Blair 'war crimes' case launched

[iain]

Rulings by the ICC cannot be overturned by the US Supreme Court. That is the sense in which they are superior - or at least not inferior. The Constitution guarantees citizens can appeal to the Supreme Court, but that right is taken away by this treaty. Therefore we cannot sign on to it.

Surely the US has signed other treaties which allow US citizens, in some situations, to be tried in courts where the ruling cannot be overturned by the Supreme court.

For example, the US has extradition treaties with many countries around the world. A US citizen could be extradited to, for example, Britain and convicted of a crime for which there was no appeal to the US Supreme Court. How do extradition treaties work if this right of appeal is inviolate?

 

[Ziggurat]

How do extradition treaties work if this right of appeal is inviolate?

Extradition can be appealed to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court can overrule that extradition request.

Edit to add: also, extradition is generally for crimes that take place under another country's jurisdiction. The ICC can claim jurisdiction over the actions of US citizens who are normally considered under US jurisdiction, just as Blair's actions regarding Iraq are under the jurisdiction of British courts.

 

[iain]

I'm sure that there's a debate to be had there but it doesn't sound like the legal argument is cut-and-dried. I guess whether it would count as usurping the Supreme Court would depend on the exact terms of the treaty.

Given that the US was heavily involved in negotiating that treaty and was initially going to sign up, and given that they probably mentioned this to a lawyer at some stage - at least in passing - I can't see how you could think that this legal issue was black and white.

 

[Abdul Alhazred]

Just to be clear, it's not a problem to change the constitution to ban gay marriages; but changing it to allow the US to play a full integrated role in the world is not possible.

Seriously,

Proposing a constitutional amendment is easy. Usually it's just political grandstanding. Another example was the amendment to ban flag burning. Went nowhere.

Getting an amendment passed requires 2/3 of both houses of congress and a majority vote in 3/4 of the state legislatures. It's not easy to change the constitution.

If the gay marriage ban can get through that, we've got bigger problems than not being able to get married, which we can't now anyway.

Don't want to hijack this to a gay thread, we now return you to a thread already in progress.

As for the ICC, as you Brits used to say: Never, never, never!

 

[Earthborn]

Extradition can be appealed to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court can overrule that extradition request.

Doesn't this mean that extradition to the ICC can also be appealed to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court can also overrule an extradition to the ICC? Same thing, innit?

also, extradition is generally for crimes that take place under another country's jurisdiction. The ICC can claim jurisdiction over the actions of US citizens who are normally considered under US jurisdiction, just as Blair's actions regarding Iraq are under the jurisdiction of British courts.

The ICC can only claim jurisdiction over the worst kind of crimes there are and only when the country that would normally have jurisdiction over them considers itself unable to try them. If the legal system in Britain considers itself able to prosecute Blair for whatever he may have done, the ICC is irrelevant. If British authorities aren't willing to send Blair to the ICC, the ICC is powerless.

 

[WildCat]

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

From the link:
It is historically unprecedented. This is the first time any President has ever revoked a former Chief Executive's signature on a treaty or "unsigned" any kind of treaty. According to the UN Under-Secretary for Legal Affairs no one in the world has ever "unsigned" a UN treaty.

What a load of BS! No US President can legally bind the country to a treaty, only the US Senate can. Any evidence that the Senate ever ratified this treaty, Earthborn?

A POTUS can negotiate a treaty, but it is null and void until the Senate ratifies it. Clinton was grandstanding for the purpose of pandering to foreign governments, knowing full well it never had a chance of passing in the Senate, and never will IMHO.

 

[Earthborn]

What a load of BS! No US President can legally bind the country to a treaty, only the US Senate can. Any evidence that the Senate ever ratified this treaty, Earthborn?

A POTUS can negotiate a treaty, but it is null and void until the Senate ratifies it.

Are we to conclude then that the signature of a head of state is meaningless, and later governments can safely ignore it? That sets a nice precedent...

"Unsigning" the Rome Statute cripples US diplomats trying to pressure key countries that have signed treaties but not ratified them. The "unsigning" precedent creates a wholly new and undesirable degree of uncertainty and confusion surrounding the ratification period. International treaties cover drug trafficking, money laundering, hostage taking, terrorism, torture, and scores of other topics of vital national interest to the United States. There are many countries that have signed but not ratified treaties of vital concern to the US. "Unsigning" makes it easier for these countries to back away from their commitments to the treaties and the United States.

• The 1979 International Convention against the Taking of Hostages. Iraq, Liberia and the DR Congo are countries that have signed, but not ratified, the treaty.
• The UN Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs. The DR Congo and Gabon have signed but not ratified. While Colombia has ratified, it took six years for it to do so, years during which an "unsigning" precedent would have severely damaged US efforts.
• Neither Afghanistan nor the military junta in Burma has ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention, but both nations have signed it.
• Turkey, a nation the US has strongly encouraged to improve its human rights record, only recently signed, but has not ratified the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

From here.

Clinton was grandstanding for the purpose of pandering to foreign governments, knowing full well it never had a chance of passing in the Senate, and never will IMHO.

If it didn't have a chance of passing in the Senate, I don't see why Bush had to unsign it. Couldn't he just have allowed the Senate to reject it and go back to his allies saying: "Sorry guys, I did everything I could to get it passed, but the Senate rejected it, so we'll have to start new negotiations." That way he would have gotten what he wanted and kept moral highground.

Sure Clinton was grandstanding for the purpose of pandering to the US's most loyal allies (why is that a bad thing anyway?) by signing a treaty that has absolutely no effect on any US citizen whatsoever, unless guilty of the most heinous crimes against humanity and the US itself being unable to bring him to justice and preferring to extradite him to an international court instead.

 

[WildCat]

Are we to conclude then that the signature of a head of state is meaningless, and later governments can safely ignore it?

Yes, in the case of treaties. The POTUS's signature means absolutely nothing. That darn US Constitution keeps getting in the way.

If it didn't have a chance of passing in the Senate, I don't see why Bush had to unsign it. Couldn't he just have allowed the Senate to reject it and go back to his allies saying: "Sorry guys, I did everything I could to get it passed, but the Senate rejected it, so we'll have to start new negotiations." That way he would have gotten what he wanted and kept moral highground.

Because his political goals were different than Clinton's. At the end of his presidency, Clinton wanted to have a treaty, any treaty, as part of his legacy. The content and implications didn't matter to him.

Subjecting US troops and officials to a show trial conducted by anti-US partisans and despots is not the "moral highground" in everyone's view. I'd bet fewer than a dozen Senators would have voted for it, and you don't even see the Dem candidates making an issue of it because they don't support it either.

Bush never "unsigned" it. He just didn't push it. Clinton's signature is still on it after all.

 

[Earthborn]

Subjecting US troops and officials to a show trial conducted by anti-US partisans and despots is not the "moral highground" in everyone's view.

Which 'show trial' ? Which 'anti-US partisans' have signed the Rome treaty? Which 'despots' have? Which US troops and officials are likely to stand trial before the ICC? Which US police officer is going to arrest them? Which US politician is going to send them to The Hague? Are you saying that by years of intense and agressive negotiation, by limiting the power of the ICC, the US has created something that can easily be used against it?

 

[Grammatron]

Which 'show trial' ? Which 'anti-US partisans' have signed the Rome treaty? Which 'despots' have? Which US troops and officials are likely to stand trial before the ICC? Which US police officer is going to arrest them? Which US politician is going to send them to The Hague? Are you saying that by years of intense and agressive negotiation, by limiting the power of the ICC, the US has created something that can easily be used against it?

I will answer one part of that since WildCat appears to be far more informed on this topic than I.

Which US troops and officials are likely to stand trial before the ICC? Which US police officer is going to arrest them? Which US politician is going to send them to The Hague?

This is pretty much one question since no one is going to arrest US soldiers/officials in USA. However, the concern is that when they are out of the country on vacation or for whatever reason, they can be arrested and brought to the court.

 

[Earthborn]

However, the concern is that when they are out of the country on vacation or for whatever reason, they can be arrested and brought to the court.

That's assuming that they are accused of war crimes, genocide or crimes against humanity, they have acted out these crimes in an ICC member state (all allies to the US!), or the US has ratified the Rome Statute (it has not!) or the Security Council (in which the US has veto power!) granted the ICC jurisdiction over US citizens through a referral, the country in which they are visiting is an ICC member state and is willing and able to use its police force to arrest them and there is enough evidence warranting an arrest and the US itself is unable or unwilling to try them. How likely is that?

Is the US planning any war crimes, genocide or crimes against humanity in one of its closest allies?
Is the US planning to ratify the Rome statute or allowing the security council to grant the ICC jurisdiction over a US citizen?
Is there in the US a war criminal, a genocidal maniac or a criminal against humanity who would be stupid enough to go on a holiday to an ICC member state if he can stay at home with out being arrested?
Has the US legal system fallen to such disrepair that it would not be able to try such a person itself if it prefered to?

If you think the answer is 'no' to any of these questions, who in the US has anything to fear from the ICC? Nobody right?

Then why hinder the prosecution of Ugandan warlords who abducted children to serve as soldiers and sex slaves?

...you don't even see the Dem candidates making an issue of it because they don't support it either.

Here you can find the opinions of several presidential candidates concerning the ICC. Surprised?

 

[Grammatron]

That's assuming that they are accused of war crimes, genocide or crimes against humanity, they have acted out these crimes in an ICC member state (all allies to the US!), or the US has ratified the Rome Statute (it has not!) or the Security Council (in which the US has veto power!) granted the ICC jurisdiction over US citizens through a referral, the country in which they are visiting is an ICC member state and is willing and able to use its police force to arrest them and there is enough evidence warranting an arrest and the US itself is unable or unwilling to try them. How likely is that?

Is the US planning any war crimes, genocide or crimes against humanity in one of its closest allies?
Is the US planning to ratify the Rome statute or allowing the security council to grant the ICC jurisdiction over a US citizen?
Is there in the US a war criminal, a genocidal maniac or a criminal against humanity who would be stupid enough to go on a holiday to an ICC member state if he can stay at home with out being arrested?
Has the US legal system fallen to such disrepair that it would not be able to try such a person itself if it prefered to?

If you think the answer is 'no' to any of these questions, who in the US has anything to fear from the ICC? Nobody right?

I love the "if you don't have anything to fear then why are you worrying" argument. Let's just monitory everybody's actions all the time, if they are not doing anything illegal, then why would they care?

Perhaps it's because people will sue for thing like the war is illegal or USA didn't help when it was suppose to, or USA didn't help enough, etc.

 

[aerocontrols]

here. If it didn't have a chance of passing in the Senate, I don't see why Bush had to unsign it. Couldn't he just have allowed the Senate to reject it and go back to his allies saying: "Sorry guys, I did everything I could to get it passed, but the Senate rejected it, so we'll have to start new negotiations." That way he would have gotten what he wanted and kept moral highground.

Earthborn: You appear to be far to informed (at least on one side of this debate) to not know the answer to the question you are implying here.

Are you serious about this 'confusion'?

 

[WildCat]

Here you can find the opinions of several presidential candidates concerning the ICC. Surprised?

Thanks for the link, though I'm not particularly surprised.
Kerry: Information limited. Probably supports "constructive engagement" with allies but not full U.S. support for Court.

Edwards: Supports positive engagement with the Court.

Gephardt: Spoke out against ASPA, supports international justice efforts, and believes U.S. should work multilaterally on this issue. Hasn't said U.S. should join Court.

Dean: Believes the U.S. should stay engaged with the Court and "work to rewrite" the Rome Statute. Doesn't know if he would support U.S. becoming a signatory. Believes concerns about American Servicemembers are justified.

Lieberman: Believes that the Administration policy is needlessly alienating our allies. Says that the U.S. should stay engaged with the ICC but doesn't say U.S. should join. Strongest statement was made to foreign press.

So none has said they'd vote for it in it's current form, and seem to be trying to play to both sides of the issue for political reasons. "If Bush is fer it I'm agin it!"

When US troops as a matter of official policy start rounding up and executing the males of entire villages or deliberately bomb orphanages and hospitals (that aren't being used to shield combatants, and contain no actual orphans or patients!) I would become a supporter. Not likely to happen though.

The current allegations against Blair and Straw offer all the proof I need about the motives and aims of the ICC, which are purely political in nature.

 

[Bjorn]

The current allegations against Blair and Straw offer all the proof I need about the motives and aims of the ICC, which are purely political in nature.

How can the current allegations (from someone else, not the ICC) tell something about the motives and aims of the ICC?

The International Criminal Court in the Hague is being asked to probe allegations of war crimes by Tony Blair, Jack Straw and Geoff Hoon.

(From original article)

 

[iain]

How can the current allegations (from someone else, not the ICC) tell something about the motives and aims of the ICC?

Indeed.

To criticise the ICC for allowing someone to ask them to investigate something is like criticising Bush because someone writes him a letter requesting that slavery be reinstated.

Sure, anyone can ask but the important thing is the answer - in this instance whether the case makes it to the point of being heard before the court and, if so, what decision the court reaches.

 

[Earthborn]

Let's just monitory everybody's actions all the time, if they are not doing anything illegal, then why would they care?

Why would they care if they are not doing anything wrong and they are not being monitored? That would be a more accurate comparison.

Perhaps it's because people will sue for thing like the war is illegal

Starting an illegal war is not a nice thing to do. It will not make you many friends. But it is not a crime that one can be prosecuted for by the ICC. The ICC only takes cases of war crimes, genocide or crimes against humanity, which are very clearly and narrowly defined here.

USA didn't help when it was suppose to, or USA didn't help enough, etc.

If that is true, than that is not very nice of the USA. But those are not crimes anyone can be prosecuted for by the ICC.

Earthborn: You appear to be far to informed

If by that you mean that I can read, thanks for noticing!

at least on one side of this debate

Well, the other side doesn't seem to be offering much, does it? All things that are easily refuted.

Now I am sure that someone could have some legitimate criticism on the ICC. Maybe they know of a better way to elect judges, or they see a little loophole in its system that makes it a bit biased against, I don't know, Vatican City, or something. But the idea that the US would create a kangaroo court that is biased only against itself is something I don't take seriously.

Are you serious about this 'confusion'?

Yes, I am. I really have no idea why the Bush administration would do such a thing. I can think of a few reasons, but they are too ridiculous to contemplate (or are they?)

• The Bush administration believes its own rubbish and everything they do to the ICC is pure stupidity.
• The Bush administration has simply a very deep fear of anything that might threaten its world hegemony, and it tries to sabotage everything that could potentially one day be explained as a tiny loss of US sovereignty. Even the hint of losing control to some foreign entity (while of course maintaining their own control over the rest of the world) makes them against it.
• The Bush administration is planning to make the US a dictatorship commiting horrible atrocities, and it tries to make sure that whenever the American people are fed up with it, they can never be extradited to The Hague to stand trial.

Well that's the best I can come up with. If anyone has any better idea, let me know.

Since according the old adage 'never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity', I'll assume for now that the first reason is the most likely. I'll keep an eye open for signs of the other possibilities, though.

When US troops as a matter of official policy start rounding up and executing the males of entire villages or deliberately bomb orphanages and hospitals (that aren't being used to shield combatants, and contain no actual orphans or patients!) I would become a supporter.

So basically you only support a law against something after it has been broken for the first time and the people who did it first should be allowed to walk free? I don't quite follow that logic.

If it ever goes that far, do you think the government doing those things will be willing to submit itself to the ICC's authority? Or do think it is more likely that your life will be in danger when you speak out in favour of the ICC?

Just imagine that the Founding Fathers used that sort of logic. "Ah, we don't need a Bill of Rights to restrict the power of government. We have a very nice government now! The government can always write a Bill of Rights when it goes bad."

Not likely to happen though.

No, of course not. The same is true for almost all ICC members, and still they signed and ratified the treaty. And for some strange reason all the bad regimes didn't! The good ones have something to gain: a little extra protection for when things go horribly wrong. Dictatorships have nothing to gain.

 

[aerocontrols]

If by that you mean that I can read, thanks for noticing!

The Bush administration had stated reasons for unsigning it. I just figured you knew what they were. No?

What reasons did Clinton give for his reluctance to sign it, even as a lame duck? Did he not say that he didn't believe that the treaty should be ratified by the Senate unless certain changes were made? Changes that have not, in fact, been made?

MattJ

 

[Earthborn]

The Bush administration had stated reasons for unsigning it. I just figured you knew what they were. No?

If there are any that are not already adressed by the way the ICC is structurerd: no, I don't know them.

What reasons did Clinton give for his reluctance to sign it, even as a lame duck? Did he not say that he didn't believe that the treaty should be ratified by the Senate unless certain changes were made? Changes that have not, in fact, been made?

I have no idea. You tell me. What are those changes that have not been made?

 

[aerocontrols]

I don't know them.I have no idea.

Upon signing the treaty, President Clinton tallied off several objections, one of which was:

In particular, we are concerned that when
the Court comes into existence, it will not only exercise authority over personnel of states that have ratified the Treaty, but also claim jurisdiction over personnel of states that have not.

Still true or not?

But more must be done. Court jurisdiction over U.S. personnel should come only with U.S. ratification of the Treaty. The United States should have the chance to observe and assess the functioning of the Court, over time, before choosing to become subject to its jurisdiction. Given these concerns, I will not, and do not recommend that my successor submit the Treaty to the Senate for advice and consent until our fundamental concerns are satisfied.

With all due respect, I find it astonishing that you can appear so knowledgeable with regard to the debates about this court and not know why the Bush Administration unsigned it at the moment that it chose to. It did not unsign the ICC upon taking control of the government, it waited until a particular time, and unsigned it at that time for a particular reason. Which has to do with the second paragraph of President Clinton's that I've quoted.

MattJ