US Gets One Year Exemption from War Crimes

renata

Illuminator
R
Joined
Jan 28, 2002
Messages
3,325
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...p/20030612/ap_on_re_us/un_international_court


The U.N. Security Council on Thursday approved another one-year exemption for American peacekeepers from prosecution by the new international war crimes tribunal.

France, Germany and Syria abstained, apparently ignoring a U.S. appeal not to further strain the bitter trans-Atlantic division over the war against Iraq (news - web sites).

U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan (news - web sites) spoke out strongly against any attempt to try to make the exemption permanent — which the United States initially sought. He warned that this would not only undermine the International Criminal Court but the authority of the U.N. Security Council "and the legitimacy of United Nations (news - web sites) peacekeeping."

The resolution adopted by a vote of 12-0 with the three abstentions, authorizes a yearlong exemption from arrest or trial for peacekeepers from the United States and other countries that have not ratified the Rome treaty establishing the court.
.....

All 15 EU nations are among the 90 countries that are party to the court, which will prosecute cases of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity committed after July 1, 2002. The court will step in only when countries are unwilling or unable to dispense justice themselves.

.....

Then President Clinton (news - web sites)'s administration signed the 1988 Rome treaty setting up the court, but the Bush administration has rescinded the U.S. signature.

Bush contends that Americans could be subject to the court's jurisdiction even if it is not a party to the pact. Washington argues that the court could be used for frivolous or politically motivated prosecutions of American troops.
....

During last year's battle, the United States threatened to end far-flung peacekeeping operations established or authorized by the United Nations — from Afghanistan (news - web sites) and the Mideast to Bosnia and Sierra Leone — if it didn't get an exemption.

The final deal dented the court's underlying principle that no one should be exempt from punishment for war crimes, and it angered court supporters and human rights groups.
Click to expand...


I do think this treaty, as I understand it may be misused for political gain. Recall that the UN Human Rights commission, is comprised of who is who of worst offenders- it is possible the court will go the same way. I also do not believe US Army deliberately conducts war crimes, although of course there have been horrible individual incidents in the past.

However- if the US gets an exception from war crimes- well, it just looks so bad. Perhaps I am reacting without sufficient information, but it is strange we are asking for the treatment we would not grant anyone else. Does anyone know more about this issue?

Here is a thread on the HRC, if anyone is interested http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=17956
 
Not good. Exemption from war crimes, control of space, control of Iraq's oil, etc. USA wants to become a NWO?
 
aerocontrols said:
Does France still have its 7 year exemption?
Click to expand...


I had not realized France had an exemption. If so, then its stance is quite hypocritical. Do you have any info on that? Thanks
 
"Washington argues that the court could be used for frivolous or politically motivated prosecutions of American troops."

And having an exemption from the court could be used for committing all sorts of atrocities that could never be brought to justice.

Which is worse - a frivolous prosecution, or a "Get Out Of Jail Free" card?

This is just wrong in so may ways. I am embarrassed for the US simply because we asked for this exemption, let alone that we actually received it.
 
According to this reasoning, FDR, Churchill, McArthur and Truman would have all been hung for war crimes after world war 2.

I don't think that sort of thing was what the Geneva convention was made to enforce. (Seeing as they did not label any of them as war criminals).

This is clearly an abuse of law and if the UN pursues this matter things will get bitter. The UN if it finds anyone guilty will not be able to punish anybody, as the american people will not stand for their soldiers being cut off in this manner.


And I really hope the UN doesn't try to enforce any of this with force, because then it will be war. If not armed, then a Cold War.

And if war, cold or hot, maybe martial law and new McCarthyisms on both sides.
 
DialecticMaterialist said:
According to this reasoning, FDR, Churchill, McArthur and Truman would have all been hung for war crimes after world war
Click to expand...

This is utter nonsense, the ICC doesn't even provide death penalty.

And the ICC targets individuals who personally commit atrocities or give the direct order for them. None of this is true for the persons mentioned above. Or is it?

Zee
 
ZeeGerman said:



And the ICC targets individuals who personally commit atrocities or give the direct order for them. None of this is true for the persons mentioned above. Or is it?
Click to expand...


It depends on you definition of "atrocity".


Some would say nuking Japan in WW2 was an atrocity, I don’t think it was.
 
war crimes

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
According to this reasoning, FDR, Churchill, McArthur and Truman would have all been hung for war crimes after world war
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If Germany had won the war, the above mentioned people would have been hung.
 
According to this reasoning, FDR, Churchill, McArthur and Truman would have all been hung for war crimes after world war 2.
Click to expand...
Unless they can explain to the court that their actions were necessary to defend their national security or for the liberation of other nations.

I also doubt that they would have been convicted: they would probably be able to stall their convictions indefinately by pretending to be too sick to appear in court, making claims that they don't recognize its authority, etc etc... :)

I really would have preferred if some of these men had to justify their actions in a court of law. I really want to know how anyone could reasonably justify the atomic bombs on Japan for example...

And it is true: the ICC cannot issue the death penalty.
Seeing as they did not label any of them as war criminals.
Click to expand...
I think the ICC is meant to make sure that even winners of a conflict are not above the law. It is created so might no longer makes right.
The UN if it finds anyone guilty will not be able to punish anybody, as the american people will not stand for their soldiers being cut off in this manner.
Click to expand...
Will they even stand for those who have been proven war criminals? And if they stand by them so much, why would they even extradite them?
 
And the ICC targets individuals who personally commit atrocities or give the direct order for them. None of this is true for the persons mentioned above. Or is it?
Click to expand...

A-bombs, firebombing of Dunburg, etc.
The allies did kill many civilians during ww2, some on purpose.
 
Will they even stand for those who have been proven war criminals? And if they stand by them so much, why would they even extradite them?
Click to expand...

They will recognize the necessities and reality of war, and how ridiculous/unrealistic/extreme your idea of a "war crime" is.

I really would have preferred if some of these men had to justify their actions in a court of law. I really want to know how anyone could reasonably justify the atomic bombs on Japan for example...
Click to expand...

So the people who worked their tail off to defeat fascist forces should be tried as criminals?

Welcome to the Soviet Union....comerade. ;)
 
They will recognize the necessities and reality of war
Click to expand...
So why then would they extradite their leaders to the ICC? If you think they wouldn't, then what exactly would those leaders have to fear from the ICC?
So the people who worked their tail off to defeat fascist forces should be tried as criminals?
Click to expand...
The people who dropped atomic bombs, on cities full of innocent civilians of a country already willing to surrender, should be able to justify their actions before a court of law, IMHO... If that such an extreme view? I do not claim to know whether such an action is impossible to justify, allowing these people to go free.

I can even imagine that they get exempted from all punishment as long as they explain their justification before a 'Commision for Truth and Reconciliation'. But some form of public explanation to the victims of such an action is absolutely necessary, IMHO.
Welcome to the Soviet Union....comerade. ;)
Click to expand...
That makes no sense whatsoever, and you know it, towaritsj Dialeticov Asimoviwitsj...
 
aerocontrols said:
Does France still have its 7 year exemption?
Click to expand...

It's not really an excemption: article 124 of the Rome Statute allows for a transitional provision, in which any signatory nation can excempt itself from jurisdiction of the court in war-crimes for that nation's citizens, or war-crimes commited in that nation's territory, for a period of seven years. It's not some kind of special excepmtion for France.

I don't know why France decided to declare the use of this provision, but I would assume that the provision itself is in place to allow nations a time of grace to adjust their own legal system before the transferral of jurisdiction takes effect.
 
Earthborn said:
So why then would they extradite their leaders to the ICC? If you think they wouldn't, then what exactly would those leaders have to fear from the ICC?The people who dropped atomic bombs, on cities full of innocent civilians of a country already willing to surrender, should be able to justify their actions before a court of law, IMHO... If that such an extreme view? I do not claim to know whether such an action is impossible to justify, allowing these people to go free.

I can even imagine that they get exempted from all punishment as long as they explain their justification before a 'Commision for Truth and Reconciliation'. But some form of public explanation to the victims of such an action is absolutely necessary, IMHO.That makes no sense whatsoever, and you know it, towaritsj Dialeticov Asimoviwitsj...
Click to expand...

Earthborn,
That Japan was willing to surrender is a HIGHLY debateable point. They had plans drawn up to defend the 4 main islands of Japan to the death, and they refused to respond to the Potsdam Declaration demanding to surrender. In fact, they killed it "with silent contempt." in their own words.

That Japan was beaten is not questionable, but that doesn't neccesarily mean that they were to accept it at the time.

There were some Japanese diplomats behind the scenes trying to cut a deal, but the military vetoed their attempts. But even these diplomats were refusing to give up many of Japan's gains in territory like Manchuria.
 
Earthborn said:
I really want to know how anyone could reasonably justify the atomic bombs on Japan for example...
Click to expand...

Ummm, well without wanting to dispell too much fuzzie feelgood ignorance, the following might be a start:

1 Japan was - emphatically - NOT willing to surrender pre hiroshima/nagasaki.

2 US assessment of probable casualties from a D-Day style "conventional" assualt were at least 10 million (2 million allied soldiers, 8 million japanese) but could top 30 million allowing for predicted famine and disease. Compare those figures with approx 100 thousand from the bombs.

3 It was thought that an Invasion would lead to Allied POWs being executed in reprisal.

4 The USSR would have invaded Japan from the North leading to a division of the country a la East/West Germany.

Those are just off the top of my head, there are more. Now you can (justifiably) say that the A-Bombing was horrific but you can also say that it was by far the lesser of two evils in this instance.

In fact I'll add a 5 while here (though it takes hindsight to fully appreciate it):

5 Demonstration of the destructive powers of these weapons deters NATO and Warsaw Pact from going nuclear on each other for 40 years.
 
Leif Roar said:


It's not really an excemption: article 124 of the Rome Statute allows for a transitional provision, in which any signatory nation can excempt itself from jurisdiction of the court in war-crimes for that nation's citizens, or war-crimes commited in that nation's territory, for a period of seven years. It's not some kind of special excepmtion for France.

I don't know why France decided to declare the use of this provision, but I would assume that the provision itself is in place to allow nations a time of grace to adjust their own legal system before the transferral of jurisdiction takes effect.
Click to expand...

It's not an exemption, it just makes them exempt for 7 years. See the difference?

We're not talking about any signatory, we're talking about France, one of the countries that abstained in protest in the UNSC over our attempt to get a one-year exemption.

The other country that has taken the seven year exemption is Colombia.

Your last paragraph makes me chuckle.

MattJ
 
aerocontrols said:


It's not an exemption, it just makes them exempt for 7 years. See the difference?

We're not talking about any signatory, we're talking about France, one of the countries that abstained in protest in the UNSC over our attempt to get a one-year exemption.

The other country that has taken the seven year exemption is Colombia.
Click to expand...

I merely wanted to point out that it is not a special exception granted to France, but a general provision in the statute that any signatory nation can take advantage off. I do consider that a significant difference.


Your last paragraph makes me chuckle.
Click to expand...

I'm always happy when I can cause a chuckle, but would you perhaps want to explain why it made you chuckle?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom