Article

2003-06-12 International

U.N. Security Council Approves U.S. Exemption for Global Court

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Frank G 2003-06-12 02:11 pm|| || Front Page|| [11131 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Funny you should mention that:
Washington lambasted a Belgian law on Thursday which could put Iraq war commander General Tommy Franks and other officials in the dock, and vowed to block spending on NATO's new Brussels HQ while the law stands.
"By passing this law, Belgium has turned its legal system into a platform for divisive politicized lawsuits against her NATO allies," Rumsfeld told a news conference. "It would obviously not be easy for U.S. officials or potentially coalition officials, civilian or military, to come to Belgium for meetings. Certainly until this matter is resolved we will have to oppose any further spending for construction for a new NATO headquarters here in Brussels."
Hit them right in the old checkbook.

Posted by Steve 2003-06-12 15:28:57|| 2003-06-12 15:28:57|| Front Page Top

#2 There is something I don't quite understand. Why is the U.S. so much against the ICC? Is it just fear of manipulated cases against U.S. citizen or do you reject the whole concept?
I'm asking this as somebody who attended Nurenberg as a witness 1946.
Is there a model of an ICC the U.S. could agree too? Would it change things if the court was based in the U.S.?
Or how would you try "individuals for the world's most heinous atrocities â mass murder, serious human rights violations and war crimes" when the guy won't be prosecuted back home or in a third country?
Why is the U.S. so worried that an U.S. soldier could be prosecuted there? If there were plausible facts that an U.S. citizen committed these acts couldn't the Court just send him to the U.S.? The word "immunity" instead leaves a bad taste in the mouth, like the U.S. feared that there could actually be cases coming up. But do you really think the ICC would risk its reputation with prosecuting bogus cases?

Posted by True German Ally 2003-06-12 18:54:12|| 2003-06-12 18:54:12|| Front Page Top

#3 The worry comes from what's been happening with politically motivated suits such as are being brought in Belgium against Franks, with talk about similar suits against Bush and Blair, and whatever Israelis' names the leftists can remember. Same thing applies to Pinochet's arrest in Europe, after the case was reconciled at home. There's also the tit-for-tat "balanced platform" idea - you've got five Serbs, you've got to balance that with five Croats and/or five Bosnians.

I don't know what the solution is. Some mechanism is necessary to deal with the bad guys when the shootin's all done, but the definition of "bad guy" can vary, depending on who won the war - or nowadays, who the guys bringing the suits wanted to win the war. Assuming we see a more stable world in 20 or 30 years, an ICC should be a good idea, but it's probably premature now, much as I'd like to see Sammy and Chuck Taylor and Bob of Zim-Bob-We on the dock.

Posted by Fred 2003-06-12 19:17:34|| 2003-06-12 19:17:34|| Front Page Top

#4 But do you really think the ICC would risk its reputation with prosecuting bogus cases?

Reputation with whom?

See Belgium's "We are the Judge and Jury of the entire Universe" law.

Posted by Ptah 2003-06-12 19:19:57|| [www.crusaderwarcollege.org] 2003-06-12 19:19:57|| Front Page Top

#5 TGA: I can't speak for every American. I have three worries. 1. The ICC is either a colonial or anti-colonial instrument. In the colonial case, we enlightened Westerners once again take up the white man's burden and clean up the Idi Amins of this world. This probably won't play in Peking. Alternatively, the dictatorships of the world use their raw numbers to launch nuisance cases against Western states and leaders. Either way, the court becomes ineffective quickly, rather like the UN Commission on Human Rights. 2. I've seen too many times when European courts have handed down ten or fifteen year sentences on real murdering scumbags. In my conception of justice, people like that get put away for life, either through imprisonment or execution. I don't want to support a court based on European sentencing guidelines. 3. While I utterly disagree with the far left, I never underestimate their doggedness and resourcefulness. Whatever safeguards that are put in place to prevent Pinochet-type trials will be undermined in a year or two at most and soon more and more American leaders will be indicted. Which takes me back to number one, since the ultra-leftists will have all the support they need from the anti-colonialists in this matter.

Posted by 11A5S 2003-06-12 19:31:49|| 2003-06-12 19:31:49|| Front Page Top

#6 11A5S, I think the Pinochet case is the wrong example as that wasn't a purely politically motivated case. If I remember well the Spanish asked the Brits to extradite Pinochet to Spain because Pinochet had also killed Spanish citizens.
What annoys me is that the U.S. just says no to the ICC without saying how this court could work properly. After all nobody objects to Slobo being tried in The Hague? Nor the Rwandan mass murderers?

So if a victim spots his torturer in a third country, what should he do?

Posted by True German Ally 2003-06-12 19:59:04|| 2003-06-12 19:59:04|| Front Page Top

#7 TGA: I tried thinking of ways that I could make this work and I cannot. Every leader from every non-UN sanctioned war that the US has fought in the past forty years would become a target. Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, GWII, and any future non-approved conflict are all goldmines to our enemies. I want to reiterate my point about the tenacity of cetain folk on the far left. I have personally witnessed how they have used the environmental laws in the US to effectively undermine military readiness. I could see them using the Freedom of Information Act to get names down to the private soldier level. I personally know people who were part of the action at the Comandancia in Panama City. For years the left has been trumpeting the resultant fires in the surrounding tenenments as "war crimes". I know that the ICC isn't supposed to go after guys like that especially if their own government begins its own investigation, but in my heart of hearts, I know that the ICC will.

Posted by 11A5S 2003-06-12 20:30:44|| 2003-06-12 20:30:44|| Front Page Top

#8 What annoys me is the pathological anti-Americanism that pervades most of the world right now, such as this example in Belgium. Check out the polling recently done on favourable/unfavourable views of the US. Should the US sign up to the ICC, there's no telling what will come out of the woodwork. I think US lawmakers are acutely aware of this.

Posted by RW 2003-06-12 22:02:52|| 2003-06-12 22:02:52|| Front Page Top

#9 "Why is the U.S. so much against the ICC?"
I'm surprised you can't answer that question yourself. After all, even if Schroeder did quickly apologize for that Bush-Hitler comparison, it could not have been helpful in convincing the US to sign up. I know this is a weak example, but why would any US politician or citizen even want to risk being put through the hassles such as the ones that might develop in Belgium.

Posted by RW 2003-06-12 22:24:06|| 2003-06-12 22:24:06|| Front Page Top

#10 I think there is a more fundamental problem with the ICC. As I understand it, the ICC does not provide citizens of the US the same legal protections and rights as set forth in the constitution. Even if signed and ratified, the courts would strike it down.

Posted by Woodland Critter 2003-06-12 22:33:21|| 2003-06-12 22:33:21|| Front Page Top

#11 TGA, simple answer: such a court would be unconstitutional in our country. Our Constitution holds that the US Supreme Court is the supreme law judging court of our country and for our citizens. Whatever legislation Congress passed to ratify and implement the ICC would usurp the role of the USSC (it's unavoidable), and that's a no-no -- Congress isn't allowed to diminish the constitutional power of the USSC.

For the same reason we won't sign certain arms control agreements that give inspectors powers to examine private property in the US announced -- that violates our Bill of Rights which protects citizens against unlawful searches. Again, Congress can't ratify a treaty that violates the rights of our citizens.

Posted by Anonymous 2003-06-13 01:05:47|| 2003-06-13 01:05:47|| Front Page Top

#12 We can accept it if you make the justices American. Possibly British, Canadian and Australian. Possibly.

Posted by Brian 2003-06-13 03:32:48|| 2003-06-13 03:32:48|| Front Page Top

20:12 Anonymous4779
08:14 raptor
07:38 raptor
07:36 raptor
07:34 raptor
03:32 Brian
01:19 Mike Kozlowski
01:05 Anonymous
01:04 Anonymous Troll
23:42 Tresho
23:15 Anonymous
22:53 okie
22:33 Woodland Critter
22:31 okie
22:24 RW
22:16 okie
22:02 RW
21:57 Dishman
21:50 RW
21:47 RW
21:32 Alaska Paul
21:31 RW
21:17 RW
21:06 RW