Blair 'war crimes' case launched

[Grammatron]

From the article:

The International Criminal Court in the Hague is being asked to probe allegations of war crimes by Tony Blair, Jack Straw and Geoff Hoon.
The claims surround the UK's role in invading Iraq and have been raised by the group Legal Action Against War.

They say a "principal charge" is "intentionally launching an attack knowing it will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians".

So they are charged with war crimes for fighting a war, interesting.

 

[Tony]

The ICC is a joke.

 

[Abdul Alhazred]

The ICC is a joke.

Is the ICC an agency of the EU or the UN or what? Or just a separate institution established by treaty?

What is the source of their authority, and what is the extent of their authority?

I'm asking for information here, not opinions about whether it's a good thing.

Opinions are welcome too, but information first please.

 

[aerocontrols]

Here's hoping that Congress expands the definition of "Covered Allied Persons" in the ASPA to include members of our allied governments in cases like this.


I should note here that all the British have to do is put Blair, Straw, and Hoon on trial themselves, and the ICC won't be able to.

 

[demon]

"So they are charged with war crimes for fighting a war, interesting."

Yeah, the deal is, if you kill people without a DAMNED good excuse (as opposed to, say, some confection of lies and doublespeak about WMD and your sincere concern for the ickle people), people tend to take it badly. And if you do it in the context of a war, it's called a war crime.

Learning is fun isn`t it?

An unprovoked attack on another country is illegal.
You use diplomats. That's what they're for.

Check out the Nuremberg Trials, when America tried the Nazi leaders for attacking Poland, France and the Sovier Union without provocation...they hanged.
The Nazi leaders had an excuse for every attack. You can imagine how thoroughly they rationalised their attack on the Soviet Union. The brutal, torturing and murdering dictator. The enslavement of the masses. The gulag archipelago. The mass murders by the state police. Come to think of it, they had a BETTER case than Blair---and they STILL hanged.

Still you don`t have to worry, when did you ever see a non-foreigner get taken up to the ICC? The American government have moved to stop American residents being arrested for crimes under any International Criminal Court. Looks like the UK is backing them up now. So it's all black people and shifty Arabs from here on in...






--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[curious]

Is the ICC an agency of the EU or the UN or what? Or just a separate institution established by treaty?

What is the source of their authority, and what is the extent of their authority?

I'm asking for information here, not opinions about whether it's a good thing.

Opinions are welcome too, but information first please.

The ICC is an independent treaty-based institution, separate from the U.N. system, accountable to the countries that have ratified the Treaty, known the Assembly of States Parties. The Assembly will, among other things, establish an independent oversight mechanism for inspection, evaluation and investigation of the Court; elect judges, prosecutors, and other court officials; determine and pay for the budget of the Court, and be able to vote to dismiss judges, prosecutors and other court officials. Those countries that have not ratified the Rome Treaty will NOT be involved in those decisions.

Cases will be referred to the ICC by one of four methods:

1. A country member of the Assembly of States Parties sends the case;
2. A country that has chosen to accept the ICC's jurisdiction sends the case;
3. The Security Council sends the case (subject to the U.S. veto); or
4. The three-judge panel authorizes a case initiated by the International Prosecutor.
http://www.usaforicc.org/facts_whatis.html

 

[Aoidoi]

They say a "principal charge" is "intentionally launching an attack knowing it will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians".

If that's accurate, would a guilty verdict make any war illegal? (It's tough to imagine any realistic war that doesn't endanger civilians. Who wants to fight in the arctic circle?)

I wonder how you enforce that... "hey, get down off that M1A1 tank, you're under arrest! And you, in the stealth bomber! You're under arrest too!"

"Put your guns down and come out with your hand up!" Five minute crash of small arms being dropped

 

[Grammatron]

If that's accurate, would a guilty verdict make any war illegal? (It's tough to imagine any realistic war that doesn't endanger civilians. Who wants to fight in the arctic circle?)

I wonder how you enforce that... "hey, get down off that M1A1 tank, you're under arrest! And you, in the stealth bomber! You're under arrest too!"

"Put your guns down and come out with your hand up!" Five minute crash of small arms being dropped

How would you arrest them though; it's highly likely that they will try to fight back and that may endanger civilians. So in essence, it would be illegal to arrest people who are doing this illegal act!

 

[Agammamon]

. . ."So they are charged with war crimes for fighting a war, interesting."

Yeah, the deal is, if you kill people without a DAMNED good excuse (as opposed to, say, some confection of lies and doublespeak about WMD and your sincere concern for the ickle people), people tend to take it badly. And if you do it in the context of a war, it's called a war crime. . .

No government, no matter how pacifistic, has ever considered even a war of aggression/imperialism (ie Iraq invading Kuwait, or Germany invading, well pretty much everyone else) to be a war crime. That's essentially what these guys are trying to slap onto the Brits. Even if Blair and co didn't have a "good" reason to go into Iraq, that doesn't make it a war crime to invade. War crimes deal with how a war is conducted and not why.
Being in the military I can tell you that we go through a lot of trouble and not a little risk to ensure that bystanders are not injured. We never attack with the express purpose of causing civilian injuries but it's unavoidable in many cases.
What this group will do (if they succeed in getting a conviction) is set a precedent for making war (for any reason, including self defense) illegal. You can't throw weapons around without someone getting hurt.

 

[BillyTK]

Here's hoping that Congress expands the definition of "Covered Allied Persons" in the ASPA to include members of our allied governments in cases like this.

The US intervene in the UK's treaty obligations? That should be interesting.

I should note here that all the British have to do is put Blair, Straw, and Hoon on trial themselves, and the ICC won't be able to.

That would be even more interesting - Blair et al take selves to court!

 

[Reginald]

Similar thing happened over Yugoslavia, I think it was a group of profs and lawyers from countries other than yugoslavia who put the case forward IIRC. However the biggest contention there was alledged deliberate bombing of civilian targets. During the invasion of Iraq (at least as far as publicity is concerned) it was made clear that civilian targets were not being deliberately targetted.

Posted by demon...

You use diplomats. That's what they're for.

Yep they keep stalling while more people keep getting killed, diplomats have a use but they are not the whole solution.

Check out the Nuremberg Trials, when America tried the Nazi leaders for attacking Poland, France and the Sovier Union without provocation...they hanged.

It wasn't only "America" why do you say that? Also most of the high ranking leaders didn't hang for one reason or another.

For you to even imply any similarity between the actions of WW2 and this conflict shows a lack of perspective.

 

[rikzilla]

In this age of frivilous lawsuits, we now have a frivilous court! What a joke!

The ICC is a naked attempt at a legalistic power grab. Nations around the world who cannot hope to compete on the modern battlefield seek to control the last military superpowers through a kangaroo court. It's easy to see why the United States, China, Israel, among others have not, and will not ever sign onto this thing.

The ICC was a good idea. Originally it was set up as an international judicial authority to prosecute the most heinous tyrants and purveyors of genocide. Not even a nitwit like Demon is willing to say that Tony Blair is guilty of genocide! (or is he?)

From this humble and good origin it has grown into what it was never intended to be; a tool to be used by weak nations to subvert the sovereignty of strong ones.

In the case against Tony Blair the ICC has allowed itself to be used by an anti-war special interest group, therefore making a mockery of it's initial purpose.

-z

 

[zenith-nadir]

When Uganda's rebel Lord's Resistance Army (LRA) massacred thousands was the International Criminal Court in the Hague interested in war crimes?

When the ethnic massacres in the Republic of Congo happened was the International Criminal Court in the Hague interested in war crimes?

When the tribal massacres in Rwanda happened was the International Criminal Court in the Hague interested in war crimes?

When terror groups blew up buses in Israel was the International Criminal Court in the Hague interested in war crimes?

When Assad of Syria massacred 10,000 people in Hama Syria was the International Criminal Court in the Hague interested in war crimes?

When Saddam massacred 5,000 people in Halabja was the International Criminal Court in the Hague interested in war crimes?

When the Taliban was killing people in a football stadium for listening to music or not dressing properly was the International Criminal Court in the Hague interested in war crimes?




....'nuff said about the agenda of the International Criminal Court in the Hague....

 

[iain]

Has everyone gone mad? What is the problem here?

The ICC has been signed up to by the UK. It has a huge number of checks and balances. It doesn't just make up its own laws. It's only just got off the ground and doubtless will find its way over the next few years.

You can't prevent people from asking a court to consider a case. I realise that frivolous court cases never happen in the US, so perhaps you don't realise that these things can happen elsewhere

If the court agrees to hear the case, that's the time to look at what the charges actually are and what the court is doing; but attacking a court for allowing people to petition it is ludicrous.

 

[Earthborn]

It's easy to see why the United States, China, Israel, among others have not, and will not ever sign onto this thing.

Ahum... The US did sign onto the thing. A later administration just 'unsigned' it.

From this humble and good origin it has grown into what it was never intended to be; a tool to be used by weak nations to subvert the sovereignty of strong ones.

It cannot be used in that way at all. The claim that it can is one of the myths put forth by the Bush administration

In the case against Tony Blair the ICC has allowed itself to be used by an anti-war special interest group, therefore making a mockery of it's initial purpose.

I am sure you also think that the fact that anyone can report a crime to the police is the fault of the police, even if they are very unlikely to start an investigation for every kook accusing someone of something.

Even in the unlikely event that the ICC thinks Tony Blair might have commited a crime the ICC has jurisdiction over, how likely do you think it is that the British police will arrest their own Prime-Minister?

From this humble and good origin it has grown into what it was never intended to be; a tool to be used by weak nations to subvert the sovereignty of strong ones.

If this is true, then obviously the US should have negotiated more agressively to prevent that from happening. But this isn't true, because the US did: ICC, Made In America.

From Myths: The 'Unchecked' power of the ICC:

there were four years of intense ICC negotiations that preceded the Rome diplomatic conference at which the Statute was adopted. The United States participated fully, constructively, and aggressively in all these negotiations. At Rome, other countries made many concessions to the U.S. to limit ICC jurisdiction.

Emphasis mine.

 

[mbp]

....'nuff said about the agenda of the International Criminal Court in the Hague....

Your examples are irrelevant as the court's statue didn't enter into force until the 1st of July 2002. The ICC doesn't have retroactive jurisdiction.

 

[Earthborn]

When Uganda's rebel Lord's Resistance Army (LRA) massacred thousands was the International Criminal Court in the Hague interested in war crimes?

Did Uganda sign the Rome treaty?

When the ethnic massacres in the Republic of Congo happened was the International Criminal Court in the Hague interested in war crimes?

Did Congo sign the Rome treaty?

When the tribal massacres in Rwanda happened was the International Criminal Court in the Hague interested in war crimes?

Did Rwanda sign the Rome treaty?

When terror groups blew up buses in Israel was the International Criminal Court in the Hague interested in war crimes?

Did Israel sign the Rome treaty?

When Assad of Syria massacred 10,000 people in Hama Syria was the International Criminal Court in the Hague interested in war crimes?

Did Syria sign the Rome treaty?

When Saddam massacred 5,000 people in Halabja was the International Criminal Court in the Hague interested in war crimes?

Did Iraq sign the Rome treaty?

When the Taliban was killing people in a football stadium for listening to music or not dressing properly was the International Criminal Court in the Hague interested in war crimes?

Did Afganistan sign the Rome treaty?

....'nuff said about the agenda of the International Criminal Court in the Hague....

Or yours. Because the question 'where was the ICC when' for your examples can be answered by: nowhere. It didn't exist yet.

 

[Abdul Alhazred]

The ICC is an independent treaty-based institution, separate from the U.N. system, accountable to the countries that have ratified the Treaty, known the Assembly of States Parties. The Assembly will, among other things, establish an independent oversight mechanism for inspection, evaluation and investigation of the Court; elect judges, prosecutors, and other court officials; determine and pay for the budget of the Court, and be able to vote to dismiss judges, prosecutors and other court officials. Those countries that have not ratified the Rome Treaty will NOT be involved in those decisions.

Cases will be referred to the ICC by one of four methods:

1. A country member of the Assembly of States Parties sends the case;
2. A country that has chosen to accept the ICC's jurisdiction sends the case;
3. The Security Council sends the case (subject to the U.S. veto); or
4. The three-judge panel authorizes a case initiated by the International Prosecutor.
http://www.usaforicc.org/facts_whatis.html

Thank you. I assume the USA is not a signatory to the treaty, or George W Bush would be indicted as well.

Is that correct?

I think it stinks. I'm no partisan of Milosevich, but they are not doing right.

 

[Abdul Alhazred]

The US intervene in the UK's treaty obligations? That should be interesting.

Let us Americans straighten out all islands, Haiti and Great Britain and like that. Australia is just barely a continent, so those guys get off the hook, for now.

 

[zenith-nadir]

Did Uganda sign the Rome treaty?Did Congo sign the Rome treaty?Did Rwanda sign the Rome treaty?Did Israel sign the Rome treaty?Did Syria sign the Rome treaty?Did Iraq sign the Rome treaty?Did Afganistan sign the Rome treaty?Or yours. Because the question 'where was the ICC when' for your examples can be answered by: nowhere. It didn't exist yet.

Originally posted by mbp
Your examples are irrelevant as the court's statue didn't enter into force until the 1st of July 2002. The ICC doesn't have retroactive jurisdiction.

Ok. My bad. I redact all my statements and bow to the pressure of technicalities.

(F.Y.I. I was under the impression that The International Court of Justice began work in 1946, when it replaced the Permanent Court of International Justice which had functioned in the Peace Palace since 1922.....)