US drops resolution seeking war crimes exemption

[Van Helsing]

The US has given up trying to win its soldiers immunity from prosecution at the new International Criminal Court.
United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan had warned the Security Council not to renew the measure, partly because of the prisoner abuse scandal.

Washington withdrew its resolution after it became clear it would not get the required support.

For the last two years it had secured special status for US troops, arguing they could face malicious prosecutions.

"The United States has decided not to proceed further with consideration and action on the draft at this time in order to avoid a prolonged and divisive debate," said the US deputy ambassador to the UN James Cunningham.


Blanket exemption is wrong. It is of dubious judicial value and I don't think it should be encouraged by the council.

UN Secretary General Kofi Annan
"We are dropping action on this resolution."

In the past, the US has threatened to veto UN peacekeeping operations if its demands for exemption from prosecution by the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague were not met.

Mr Cunningham did not repeat the warning, but said the US would in future "need to take into account the risk of ICC review when determining contributions to UN authorised or established operations".

The US offered a compromise to the Security Council on Tuesday, asking it to renew the existing immunity for just one more year.

But it was not enough to gain the necessary support of nine out of the 15 council members.

Earlier this month Mr Annan said if the exemption - which expires on 30 June - were extended, it would discredit the UN's claim to represent the rule of law.



A great result for the UN

 

[Eeyore1954]

Originally posted by Van Helsing
Earlier this month Mr Annan said if the exemption - which expires on 30 June - were extended, it would discredit the UN's claim to represent the rule of law.

Like the UN ever had any credibility to represent the rule of law in the first place! The UN lacks credibility in any area and is barely more than an international version of the old DIS DB.

A great result for the UN

Of course it is, because as usual, the UN did NOTHING but sit there. Just like they always do. The UN -- out of touch, out of power and out of luck.

 

[ThreeCircles]

Originally posted by Van Helsing
A great result for the UN

I agree.

Of course, it was expected somewhat. Given the recent record of the U.S. concerning treatment of individuals around the world we didn't stand a chance of actually obtaining an immunity extension.

 

[AirForceRocks]

Cool - now anytime there is a chance of our troops being under ICC review, we can just refuse to participate in the action.

Sounds good to me!!

 

[WeirdEyes]

Cool - now anytime there is a chance of our troops being under ICC review, we can just refuse to participate in the action.

 

[Van Helsing]

Cool - now anytime there is a chance of our troops being under ICC review, we can just refuse to participate in the action.

Should that not be - now anytime there is a chance of our troops misbehaving we better not send them

 

[AirForceRocks]

Originally posted by Van Helsing
Should that not be - now anytime there is a chance of our troops misbehaving we better not send them

For the record, what the British decide to do with their troops is not my concern. If you all are comfortable setting up your troops to be tried by a UN kangaroo court at the whim of every little backwater crap hole in the world, have at it. But for our troops, I prefer a real court that can be trusted to not take out 60 years of frustration and anger at the US on some American soldier.

 

[ThreeCircles]

Originally posted by AirForceRocks
For the record, what the British decide to do with their troops is not my concern. If you all are comfortable setting up your troops to be tried by a UN kangaroo court at the whim of every little backwater crap hole in the world, have at it. But for our troops, I prefer a real court that can be trusted to not take out 60 years of frustration and anger at the US on some American soldier.

Um, you may want to look into the ICC. You seem to have some mis-information.

The ICC would only try those individuals that are not tried by their home country. It's a back-up measure.

 

[AirForceRocks]

Originally posted by ThreeCircles
Um, you may want to look into the ICC. You seem to have some mis-information.

The ICC would only try those individuals that are not tried by their home country. It's a back-up measure.

Um, thanks, but I've read plenty about the ICC. Your so-called "back-up measure" can be used to try American troops for "crimes" whether they are really crimes or not. If the US decides that no crime was committed, the ICC can swoop in and put the soldier on "trial" anyway, and that's not a decision that I want left up to the international community. Thanks, but no thanks.

And if it is truly only a back-up measure, as you seem to believe, then why have it? The US has a courts martial system that works just fine - why do we need a "back-up" measure?

 

[ThreeCircles]

What you call "crimes" are specifically and carefully defined actions:

"The Court will deal with the most serious crimes committed by individuals: genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and aggression. The first three crimes are carefully defined in the Statute to avoid ambiguity or vagueness. The crime of aggression will be dealt with by the Court when the Assembly of States Parties has agreed on the definition, elements and conditions under which the Court will exercise jurisdiction."

So, to say that you're worried that U.S. soldiers are going to be tried for ambiguous "crimes" is untrue.

Furthermore,

"The International Criminal Court will complement, not supercede, the jurisdiction of national courts. National courts will continue to have priority in investigating and prosecuting crimes within
their jurisdiction. Under the principle of complementarity, the International Criminal Court will act only when national courts are unable or unwilling to exercise jurisdiction. If a national court is willing and able to exercise jurisdiction, the International Criminal Court cannot intervene and no nationals of that State can be brought before it."

You seem to be under the assumption that the ICC was only formed to prosecute U.S. soldiers.

Your question, "And if it is truly only a back-up measure, as you seem to believe, then why have it?" is pretty obvious, is it not?

But, here is an answer:

"The International Criminal Court (ICC) is an independent judiciary body capable of trying individuals and serving as a deterrent to the Hitlers, Pinochets and Milosevics of the future. The past century witnessed the worst violence in the history of humankind. In the past half-century alone, more than 250
conflicts have erupted around the world; more than 86 million civilians, mostly women and children died in these conflicts; and over 170 million people were stripped of their rights, property and dignity. Most of these victims have been simply forgotten and few perpetrators have been brought to justice.

The United Nations General Assembly first recognized the need for a permanent mechanism to prosecute mass murderers and war criminals in 1948, following the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials after World War II. Since that time, numerous laws, treaties, conventions and protocols have defined and forbidden everything from war crimes to poison gas and chemical weapons, yet no system was proposed to enforce these norms by holding individuals criminally responsible. Until the adoption of
the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, there was no permanent, international mechanism capable of prosecuting the worst violations of international humanitarian and human rights law."

 

[jrydberg]

Frankly it's irrelevant. No US soldier will be subjected to the ICC. That's reality. If you find that distasteful, well, I suppose I can understand that. I find it prudent.

If the ICC is truly designed to complement, not supercede, then why is it necessary at all? What cases exist that the ICC should handle that cannot be handled by existing judicial procedures?

 

[AirForceRocks]

You seem to be under the assumption that the ICC was only formed to prosecute U.S. soldiers.

No, I don't think it was formed for that reason, but I think that's how it will be used, or should I say, that's how the international community will try to use it.

So, to say that you're worried that U.S. soldiers are going to be tried for ambiguous "crimes" is untrue.

Really? How much more ambiguous can you get than this:

The crime of aggression will be dealt with by the Court when the Assembly of States Parties has agreed on the definition, elements and conditions under which the Court will exercise jurisdiction."

That's a blank check to define "aggression" in whatever way they choose.

Your question, "And if it is truly only a back-up measure, as you seem to believe, then why have it?" is pretty obvious, is it not?

It's obvious to you, because you seem to believe that the US wouldn't prosecute war criminals. I'm of the opinion that we would, so the "back-up measure" is unnecessary.

But I'm not too concerned about it, since Congress has already dealt with this issue through the American Servicemembers Protection Act of 2002. Among other things, this law authorizes the liberation, by force if necessary, of US nationals and allied nationals being held by the ICC.

 

[AirForceRocks]

Originally posted by jrydberg

If the ICC is truly designed to complement, not supercede, then why is it necessary at all? What cases exist that the ICC should handle that cannot be handled by existing judicial procedures?

Exactly. I can see the purpose of it for dealing with countries that don't have a justice system, but it certainly isn't necessary for the vast majority of countries.

 

[ThreeCircles]

Originally posted by jrydberg
Frankly it's irrelevant. No US soldier will be subjected to the ICC. That's reality.

Um, perhaps your reality? Which, does not seem reflective of the truth.

"A citizen from a country that is not party to the agreement establishing the court can indeed be prosecuted by the court if the country where the alleged crimes occurred is a State Party, or that country accepted the Court's jurisdiction on an ad hoc basis, or the UN Security Council referred the case to the Court.
However, under the principle of complementarity, the Court will act only if the national court of the accused does not initiate a prosecution."

Why do you think the U.S. is scrambling to get bilateral agreements (Article 98 Agreements) with the Party States to secure exclusion?

 

[ThreeCircles]

Originally posted by AirForceRocks
No, I don't think it was formed for that reason, but I think that's how it will be used, or should I say, that's how the international community will try to use it.



Really? How much more ambiguous can you get than this:



That's a blank check to define "aggression" in whatever way they choose.

No, once again you are incorrect on the matter.

"Support was widespread from both States and the NGO community at the Rome Conference for the inclusion of aggression as a crime under the ICC's jurisdiction. However, there was not time to reach a definition of aggression that was acceptable to all. As a result, the Statute includes this crime but
provides that the Court may not exercise jurisdiction over the crime of aggression until agreement is reached by States Parties at a Review Conference on the definition, elements, and conditions under which the Court may exercise jurisdiction with respect to this crime.

Under the United Nations Charter, the Security Council has competence to determine whether an act of aggression has been committed. It is provided in the Statute that the final text on the crime of aggression must be consistent with the relevant provisions of the UN Charter."

Currently the ICC has no jurisdiction over "crimes of agression" until the States Parties have agreed on a concrete definition.

It's obvious to you, because you seem to believe that the US wouldn't prosecute war criminals. I'm of the opinion that we would, so the "back-up measure" is unnecessary.

Please, don't put words in my mouth. I don't recall ever saying that I didn't believe the U.S. wouldn't prosecute war crimes. As a matter of fact, I believe, hopefully, they would indeed. That's part of the reason why I have no problem with the U.S. being a party to the ICC.

But I'm not too concerned about it, since Congress has already dealt with this issue through the American Servicemembers Protection Act of 2002. Among other things, this law authorizes the liberation, by force if necessary, of US nationals and allied nationals being held by the ICC.

Well, that's blind nationalism for ya!

 

[AirForceRocks]

Well, that's blind nationalism for ya!

Actually, it's called "national sovereignty". You might want to pick up a book and learn about it, since you seem to be under the impression that the United States is obligated to turn over our sovereignty to the UN.

 

[ThreeCircles]

Originally posted by AirForceRocks
Actually, it's called "national sovereignty". You might want to pick up a book and learn about it, since you seem to be under the impression that the United States is obligated to turn over our sovereignty to the UN.

You go Brenda! Disregard the more relevant parts of my previous post.

And, perhaps you could clarify, how would joining the ICC in any way "turn over our sovereignty to the U.N.?"

 

[jrydberg]

Heh... I've read and completely understand the legal language of the ICC. That does not change reality.

Just because they say they can prosecute doesn't make it realistic to do so. The political and military repercussions for doing so would be enormous and the signatories to the ICC realize this as well as anyone. They also realize that the US has a more than adequate system for prosecuting US soldiers who commit crimes that the ICC is capable of prosecuting. So yes, no US soldier will be subjected to the ICC. That's reality.

the Court will act only if the national court of the accused does not initiate a prosecution.

So the ICC can act if it figures the national court was incorrect in not pressing charges? Seems pretty easy to abuse to me.

 

[AirForceRocks]

Originally posted by ThreeCircles
You go Brenda! Disregard the more relevant parts of my previous post.

And, perhaps you could clarify, how would joining the ICC in any way "turn over our sovereignty to the U.N.?"

I didn't ignore the rest of your post, it just wasn't worthy of comment.

And if you can't see how handing over jurisdiction over American troops to the ICC is handing over our sovereignty to the UN, then you're in more trouble than I had previously suspected.

 

[ThreeCircles]

Originally posted by AirForceRocks
I didn't ignore the rest of your post, it just wasn't worthy of comment.

You mean you can't reply because you can't dispute the post.

Go, Brenda, Go! Go, Brenda, Go!