To be removed from New York.
Posted on 01/26/2009 9:08:09 AM PST by shielagolden
First Trial Opens At International Criminal Court Congolese militia leader Thomas Lubanga at a 2007 hearing in The Hague January 26, 2009
(RFE/RL) -- The first-ever trial at the International Criminal Court (ICC), the world's first permanent war-crimes tribunal, has opened in The Hague.
Congolese rebel leader Thomas Lubanga is in the dock on charges of recruiting children as young as 10 years old to become soldiers in his country's bloody internal conflicts.
Lubanga denies that he used underage fighters in the military arm of his Union of Congolese Patriots, and he says he was waging a violent campaign only to stop the plundering of Congo's rich natural resources.
But chief ICC prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo said in an opening statement that there is ample evidence that the warlord committed crimes against children, and that the underage soldiers were his victims.
"The children still suffer the consequences of Lubanga's crimes," Moreno-Ocampo said. "They cannot forget what they suffered, what they saw, what they did. They were 9, 11, 13 years old."
Human rights organizations see the case as vitally important as a means of discouraging armed groups throughout Africa from employing child soldiers. As a Human Rights Watch representative, Param-Preet Singh, puts it, the first ICC trial will make clear that the use of children in armed conflict "is a war crime that can and will be prosecuted at the international level."
The United Nations estimates that a quarter of a million children are combatants in conflicts around the world, mostly in Africa.
Although this is the first case to reach trial at the ICC, the court has not been inactive. It has four other Congolese warlords in detention, and has not shied away from accusing a head of state of war crimes.
The accused in question is Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir, who the court claims is guilty of genocide in the Darfur region. The Associated Press reports that judges are to decide soon whether or not to issue an arrest warrant for him.
Working Without Full Support
Founded almost seven years ago, the ICC has made a slow start, in that it is only now starting its first prosecution.
The court has the backing of more than 100 countries, but does not does not have universal support. Among the prominent nations which have declined to endorse it are the United States, Russia, China, India, Pakistan, and Israel.
Washington's position toward the court has been that considering its worldwide security commitments, the U.S. government would be vulnerable to harassment by opposition groups in numerous situations.
Former President Bill Clinton did sign the court's founding treaty in 2000, but the document was not presented to the Senate for ratification, as that body would have rejected it. It's not yet clear whether President Barack Obama will initiate a change of policy.
Neither Russia nor China is accustomed to allowing international oversight of their actions, and Russia has the added reason that its war in Chechnya against Muslim rebels is repeatedly cited for its alleged rights abuses.
India and Pakistan, both of which independently and secretly developed nuclear weapons, have a similar "hands off" approach to institutions like the ICC.
Those countries which have not signed the founding document do not fall within the court's competence. But the UN Security Council can ask the court to prosecute any country, whether it is a signatory or not.
Israel, so long embroiled in conflicts with its Palestinian neighbors, is another country which does not support the court.
The sensitivity of the issue was underlined by comments from Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert about the recently ended offensive in the Gaza Strip. "The commanders and soldiers sent to Gaza should know they are safe from various tribunals, and the state of Israel will assist them on this front and will protect them as they protected us with their bodies during the military operation in Gaza," Olmert said.
Olmert's assurance comes amid reports that Israeli, Palestinian, and international rights groups are looking to raise war crimes charges against Israeli forces' actions in Gaza.
The ICC is not without critics. Some are über-sovereigntists who fear ceding control to a global institution. Others claim that justice may interfere with peacemaking, or that there is no evidence that it works.
The sovereignty issue is real, but it’s becoming outdated since globalization has already weakened these ties in their most extreme form. Furthermore, according to its own statute, the ICC cannot assume a case unless the country in question refuses, or is unable, to take it on itself. It is also true that the peacemaking versus justice complaint needs monitoring by the international community on a case-by-case basis, especially regarding the order of events when a conflict ends. But the new bottom line is that business as usual, where negotiators have felt free to wink and nod at genocidaires in return for an unstable peace, is losing ground.
As for whether international criminal justice works, it’s simply too soon to tell, although the desperation of Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir, as he waits to learn whether he’ll face an indictment for genocide in Darfur, suggests that the reach of the ICC is making itself felt. So does the fact that, in preparing its attack on Gaza, Israel employed a battery of lawyers to clarify justifiable military targets.
The formal creation of a permanent transnational tribunal to prosecute crimes against humanity and war crimes in a world of sovereign states was thought to be as unlikely as the election of a black president in the racially stained United States. But both of these events happened. And both speak to a new era of law, deterrence and the return of soft power. It would be useful if President Barack Obama signed on to the ICC; although more than half the countries in the world are already members, the court needs the heft of the U.S. behind it.
Holding your breath, Shiela?
IBTZ
In other words if they don't find the verdict they want then all bets are off.
Imagine the BDS nutcases using your claim as reason to try President Bush if he isn't impeached here, since there was no trial then it is up to them to do it.
We need this here like a hole in our heads...
Oh. I was mistaken from reading the headline.
I thought that the United Nations was deservedly on trial.
I totally disagree. The ICC is a stalking horse for world government. As the policeman of the world we have far more to lose with a powerful ICC than we do to gain.
At root it is a question of whose law is supreme, the nations, or some bizarre configuration of international organizations. If the latter expect to see global taxation, global speech codes ("thou shalt not speak ill of Islam"), etc.
Our sovereignty is becoming outdated??? Any right thinking person would fight tooth and nail before ceding control to the ICC.
I think you took a wrong turn on the internet. DU is over to the left. They’ll likely appreciate this swill.
The first-ever trial at the International Criminal Court (ICC), the world's first permanent war-crimes tribunal, has opened in The Hague. Congolese rebel leader Thomas Lubanga is in the dock on charges of recruiting children as young as 10 years old to become soldiers in his country's bloody internal conflicts. Lubanga denies that he used underage fighters in the military arm of his Union of Congolese Patriots, and he says he was waging a violent campaign only to stop the plundering of Congo's rich natural resources.I'm just glad there aren't hideous crimes against humanity going on in other places in Africa, such as the Sudan, Zimbabwe, Somalia...
You Are An Idiot.....
Re: It would be useful if President Barack Obama signed on to the ICC
Why?
There was never a more perfect use for a Big Bertha weapon.
The document was not presented to the senate because President George W. Bush revoked the U.S.'s (Clinton's) signature. It was among the first things GWB did after he took office. It is also true that the Republican-controlled senate would have rejected the treaty.
Just one of hundreds, if not thousands of ways in which ELECTIONS HAVE REAL CONSEQUENCES. Just one of the hundreds of less-noticed things that demonstrate there is a substantive difference between Republicans and Democrats.
The US Constitution explicitly states that the Constitution shall be the "supreme law of the land." That means that the people within the US borders shall not be subject to the tyranny of government power originating beyond our borders.
By endorsing the idea of an International Criminal Court, and granting it power to enforce its rulings, you are essentially advocating the end of the United States.
You say: "Furthermore, according to its own statute, the ICC cannot assume a case unless the country in question refuses, or is unable, to take it on itself." But what does that mean?
At what point does "world opinion" decide that we are willing or able to force out citizens to be subject to its laws. And how will those laws be legislated, by what mechanism?
And how long will it take before the trendy concept of "social justice" be used to justify all manner of tyranny?
Have you ever read the UN Declaration of Human Rights? It says:
“the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control”.
The enforcement of such "rights" would be nothing more than the imposition by force of a socialist system on every nation in the world -- not that any socialist system in history has ever been able to guarantee those "rights," since no law made by humans can change the physical laws regarding scarcity and wealth creation.
But think of the horrors that will occur, once world bodies claim (and actually exercise) the power and authority to impose and enforce laws on formerly independent nations.
Think of the world that will exist in the future you foresee:
-- It will be a world in which the US Constitution is no longer the Supreme Law of the Land on American soil. Instead, America will be just another political subdivision of the United Nations, and our citizens will be subject to its laws and regulations.
-- It will be a world in which our constitutional Bill of Rights will be superceded by the Orwellian mishmash of entitlements and obligations that constitutes the so-called UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and in which our own natural liberties will be subordinated to the social engineering agendas, political maneuverings and proven corruptions of UN delegates, officials and bureaucrats.
-- It will be a world in which Americans will be required to pay yet another tier of global taxes, perhaps even a global income tax.
-- It will be a world in which the wealth and property of Americans will be freely expropriated and redistributed around the globe by an international government that affords the American people only a tiny minority of representation.
-- It will be a world in which control of American military power and resources will be ceded to the United Nations, with the result that the UN will be able to enforce its will on our people by virtue of having the most powerful military force in the world.
-- It will be a world in which America will not have the authority to defend itself directly, but will instead be required to look to the UN to provide our national security.
If you think that these conditions are "scare mongering" by paranoid minds, then you haven't been paying attention. The mere fact that you think national sovereignty as political reality is "outdated" shows how easy it is for tyranny to come masquerading as high-minded policy.
To be removed from New York.
It would be interesting to hear what Colonel Kratman would have to say on this. No one wants to use children in war, but sometimes you are going to loose without them. I will say 10 to 13 is too young for frontline combat, but the US has had 14 to 17 year olds fighting for it since the begining.
I agree. I wonder how much the city paid for this trash.
Loss of sovereignty means that your government lacks the power to execute the will of the people, effectively it is the end of representative government.
Are you so thoughtless as to believe a thoroughly corrupt government accountable to NO ONE such as the UN will respect individual rights?
Commie propaganda trash.
“Furthermore, according to its own statute, the ICC cannot assume a case unless the country in question refuses, or is unable, to take it on itself.”
How exactly is this a protection? Let’s say they call Cheney a war criminal, but the USA doesn’t agree.
Then they just say the USA is “refusing” to prosecute.
This verbage in their founding law is completely devoid of any real meaning. It doesn’t slow the ICC in ANY way. It’s nothing more than a statement that all nations on earth must do their bidding of the ICC, or then the ICC will do force its will anyway. How on earth does that slow the ICC?
Since you think the UN and ICC should reign supreme over US sovereignty, and you are very new here,,please explain to us what you think the Constitution truly means. (in terms of home rule) The very essence of the constitution is home rule, and that a government only derives just powers from the consent of the governed. (i think they wrote that down somewhere!) They even went a little further and actually said that a government that doesn’t, can be legitimately OVERTHROWN!
How exactly does the ICC seek my consent? How in heavens name do they claim the consent of non signatory nations?
The EU is the home of genocide,,Belgium,,Britian, Germany, France, Balkans, and so now they* are going to lecture us*? Spare me their assaholic lectures,,, nothing is worse than the righteousness of someone who has just changed their ways,,,, just think “former smoker on crusade”.
a package of 34 treaties, all of which were ratified by a show of hands — no recorded vote.
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a325b3f5d31.htm
you my friend, are a VILLAGE IDIOT
Everything we see is a reflection of something: photons flying through the air as certain wavelengths bounce off while others are absorbed into every bit of material around us.
Everything we say is a reflection of something: our background, our experiences, our thoughts, our feelings.
Everything we do is a reflection of something: the sum total of our likes and dislikes, the culmination of our interests and pursuits, the manifestation of actions both conscious and hidden.
Everything you’ll hear is a Reflection of Something.
Touche
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.