Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
US Demand Of Permanent War Crime Immunity Rejected  
User currently offlineB747-437B From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (11 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 2268 times:

The United States demand for pemanent immunity for United States citizens from prosecution for war crimes was rejected by the UN Security Council on Thursday. Instead, the council approved a one-year extension of the temporary exemption granted to the United States and the six non-signatories of the Rome Agreement that include Security Council permanent member China. The council voted 12-0 in favor of the exemption with France, Germany and Syria abstaining. France chose not to exercise its veto rights.

The US was instrumental in drafting the Rome Agreement in 1998 and convincing other nations to sign, but the Bush administration has subsequently rescinded the US signature from the treaty. President Bush contends that United States citizens should not be subject to the jurisdiction of a foreign court and that they will become the victims of frivolous prosecutions. However, he maintains that the court is needed to try war criminals who are citizens of other countries.

The most vociferous opponents of granting a permanent exemption in Thursday's discussion were Germany, France, Canada, Syria and UN Secretary General Kofi Annan himself. China, who would also have benefited from a permanent exemption being granted, chose also to oppose the US request and indicated that it may consider signing the Rome Agreement in the near future.

The United States had threatened to remove all US troops and support for UN peacekeeping operations if the exemption from war crime prosecution was not renewed for this year.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-UN-International-Court.html

31 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently onlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16907 posts, RR: 51
Reply 1, posted (11 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 2227 times:

"to sign, but the Bush administration has subsequently rescinded the US signature from the treaty"

Yes but Clinton would have done so as well, he only signed under the pre-condition of the immunity clause being put in the first place. It was and still is in effect, on a temoprary basis. Clinton and the Bush administration made it clear they would not go along with the treaty unless the "temporary" immunity was permanatly written in the language of the treaty.

Former President Clinton, his wife Senator Clinton , the current Bush Administration, Congress etc are all against the treaty without the immunity clause.

Without the clause a US Military commander like General Tommy Franks could be tried as a war criminal, and who's to judge who's a war criminal. Syria? HA!

The subversion of this treaty by groups like the one's in Belgium or anti-US groups like Syria is too great to ever go along with such nonsense without clear definition and protection for US Military and civilian leaders.




Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlinePetertenthije From Netherlands, joined Jul 2001, 3391 posts, RR: 12
Reply 2, posted (11 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 2228 times:

President Bush contends that United States citizens should not be subject to the jurisdiction of a foreign court [...] he maintains that the court is needed to try war criminals who are citizens of other countries.

Seems like a double standard to me.

I can understand that the US is affraid that other countries will abuse the court to sue Americans who have done things they do not like. This will happen when the tribunal has no clear bounderaries about when someone can be sued. If there are clear boundaries that are actually adhered to, then there should be no problem.

A lot of Americans are now saying that all the extra anti-terrorism secutriy is no problem "as long as you have nothing to hide". By taking the opposite stance with regard to the international court they unintentionally give ammunition to those people that think that the US is actually hiding things!



Attamottamotta!
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29832 posts, RR: 58
Reply 3, posted (11 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 2186 times:

The title is misleading, a new one year exemption was granted.

Hopefully the UN will make it permanant.

It is going to be pretty hard for them to conduct peacekeeping operations without US transports available.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineArrow From Canada, joined Jun 2002, 2676 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (11 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 2177 times:

If any nation, particularly a big powerful one like the U.S., can exempt itself from an international tribunal, then the tribunal is worthless. No nation is entitled to that kind of protection.

From what I've read, the language of the court and its administration was designed to prevent just the kind of frivolous crap the U.S. is afraid of. If the U.S. insists on staying out -- then scrap the whole idea. That would be better than some bizarre, two class system where American citizenship prevents you from being internationally accountable.



Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.
User currently offlineMarcus From Mexico, joined Apr 2001, 1808 posts, RR: 2
Reply 5, posted (11 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 2175 times:

Talk about misleading headlines....................

U.S. Receives Exemption From War Crimes Prosecution By International Court

http://news.yahoo.com/fc?tmpl=fc&cid=34&in=world&cat=united_nations




Kids!....we are going to the happiest place on earth...TIJUANA! signed: Krusty the Clown
User currently offlineSchoenorama From Spain, joined Apr 2001, 2440 posts, RR: 25
Reply 6, posted (11 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 2158 times:

Here's some interesting info on the International Criminal Court:

"Myths and Facts About the International Criminal Court"

MYTH: The Court will take on politically motivated cases against U.S. citizens or soldiers.

FACT: Numerous safeguards in the ICC treaty will prevent frivolous or politically motivated cases. First, the ICC will cover only the most egregious international crimes, defined in ways corresponding closely to the U.S. Code of Military Justice. It will have no jurisdiction over crimes committed on U.S. soil unless the United States ratifies its treaty.

Second, the Prosecutor will not be able to begin an investigation without authorization from a Pre-Trial Chamber of Judges. At that point, if a U.S. citizen were accused of a crime, the court's judges would be obliged, upon request, to defer to U.S. justice, standing down for at least six months while the United States pursued its own investigation and, if appropriate, prosecution. After that period, the judges would be able to authorize investigations only if they decided that the U.S. judicial system was willfully obstructing justice - a very high threshold. Any indictment would also require confirmation by a Pre-Trial Chamber of judges.

Finally, the U.N. Security Council can adopt a resolution suspending the ICC from investigating or prosecuting any case.

MYTH: The Court will violate U.S. Constitutional protections of due process

FACT: The court is designed to be a fair, independent judicial body that respects the highest standards of justice. Indeed, the ICC has one of the most extensive lists of due process guarantees ever written, many secured through the efforts of U.S. negotiators. [The US was one of the key architects of the Court, before Bush jr became President. Schoen.]

The Rome Statute contains a comprehensive list of rights enjoyed by any accused person, including: presumption of innocence; right to counsel; right to present evidence and to confront witnesses; right to remain silent; right to be present at trial; right to have charges proved beyond a reasonable doubt; and protection against double jeopardy.

Former U.S. State Department Legal Advisor Monroe Leigh has said: "The list of due process rights guaranteed by the Rome Statute are, if anything, more detailed and comprehensive than those in the American Bill of Rights. . . . I can think of no right guaranteed to military personnel by the U.S. Constitution that is not also guaranteed in the Treaty of Rome."

Only the right to trial by jury is missing from the Rome Treaty because of the impracticality of impaneling a jury to hear a case against someone like Pol Pot or Slobodan Milosevic. But the United States has long accepted that its citizens (including U.S. service members) will not get jury trials when accused of crimes in countries like France or Japan, where juries are not used. The United States has signed extradition treaties with many countries that explicitly permit Americans to be tried without a jury.

MYTH: The Court threatens sovereignty because it claims jurisdiction over citizens of countries, like the United States, that haven't ratified its treaty.

FACT: The Court will have no jurisdiction over crimes committed on U.S. soil unless the United States ratifies its treaty.

American citizens accused of crimes overseas are already subject to foreign jurisdiction. This is a basic and well-established principle of international law. If an American citizen or service member is accused today of a serious crime in Japan or Germany, for example, Japan or Germany have the right to try him, even if the United States wants to prosecute the crime itself. Countries that ratify the Rome Treaty are simply exercising their sovereign right to allow an international court to prosecute certain crimes committed on their territory rather than conducting these trials themselves.

The ICC will provide defendants with greater due process rights and protections than many countries to which the United States extradites its own citizens. Moreover, unlike national courts that try Americans, it must defer to American justice when the United States is willing to investigate and prosecute an alleged crime itself.

MYTH: The Court will have jurisdiction over past crimes and will second-guess past U.S. foreign policy decisions

FACT: The ICC will not have any authority over past crimes: its jurisdiction began when the ICC Treaty entered into force, on July 1, 2002.

MYTH: The Court will deter the United States from taking military action around the world to protect its national interests.

FACT: The presence of international tribunals has never presented a barrier to military action. The United States used force in Bosnia and in Kosovo, and has deployed thousands of troops to both places, even though the area is under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia (ICTY). The ICTY has operated responsibly with fewer safeguards than the ICC, and no requirement to defer to the decisions of national courts. When the ICTY was asked to review NATO actions in Kosovo, it decided there was no basis for proceeding with an investigation.

MYTH: The Court will be accountable to a rogue's gallery of undemocratic states.

FACT: The Court will be governed exclusively by its Assembly of States Parties (ASP), consisting of countries that have ratified the Rome Treaty. Virtually every major U.S. ally, including all NATO members save Turkey, is expected to ratify the Rome Treaty and thus join this Assembly.

Because the Court only has jurisdiction over crimes committed on the territory of countries that have ratified its treaty, highly abusive governments have been reluctant to expose their leaders to prosecution by joining the Court. Thus far, countries such as China, Cuba, North Korea, Iraq, Libya, Burma, Pakistan, have refused to sign the ICC Treaty, which is being ratified primarily by established and emerging democracies all over the world.

MYTH: The ICC will override national jurisdictions.

FACT: The U.S. can avoid prosecution of its citizens by the ICC by using its own courts to prosecute genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. The ICC treaty preserves the primary right and duty to states to prosecute the most serious human rights crimes and can proceed only when the state with primary jurisdiction is unable or unwilling to proceed. The ICC won't even have jurisdiction over cases involving U.S. nationals if the U.S. itself investigates, and if appropriate, prosecutes the individual responsible. In addition, U.S. nationals can only be prosecuted if they commit one of the extremely and serious crimes under the jurisdiction of the Court.

Bona fide national efforts to investigate alleged crimes and, if appropriate, to prosecute will prevent the ICC from proceeding, even if national authorities concluded that the evidence does not warrant prosecution.

MYTH: ICC Judges will be partisan and/or incompetent

FACT: The ICC Treaty establishes strict criteria for the selection of the prosecutor and the judges, requiring experts whose reputation, moral character and independence are beyond reproach. They will be prohibited from any activity during their term in office that might jeopardize their independence, and will be excused from particular cases if there is any question of partiality. The judges will be accountable to an assembly of member states and can be removed by a simple vote of those countries in the unlikely event that they abuse their powers.

(Sources: http://www.hrw.org/ & http://www.icc-cpi.int/php/show.php?id=faq)



Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant!
User currently offlinePacificjourney From New Zealand, joined Jul 2001, 2734 posts, RR: 8
Reply 7, posted (11 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 2149 times:

Save your keyboard Schoenorama. You are trying to convince those who simply don't want to be convinced, those who don't let the facts stand in the way of a good conspiracy theory or overblown feelings of persecution.

FACT - US forces have been exposed to International Jurisdiction as Un peacekeepers for amost 30 years and not one has ever been charged with any crime.

FACT - France, Canada, UK, Germany all of whom have more troops deployed as UN peacekeepers than the US have all signed up. What is the US so afraid of ?



" Help, help ... I'm being oppressed ... "
User currently offlineSjc>sfo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (11 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 2141 times:

But the U.S. has far more troops deployed overall on Foreign soil in other peacekeeping functions outside of the U.N.'s ineffectual operations.. far more than France, Canada, the UK, and Germany.

The FACT is that there are many countries who would jump at the opportunity to swamp the international courts with cries of "war crimes" by the United States...

It is certainly a double standard. It certainly sounds arrogant to tell other people to be subjected to foreign jurisdiction, but claim that you should be exempt. In this case, I still believe it is justified.


User currently offlineArrow From Canada, joined Jun 2002, 2676 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (11 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 2127 times:

It is certainly a double standard. It certainly sounds arrogant to tell other people to be subjected to foreign jurisdiction, but claim that you should be exempt. In this case, I still believe it is justified.

OK -- I'll bite. How do you justify it?



Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29832 posts, RR: 58
Reply 10, posted (11 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 2121 times:

The UN criminal court is in the same league as the Belgian war crime tribunals that seek to apply Belgian law for acts outside Belgium to non-citizens of Belgium.


The US is seriously upset over those too.

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1052251825237&call_pageid=968332188854&col=968350060724


I love this comment from the above story,

Belgian defense Minister Andre Flahaut said he was surprised by Rumsfeld's warning, insisting the Franks case had been rejected by Belgium. "Within six days, the case was closed," he told reporters.

Translation: he was much too big of a fish for us to attempt to prosecute.

Will somebody also go into what protections the War Crimes tribunal has against it being used for political ends, something that has and is occurring in the Belgian courts?

[Edited 2003-06-13 05:10:44]


OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently onlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16907 posts, RR: 51
Reply 11, posted (11 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 2102 times:

The Belgium court is the example I wanted to use, they are subverting a judicial process for idealogical gains within their own leftists communities.


Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlineArrow From Canada, joined Jun 2002, 2676 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (11 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 2088 times:

Given the structure and rules of the UN court, can someone explain how the Belgian example is relevant. It seems it has been used by leftists -- but that can happen in any court system. The US Supreme Court gets yanked left and right depending on who the president is and who he appoints. They still have to follow the law as it is written.


Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.
User currently offlineSjc>sfo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (11 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 2084 times:

Arrow - It is justified in this case because of the great number of frivolous cases that will be brought against the U.S. for political reasons. You call it myth, I call it fact. And I've read the provisions of the ICC/ICJ... they wont do diddly to stop these cases.

User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29832 posts, RR: 58
Reply 14, posted (11 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 2088 times:

Arrow, See my earlier post.

I asked, what specific rules make the Belgian example not relevant.

I don't know.

And frankly I don't trust the UN to do the right thing.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlinePacificjourney From New Zealand, joined Jul 2001, 2734 posts, RR: 8
Reply 15, posted (11 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 2045 times:

Sjc>sfo the huge number of cases you cite in Belgium is actually 3, all of which have been rejected by prosecutors.

L-188's assertion that this means "he was much too big of a fish for us to attempt to prosecute" is his usual moulding of the truth to fit his arguement.

What it means is that the safegaurds which exist in Belgium (as they do in the ICC accords and else-where) actually work i.e. a politically motivated prosecution was rejected for that very reason.

Of all these large numbers of US troops that are based in other countries please tell me one who has been prosecuted for political purposes, safe your efforts there are none.

So far all your arguements against the ICC amount to you just not liking it. Do you have anything other than bad ju-ju to convince us with ?



" Help, help ... I'm being oppressed ... "
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29832 posts, RR: 58
Reply 16, posted (11 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 2035 times:

No, it is not me molding the truth.

It is me being very skeptical of that alleged criminal justice system.




OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlinePacificjourney From New Zealand, joined Jul 2001, 2734 posts, RR: 8
Reply 17, posted (11 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 2033 times:

So your above "translation" in reply 10 came from where exactly ?

Be sceptical by all means but shouldn't your reasons be genuine and not simply made up.



" Help, help ... I'm being oppressed ... "
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29832 posts, RR: 58
Reply 18, posted (11 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 2031 times:

Came from my own belief, that these courts, the Belgian and the ICC are both fatally flawed and the US is damn well right to stay the hell clear of them.

Maybe you would like to validate your faith in international law. I have no faith in it.

The reason why the Franks issue was dropped was because of who he worked for. Israel doesn't have that kind of influence in Belguim. I don't believe that the Sharon investigation has been pushed aside, and that is even more politically motivated then the Franks thing ever was. Conclusion, the Belgians are picking and choosing who they go after, who is weakest, who doesn't have the ability to defend themselves, or have a state that will back them up.


The whole Belgian and ICC are jokes, and need to be gotten rid of.

They are simply "unfixable"



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29832 posts, RR: 58
Reply 19, posted (11 years 6 months 1 week 4 days ago) and read 2023 times:

Oh and by the way, I normally wouldn't link to a pinko leftist site such as Human Rights watch's but I think their position paper on the Belgian court system shows, how much glee they have over the fact that they can make a complaint against anyone, anywhere and any time.

Only recently did their supreme court say they can't prosecute somebody who holds a current office. Their disappointment shows through their FAQ answers.

http://hrw.org/campaigns/icc/belgium-qna.pdf



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlinePacificjourney From New Zealand, joined Jul 2001, 2734 posts, RR: 8
Reply 20, posted (11 years 6 months 1 week 4 days ago) and read 2018 times:

Try reading post 15 again.

The safegaurds against the very thing you are concerned about worked as they should in Belgium i.e. the cases were not even accepted by the courts, and they are even stricter in the ICC. Why do you think they are a joke and need fixing ?

Can you just admit you just don't like the idea of the ICC but have no real evidence to be so suspicious.



" Help, help ... I'm being oppressed ... "
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29832 posts, RR: 58
Reply 21, posted (11 years 6 months 1 week 4 days ago) and read 2017 times:

See my link in response 19.

They are proud of the fact that there have been a hell of a lot more then three people investigated by this Kangaroo court.

Only one conviction, against four NUNS!

Sharon will probably be railroaded once he leaves office. The ruling that banned prosecution of sitting elected officials in other counties was being appealed.

US pressure forced them not to look deeper into Franks.

And HRW is foaming at the mouth waiting for Habre guy to be convicted and hung(In the rhetorical sense)



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlinePetertenthije From Netherlands, joined Jul 2001, 3391 posts, RR: 12
Reply 22, posted (11 years 6 months 1 week 4 days ago) and read 2017 times:

The reason that Belgium has gone after Sharon is because there is an indication he actually did commit war crimes. If they are true or not will now be determined by the court. There is no credible indication that general Franks has commited war crimes, and therefore he is not being prosecuted.

If Belgium were to cherry pick the "easy" war crimes cases than Sharon would be the last one on the list. Far more likely would have been an investigation into some obscure African dictator no-one knows or cares about.

Probably it would have been harder to investigate Sharon than general Franks. By investigating Sharon you got Israel and the US breathing in your neck. By investigating general Franks you "only" have the US breathing in your neck.



Attamottamotta!
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29832 posts, RR: 58
Reply 23, posted (11 years 6 months 1 week 4 days ago) and read 2016 times:

Oh here is a link for a little more on those Nuns the Belgians tried.

http://www.diplomatiejudiciaire.com/UK/Higaniro6.htm



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29832 posts, RR: 58
Reply 24, posted (11 years 6 months 1 week 4 days ago) and read 2013 times:

Or option B

By prosecuting Sharon, the Belgians are caving into pressure from Arab countries and the Palestinians.



Just a thought.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
25 Pacificjourney : So now your problem with the Belgian court is that it ONLY got one conviction. Hard to please aren't you. I thought we were talking about potential vi
26 Post contains images DAVID B. : I say go fo it By not prosecuting Sharon, the Belgians are caving into pressure from the US. just a thought [Edited 2003-06-13 18:25:23]
27 STT757 : If they go after Sharon they have to go after Arafat, he has as much (if not more) blood on his hands as does Sharon. As the Palestinian leader he sup
28 Delta-flyer : The US has every right to demand immunity for its citizens, given that anyone in the world can force a US citizen to be detained and then to defend hi
29 Bobrayner : given that anyone in the world can force a US citizen to be detained and then to defend himself against any frivolous allegation The restrictions agai
30 Delta-flyer : The restrictions against arbitrary trial and/or detention are - I think you'll find - much, much stronger than in the USA. Incidentally, it's only "fr
31 Post contains links N79969 : Pete is correct. I recommend reading rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. There are sanctions for bringing frivolous claims. http://www.la
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
US Secretary Of Defense Frequents Online Forums! posted Fri Dec 8 2006 19:52:05 by DfwRevolution
US Report About The War In Iraq posted Mon Sep 25 2006 10:03:18 by Sebolino
Risk Of Nuclear War posted Sat Jun 17 2006 17:18:27 by Wrighbrothers
Best US President Of All Time? posted Tue Mar 7 2006 21:43:55 by 9VSPO
Dubai World Ports Delays US-part Of P&O Deal posted Fri Feb 24 2006 21:06:25 by ME AVN FAN
CoE Accuses US-CIA Of Kidnapping And Torture posted Tue Jan 24 2006 12:23:50 by ZakHH
Beginning Of Permanent Troops Cuts In Iraq? posted Sat Dec 24 2005 04:58:27 by ANCFlyer
Fmr. US Secretary Of State Colin Powell On Katrina posted Fri Sep 9 2005 17:22:43 by SATX
US View Of France Had They Elected Le Pen posted Thu Jul 14 2005 18:28:46 by Superfly
Show Us Some Of Your Stupid MSN Transcripts! posted Thu Jun 23 2005 14:55:11 by UTA_flyinghigh