of any country should not be immune to procedures being initiated against them. That includes high officials of the US. Mind you, that does not mean they should be found guilty, it only means you shouldn't exclude procedures against officials of one country or another as a matter of principle. Otherwise, the ICC will be seen as just another instrument of the first world countries to keep the third world ones under control (and it would also be unfair to boot). Franks, Rumsfeld and Kissinger should not be statutorily safe from any prosecution to find out if they did anything wrong. If the prosecution finds there is no case against them, fine, there'll be no trial. If the prosecution finds there is a case, they should be brought to court like any other citizen of any other country. And the court should be allowed to decide on their fate.
All this, of course, is only necessary if US prosecutors and courts refuse to initiate procedures on illegal grounds. If US prosecutors examine the facts and, by US law, find there is no case, well then, the ICC prosecutors won't have to lift a finger either. Understand: the ICC is only there for cases where the national judiciary of a state does not prosecute for illegal reasons or where the rules governing criminal procedures are not up to the standards you find in democratic countries. I don't think the US fall into that category so I honestly fail to see the problem.

"You make these sweeping statements and the facts just do not back them up."

And that's not a "sweeping statement" in itself?

"As to the vote, the vote to pass the basic bill was what I stated. There can be lots of amendments to any bill. While those votes are important they are not as important as the vote for passage. You might remember the explanation “I voted for it before I voted against it”. A good example of voting for the bill and then voting against an amendment or vice versa."

Sure. Just don't tell me I get my facts wrong while doing a "triage" of facts yourself. Still haven't heard anything from you on Sen. Helms introducing ASPA yet, btw.

" Just what radical actions has the Bush Administration taken to fight (using your words) the ICC and Kyoto?"

You mean you don't know? Strange, given that I stated a few of those things in the above posts. Also, I thought it was pretty well known stuff. Ok, so let's see:

1. Bush declared the signature on the Rome Statute void in 2002 (another "creative interpretation" of US international legal obligations).
2. Bush withdrew the US officials from the negotiations on the Rome Statute in 2001.
3. Bush refused to participate in the assembly of states party even as an observer state (unlike all the other big non-signatory states like China, Russia or Israel).
4. Bush signed ASPA.
5. The Bush administration conducts a systematic campaign to pressure states into so-called "Art. 98" agreements, precluding these states from surrendering US nationals to the ICC. Quite a lot of political strong-arming was used to get some of these agreements (not sure how many there are exactly at the moment, but there must be around 100 agreements of that kind).
6. The Bush administration repeatedly tries to obtain jurisdictional exceptions for US nationals in UN peacekeeping missions (see Bosnia by way of example).
7. The Bush administration refuses to join any resolution of the UN security council acknowledging the existence of the ICC.

And I'm sure I forgot one or two things...

Essentially, Bush would love to completely scrap the whole ICC project (or, even better, turn it into an US-controlled institution). Now you might or might not agree with the reasons for that (I don't, as you might have gathered), but the fact that he is actively working against the ICC remains. Trying to deny that fact seems to me an exercise in futility, especially for somebody who doesn't really seem to have an issue with Bush's policy toward the ICC.

As for Kyoto: oh, heck, I'm tired of stating the obvious. Just read this timeline of Kyoto protocol events .

"As for former Pres Clinton being the first euro president. Look at both his background prior to being elected"

Well, talk about sweeping statements, eh?

"as well as some of the policies the attempted to implement, and the things he signed."

Cf. above.

"To this you could add his use of the US military in such adventures as Haiti, Bosnia and Somalia. The euros thought all these things were great."

BTW: who exactly are "the euros"?
As for Haiti, Bosnia, and Somalia: only one of these was of any direct interest to Europe: Bosnia. All the rest did not concern Europe directly.
Pretty weak evidence for your position that Clinton was a "euro" president. He was just not as fundamentally "anti-euro" as Bush.

"As for getting the “kinks” in both the ICC and Kyoto worked out, the euros did not want to hear any of it."

Again, that's a pretty general statement. What eactly did the "euros" not want to hear about?

"It would be just like trying to reform the UN a huge waste of both time and effort."

Why?

"The ICC and Kyoto reflect the world as the euros view it."

It does? Specify, please: how, pray, does the "euro" view differ fundamentally from the US view (excepting, of course, the Bush administration's view, which does have a very, shall we say, different take on world affairs indeed)? In fact, I'd be very interested in learning that there is indeed such a thing as a unified "euro" position on the "way Europe views the world".

And, last not least, on DW: to explain why your statement that DW is a "propaganda arm" is not only wrong but actually pretty insulting would take me quite a bit of time, so I'm afraid I'll have to leave you to research the German system of public broadcasting by yourself. You might start with this link.