|
U.S. Bans Aid to Nations For Not Exempting Americans From Int'l Criminal Court (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| DrUg_Tit0 |
Well, the ICC is not the ideal organization, but what the US should do as the strongest world nation is to aid it in becoming such an organization. Instead, the US is ignoring it or blocking any attempts for it to become a respactable international institution. No international organization can exist without international support. Even UN is completely irrelevant if the strongest member nations like the US decide to ignore it. This way of unilateralism is only polarizing the world instead of uniting it.
And the funny thing is that the US supports ICC when other countries' citizens are on trial. Why not be fair and apply that to all the countries? Why not say that Milosević should be freed of the ICC jurisdiction? Why not let all the people accused of war crimes in former Yugoslavia and Rwanda walk free? I understand it when the EU is giving countries here a hard time when they're trying to avoid ICC cooperation, but the US has no right saying to countries here they should send their military personell to the tribunal while at the same time failing to recognize and support that institution. And that's exactly what it does. Do I smell hypocrisy here? |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0
Well, the ICC is not the ideal organization, but what the US should do as the strongest world nation is to aid it in becoming such an organization. Instead, the US is ignoring it or blocking any attempts for it to become a respactable international institution. No international organization can exist without international support. Even UN is completely irrelevant if the strongest member nations like the US decide to ignore it. This way of unilateralism is only polarizing the world instead of uniting it.
And the funny thing is that the US supports ICC when other countries' citizens are on trial. Why not be fair and apply that to all the countries? Why not say that Milosević should be freed of the ICC jurisdiction? Why not let all the people accused of war crimes in former Yugoslavia and Rwanda walk free? I understand it when the EU is giving countries here a hard time when they're trying to avoid ICC cooperation, but the US has no right saying to countries here they should send their military personell to the tribunal while at the same time failing to recognize and support that institution. And that's exactly what it does. Do I smell hypocrisy here? |
I think the US has tried to lobby for the ICC to change some of its ways ... without much success. I don't think Milosevic is on trial by the ICC is he? Isn't he being tried under a separate war crimes tribunal for Bosnia? It was under my impression that the ICC itself is a new institution that has yet to try anybody ... could be worng. |
|
|
| DrUg_Tit0 |
| The court was originally intended as a court for war crimes in former Yu, but it later expanded its jurisdiction to Rwanda as well, and changed it's name to International Criminal Court. At least that's what croatian->english translation would sound like, so I guess it's the same court. |
|
|
| DrummeRaver86 |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
I think the US has tried to lobby for the ICC to change some of its ways ... without much success. I don't think Milosevic is on trial by the ICC is he? Isn't he being tried under a separate war crimes tribunal for Bosnia? It was under my impression that the ICC itself is a new institution that has yet to try anybody ... could be worng. |
I think at first it was just the Interational War Crime Tribunal in The Hague. But afterwards it became the ICC and was linked to the UN |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by DrummeRaver86
I think at first it was just the Interational War Crime Tribunal in The Hague. But afterwards it became the ICC and was linked to the UN |
Hmmmmm I think they are still separate institutions since the ICC has no ongoing cases.
http://www.icc-cpi.int/php/show.php?id=home
And if you check the UN's website there is the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia set up that has all the bosnian cases in its docket. So I would say that they are separate institutions.
http://www.un.org/icty/index.html |
|
|
| DrUg_Tit0 |
| Well, still, the point remains. The US wants to be internationally unaccountable for its military personell crimes, while demanding from others the very opposite thing. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0
Well, still, the point remains. The US wants to be internationally unaccountable for its military personell crimes, while demanding from others the very opposite thing. |
You're slandering the US intentions. The US doesn't want to be internationally unaccountable for war crimes, the US wants to avoid malicious and unfair prosecution of its peacekeepers. |
|
|
| DrummeRaver86 |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
You're slandering the US intentions. The US doesn't want to be internationally unaccountable for war crimes, the US wants to avoid malicious and unfair prosecution of its peacekeepers. |
their peacekeepers are innocent of anything. why should the gov't be afraid of prosecution of its peacekeepers? if that's the case, why doesn't the UK or France do the same thing that the US is doing? |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by DrummeRaver86
their peacekeepers are innocent of anything. why should the gov't be afraid of prosecution of its peacekeepers? if that's the case, why doesn't the UK or France do the same thing that the US is doing? |
Because the US holds dearly to the constitution which protects its citizens from prosecution without due process. Due process such as a right to a jury of peers, double jeapordy, etc. Would you like the government to hand you over to another country for prosecution without due process?
Why are France and the UK not protesting ... I don't know, perhaps because there is not as much anti-French or anti-UK sentiment in the world which would lead to unfair prosecution of its citizens. At either rate, look at the bigger picture ... what is the US fighting for? The ability to HELP and maintain peacekeeping operations around the world. A much easier way out would be to say buggerall and halt all peacekeeping operations. |
|
|
| DrummeRaver86 |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
Because the US holds dearly to the constitution which protects its citizens from prosecution without due process. Due process such as a right to a jury of peers, double jeapordy, etc. Would you like the government to hand you over to another country for prosecution without due process?
Why are France and the UK not protesting ... I don't know, perhaps because there is not as much anti-French or anti-UK sentiment in the world which would lead to unfair prosecution of its citizens. At either rate, look at the bigger picture ... what is the US fighting for? The ability to HELP and maintain peacekeeping operations around the world. A much easier way out would be to say buggerall and halt all peacekeeping operations. |
oooooo....right! Forgot about the Constitution...hehe. Anyway, i'm not an american citizen yet, so technically the US can do whatever the they want with me!:nervous: |
|
|
| DrUg_Tit0 |
| I understand american concerns, but instead of supporting the idea and proposing some safeguards against accusing innocents, the US is dismissing the idea alltogether. Besides, it would be a regular court, so I don't see your point about jury right and prosecuting in another country without the due process. The court wouldn't mean that the accused US citizen would be sent to the court of the country that's accusing him if that's what you mean. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0
I understand american concerns, but instead of supporting the idea and proposing some safeguards against accusing innocents, the US is dismissing the idea alltogether. Besides, it would be a regular court, so I don't see your point about jury right and prosecuting in another country without the due process. The court wouldn't mean that the accused US citizen would be sent to the court of the country that's accusing him if that's what you mean. |
The US HAS been trying to effect changes and get some notice of its concerns ... so far it's been completely ignored. And prosecution would occur in Belgium and guilt would be determined by justices of the court rather than a jury.
| quote: |
Historical Perspective
Like many of the nations that gathered in Rome in 1998 for the negotiations to create a permanent International Criminal Court, the United States arrived with the firm belief that those who perpetrate genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes must be held accountable — and that horrendous deeds must not go unpunished.
The United States has been a world leader in promoting the rule of law. From our pioneering leadership in the creation of tribunals in Nuremberg, the Far East, and the International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, the United States has been in the forefront of promoting international justice. We believed that a properly created court could be a useful tool in promoting human rights and holding the perpetrators of the worst violations accountable before the world — and perhaps one day such a court will come into being.
A Flawed Outcome
But the International Criminal Court that emerged from the Rome negotiations, and which will begin functioning on July 1 will not effectively advance these worthy goals.
First, we believe the ICC is an institution of unchecked power. In the United States, our system of government is founded on the principle that, in the words of John Adams, "power must never be trusted without a check." Unchecked power, our founders understood, is open to abuse, even with the good intentions of those who establish it.
But in the rush to create a powerful and independent court in Rome, there was a refusal to constrain the Court’s powers in any meaningful way. Proposals put forward by the United States to place what we believed were proper checks and balances on the Court were rejected. In the end, despite the best efforts of the U.S. delegation, the final treaty had so many defects that the United States simply could not vote for it.
Take one example: the role of the UN Security Council. Under the UN Charter, the UN Security Council has primary responsibility for maintaining international peace and security. But the Rome Treaty removes this existing system of checks and balances, and places enormous unchecked power in the hands of the ICC prosecutor and judges. The treaty created a self-initiating prosecutor, answerable to no state or institution other than the Court itself.
In Rome, the United States said that placing this kind of unchecked power in the hands of the prosecutor would lead to controversy, politicized prosecutions, and confusion. Instead, the U.S. argued that the Security Council should maintain its responsibility to check any possible excesses of the ICC prosecutor. Our arguments were rejected; the role of the Security Council was usurped.
Second, the treaty approved in Rome dilutes the authority of the UN Security Council and departs from the system that the framers of the UN Charter envisioned.
The treaty creates an as-yet-to-be defined crime of “aggression,” and again empowers the court to decide on this matter and lets the prosecutor investigate and prosecute this undefined crime. This was done despite the fact that the UN Charter empowers only the Security Council to decide when a state has committed an act of aggression. Yet the ICC, free of any oversight from the Security Council, could make this judgment.
Third, the treaty threatens the sovereignty of the United States. The Court, as constituted today, claims the authority to detain and try American citizens, even through our democratically-elected representatives have not agreed to be bound by the treaty. While sovereign nations have the authority to try non-citizens who have committed crimes against their citizens or in their territory, the United States has never recognized the right of an international organization to do so absent consent or a UN Security Council mandate.
Fourth, the current structure of the International Criminal Court undermines the democratic rights of our people and could erode the fundamental elements of the United Nations Charter, specifically the right to self defense.
With the ICC prosecutor and judges presuming to sit in judgment of the security decisions of States without their assent, the ICC could have a chilling effect on the willingness of States to project power in defense of their moral and security interests.
This power must sometimes be projected. The principled projection of force by the world’s democracies is critical to protecting human rights — to stopping genocide or changing regimes like the Taliban, which abuse their people and promote terror against the world.
Fifth, we believe that by putting U.S. officials, and our men and women in uniform, at risk of politicized prosecutions, the ICC will complicate U.S. military cooperation with many friends and allies who will now have a treaty obligation to hand over U.S. nationals to the Court — even over U.S. objections.
The United States has a unique role and responsibility to help preserve international peace and security. At any given time, U.S. forces are located in close to 100 nations around the world conducting peacekeeping and humanitarian operations and fighting inhumanity.
We must ensure that our soldiers and government officials are not exposed to the prospect of politicized prosecutions and investigations. Our President is committed to a robust American engagement in the world to defend freedom and defeat terror; we cannot permit the ICC to disrupt that vital mission.
Our Efforts
The President did not take his decision lightly.
After the United States voted against the treaty in Rome, the U.S. remained committed and engaged—working for two years to help shape the court and to seek the necessary safeguards to prevent a politicization of the process. U.S. officials negotiated to address many of the concerns we saw in hopes of salvaging the treaty. The U.S. brought international law experts to the preparatory commissions and took a leadership role in drafting the elements of crimes and the procedures for the operation of the court.
While we were able to make some improvements during our active participation in the UN Preparatory Commission meetings in New York, we were ultimately unable obtain the remedies necessary to overcome our fundamental concerns.
On December 31, 2000, the previous administration signed the Rome Treaty. In signing President Clinton reiterated “our concerns about the significant flaws in the treaty,” but hoped the U.S. signature would provide us influence in the future and assist our effort to fix this treaty. Unfortunately, this did not prove to be the case.
On April 11, 2002, the ICC was ratified by enough countries to bring it into force on July 1 of this year. Now we find ourselves at the end of the process. Today, the treaty contains the same significant flaws President Clinton highlighted.
Our Philosophy
While we oppose the ICC we share a common goal with its supporters - the promotion of the rule of law. Our differences are in approach and philosophy. In order for the rule of law to have true meaning, societies must accept their responsibilities and be able to direct their future and come to terms with their past. An unchecked international body should not be able to interfere in this delicate process.
For example: When a society makes the transition from oppression to democracy, their new government must face their collective past. The state should be allowed to choose the method. The government should decide whether to prosecute or seek national reconciliation. This decision should not be made by the ICC.
If the state chooses as a result of a democratic and legal process not to prosecute fully, and instead to grant conditional amnesty, as was done in difficult case of South Africa, this democratic decision should be respected.
Whenever a state accepts the challenges and responsibilities associated with enforcing the rule of law, the rule of law is strengthened andis a barrier to impunity is erected. It is this barrier that will create the lasting goals the ICC seeks to attain. This responsibility should not be taken away from states.
International practice should promote domestic accountability and encourage sovereign states to seek reconciliation where feasible.
The existence of credible domestic legal systems is vital to ensuring conditions do not deteriorate to the point that the international community is required to intercede.
In situations where violations are grave and the political will of the sovereign state is weak, we should work, using any influence we have, to strengthen that will. In situations where violations are so grave as to amount to a breach of international peace and security, and the political will to address these violations is non-existent, the international community may, and if necessary should, intercede through the UN Security Council as we did in Bosnia and Rwanda.
Unfortunately, the current framework of the Rome treaty threatens these basic principles.
|
I really hate it when people jump to conclusions, or stereotype the worst by saying that the US is merely trying to let American war criminals escape prosecution. It helps to research the issues at hand and find out WHY the ICC is being rejected. It's like how the anti-Rave act was passed. Everybody was afraid of the political fallout if they dared reject the amber alert bill because of that tiny little infringement on civil liberties attached to it, so they were both passed. Just because everybody associates the ICC as being an infallible institution that can only be used for good, they automatically demonize anybody that doesn't want to accept it because of the flaws in the system that make it susceptible to abuse. |
|
|
|
|
