|
US to give up resistance to the ICC?
|
View this Thread in Original format
| trancaholic |
I'm a bit surprised that nobody has started a thread on this already. To me it seems to be very good news, although I expect occrider to be quite disappointed at this news.
Link
Full text:
UNITED NATIONS (CNN) -- In the face of strong opposition from other Security Council members the United States has announced it is dropping a resolution that would exempt its soldiers from international prosecution.
Washington had failed to find the votes needed to support its draft resolution, which would have given one "final" year of exemption from prosecution by the International Criminal Court.
The resolution needed a minimum nine votes in favor from the 15 Security Council members for it to pass.
"We believe that our draft and its predecessors fairly meet the concerns of all," U.S. Deputy Ambassador to the United Nations James Cunningham said after a closed council meeting on Wednesday.
"Not all council members agree, however, and 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."
In a written statement a spokesman for Kofi Annan said the the U.N. secretary-general felt "the decision by the United States not to pursue a resolution on this matter will help maintain the unity of the Security Council at a time when it faces difficult challenges."
Criticism of U.S. abuses in Iraq's the Abu Ghraib prisoner scandal became a decisive factor for Security Council members.
China's ambassador to the United Nations, Wang Guangya, said "the scandal over the mistreatment" was behind that nation's decision to abstain. He also said his government could not "give a blank check to the U.S. for the behavior of their forces."
None of the alleged U.S. war crimes in Iraq would have fallen under the International Criminal Court's jurisdiction as neither Iraq nor the United States signed on to the ICC treaty.
The Spanish Ambassador to the U.N. said the Secretary General's comments opposing exemption from the International Criminal had a "powerful effect" on Spain's decision not to support the United States.
Speaking to reporters, Annan appealed for Security Council unity Friday. Thursday he had said, "Blanket exemption is wrong, it is of dubious judicial value, and I don't think it should be encouraged by the council."
Future missions in doubt
The Bush administration fiercely opposes the International Criminal Court, fearing frivolous or politically driven war crimes prosecutions against Americans abroad. But in practice, the court's statutes make it unlikely an American would face trial.
The International Criminal Court is considered a tribunal of "last resort" said Richard Dicker, director of the International Justice program at Human Rights Watch.
The tribunal would hear only complaints against a person from a nation that was unable or unwilling to investigate potential war crimes.
The ICC, based in The Hague, Netherlands, went into effect in March 2003.
This was the third year the United States tried to renew exemption for its troops on U.N.-approved peacekeeping missions.
The U.S.-drafted resolution was first approved in 2002 after the United States vetoed a U.N. peacekeeping mission in Bosnia, and threatened to prevent further U.N. missions unless the council endorsed its exemption.
The U.S. secured passage of the resolution a second time last year when three countries abstained. Immunity for the United States expires on June 30, the same day the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority hands over sovereignty to the Iraqi interim government
It is unclear what the repercussions of the U.S. decision to withdraw the resolution will be. "The United States will need to take into account the risk of ICC review when determining contributions to U.N.-authorized or -established operations," Cunningham said
Security Council diplomats also said Cunningham told the council in the closed meeting that failure to approve exemption could be a chilling factor for U.S. involvement in Security Council peace operations.
In Washington, State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said the United States will examine "case by case" whether to take part in current or future peacekeeping missions without the immunity provision.
"We will have to take into account the lack of this resolution as we look at our various obligations and the way we proceed overseas," Boucher said. "We'll be doing that in the coming days."
The United States has signed bilateral agreements with 90 countries guaranteeing that American personnel serving in those countries will not be handed over for prosecution by the ICC.
"We will continue very actively to seek international arrangements which guarantee the protection of our troops," Cunningham said. |
|
|
| DrUg_Tit0 |
| Well, it seems like the US government finally realized that further degradation of foreign relations could start to show its negative impact on the country and that the unilatteral approach is not the brightest possible idea for solving troublesome situations. Oh, well, better late than never. |
|
|
| imokruok |
The US was only trying to secure in one document what they had been individually getting from many nations around the world - waivers from prosecution. As it states in the article, however, it didn't matter whether we we got the immunity or not. We're not subject to the ICC, since we didn't sign on to the treaty. Rather than have the immunity resolution fail, the US withdrew it.
It hardly means the US has assented to the treaty.
| quote: | | None of the alleged U.S. war crimes in Iraq would have fallen under the International Criminal Court's jurisdiction as neither Iraq nor the United States signed on to the ICC treaty. |
|
|
|
| NYCTrancefan |
| Now that only leaves the likes of China, Russia, India a bunch of the Middle Eastern countries to name a few who have not ratified or even acknowledged the ICC's existence but the U.S. is the only one being criticized, hypocrisy at its best. Why would Russia when they commit beastial acts in Chechnya, China with their army in Tibet, we all know how great both of their domestic justice system is but they have the audacity to crititicize the U.S, okay. |
|
|
| NeoPhono |
| As far as I know, the ICC still violates the U.S. Constitution. Article III, Section 1 says that the highest court the United States can have is the Supreme Court. It says that Congress can only establish Courts that are inferior to this Supreme Court. The way the ICC would work, it would actually in certain situations be able to trump the rulings of the Supreme Court. It also in some circumstances does not allow for a trial by jury, the right to know one's accusers as well as double jeopardy protection, again all rights established under the U.S. Constitution. I do not see a need for this court, but as said before the U.S. continues not to ratify the ICC, so there really is no story in the U.S. dropping its resolution attempt. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by NeoPhono
As far as I know, the ICC still violates the U.S. Constitution. Article III, Section 1 says that the highest court the United States can have is the Supreme Court. It says that Congress can only establish Courts that are inferior to this Supreme Court. The way the ICC would work, it would actually in certain situations be able to trump the rulings of the Supreme Court. It also in some circumstances does not allow for a trial by jury, the right to know one's accusers as well as double jeopardy protection, again all rights established under the U.S. Constitution. I do not see a need for this court, but as said before the U.S. continues not to ratify the ICC, so there really is no story in the U.S. dropping its resolution attempt. |
Yes the ICC does supercede the constitution and not only that, the court would have jurisdiction of crimes committed anywhere within the US and over any case even if that person were to be tried and acquitted by a jury.
The only ramifications of this decision is that the US will probably be less likely to send peacekeepers abroad. Much to the satisfaction of most of the world I'm sure, except for the country that needs the peacekeepers. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
ohh the hypocracy! how many other countries haven't ceded power to the ICC?
what the f**k EVAR!!!!!!!!!! |
|
|
| Arbiter |
It's a meaningless move.
The American Servicemembers' Protection Act prohibits U.S. cooperation with the ICC and authorizes the President to use "all means necessary" to free U.S. personnel detained by the ICC.
The translation is that whether or not U.S. personnel have "immunity," it would be a bad idea to try to detain them, unless you're fond of seeing your cities turn to rubble. |
|
|
| Moongoose |
| Yes that would make US even more popular than it is now, blowingup somebody becouse they are detaining a guilty person. |
|
|
| Arbiter |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moongoose
Yes that would make US even more popular than it is now, blowingup somebody becouse they are detaining a guilty person. |
I'm sure. But at this point it ought to be rather obvious that the US doesn't particularly care about popularity. |
|
|
| emander |
| So where's the discussion about procecuting terrorist bastards like Al-Zarqawi and his band of thugs in the UN? Guess they figure the US will take them about with firepower and they won't have to worry about it. Beheading people without trials seems to be their norm. |
|
|
| trancaholic |
| quote: | Originally posted by NYCTrancefan
Now that only leaves the likes of China, Russia, India a bunch of the Middle Eastern countries to name a few who have not ratified or even acknowledged the ICC's existence but the U.S. is the only one being criticized, hypocrisy at its best. Why would Russia when they commit beastial acts in Chechnya, China with their army in Tibet, we all know how great both of their domestic justice system is but they have the audacity to crititicize the U.S, okay. |
The reason why the US is being criticized more than the others in this case, is because we haven't given up on you guys yet ;)
Seriously, the US portrays itself as a modern free nation with a belief in personal responsibility. Furthermore, as far as I know the US was a driving force for the establishment of the UN. China, on the other hand, puts little effort into being percieved as your moral equivalent. The same can be said about Russia. |
|
|
|
|
