| Submit your comments on this article |
| International-UN-NGOs |
| A Shift in the Debate On International Court |
| 2006-11-07 |
| Some U.S. Officials Seem to Ease Disfavor When then-Undersecretary of State John R. Bolton nullified the U.S. signature on the International Criminal Court treaty one month into President Bush's first term, he declared it the happiest moment in his years of service. Bolton referred to the court as a "product of fuzzy-minded romanticism . . . not just naive, but dangerous." The bipartisan concern then was that American service members deployed overseas risked exposure to a foreign tribunal. President Bill Clinton signed the Rome Treaty on his last day in office in 2000, while registering strong reservations. Now, as the court prepares to begin public hearings on its first case, the debate among senior U.S. military officials seems to be shifting away from staunch opposition, and a fresh assessment of the court seems to be underway. The new attitude has been prompted in part by the court's record since it began operations three years ago; Chief Prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo, an Argentine, has dismissed hundreds of petitions for cases against the United States. The cases were turned down for lack of evidence, lack of jurisdiction, or because of the United States' ability to conduct its own investigations and trials. Out of some 1,500 petitions to the chief prosecutor, almost half accused the United States of war crimes. In a letter made public last year, Moreno-Ocampo's office said it was throwing out 240 such cases concerning the war in Iraq. Reviews of each claim determined that none fell within the court's jurisdiction, his letter said, because the United States is not a signatory. |
| Posted by:ryuge |
| #9 I think the knowledge that we would have happily told them to go pound sand may have contributed to that reluctance. But I'm a cynic. |
| Posted by: mojo 2006-11-07 17:37 |
| #8 It also illustrates the power of a single judge in the ICC. Remove Mr. Moreno-Ocampo and put in someone else, and those complaints will come flooding through. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2006-11-07 15:32 |
| #7 The article makes a strong case against the court when it mentions half the cases were against the US. It just goes to show the anti-American elmement out there is ready to pervert the court the first chance they get. The fact that these nusance suits are being dismissed doesn't change the fact that they were submitted in the first place. If the court was knee deep in anti-North KOrea or anti-Zimbabwae or anti-Cuban stuff I'd have a lot more faith. But the folks that might complain in those countries will be killed if they do so this whole thing is a farce. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2006-11-07 15:08 |
| #6 Great points, Alan C, and my thoughts exactly. Just because something APPEARS to be working well (fromt the US point of view) right now, doesn't mean it won't change when you get some international prosecutor into office. |
| Posted by: BA 2006-11-07 10:13 |
| #5 And what happens when Senor Ocampo is replaced with Monsieur deVillepin? " Out of some 1,500 petitions to the chief prosecutor, almost half accused the United States of war crimes." But according to Traitor Leahy "The ICC has refuted its critics, who confidently and wrongly predicted that it would be politicized and manipulated by our enemies to prosecute U.S. soldiers," In the entire world, half of the crimes are committed by the US? But the process is NOT being manipulated? Be afraid of the Dhimmicraps, be very afraid. |
| Posted by: AlanC 2006-11-07 09:14 |
| #4 In a letter made public last year, Moreno-Ocampo's office said it was throwing out 240 such cases concerning the war in Iraq. Reviews of each claim determined that none fell within the court's jurisdiction, his letter said, because the United States is not a signatory. And somehow we are meant to believe this is a case for signing the treaty. |
| Posted by: Excalibur 2006-11-07 07:40 |
| #3 In the event the UN does not survive the next World War, it will be interesting if the Americans, having witnessed the failure of OWG without it and the failure of OWG with it will come to the conclusion that OWG is a bad idea. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-11-07 06:55 |
| #2 Amen. Trying to think of what to add -- and only invective comes to mind. |
| Posted by: .com 2006-11-07 03:49 |
| #1 Lots of poor reasoning on display here. Worst of all, the preposterous idea that remaining outside the court's jurisdiction undermines our credibility as a power that acts both in accord with our legal obligations and with accountability. While operating against enemies who - to the collective pin-drop silence of all those sophisticated and civilized human rights-loving nations who are probably most concerned by our stance on the court - are among the most barbarous in modern times, the US has conspicuously complied with every reasonable obligation, and gone much further than required in most cases. And accountability for US soldiers is probably greater than for any other force on Earth. What is it with those dullards obsessed with obtaining the worthless regard of hostile and morally debased foreign regimes - "allied" or otherwise? |
| Posted by: Verlaine 2006-11-07 02:06 |