UNREAL. Obama May Allow US Soldiers to be Tried in the Hague

Gateway Pundit ^ | 11/28/09 | Gateway Pundit

[American Dream 246]

Unreal. Team Obama may allow US soldiers to be tried in the Hague for war crimes. The Wall Street Journal reported, via Jihad Watch:

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton expressed “great regret” in August that the U.S. is not a signatory to the International Criminal Court (ICC). This has fueled speculation that the Obama administration may reverse another Bush policy and sign up for what could lead to the trial of Americans for war crimes in The Hague.

The ICC’s chief prosecutor, though, has no intention of waiting for Washington to submit to the court’s authority. Luis Moreno Ocampo says he already has jurisdiction—at least with respect to Afghanistan.

Because Kabul in 2003 ratified the Rome Statute—the ICC’s founding treaty—all soldiers on Afghan territory, even those from nontreaty countries, fall under the ICC’s oversight, Mr. Ocampo told me. And the chief prosecutor says he is already conducting a “preliminary examination” into whether NATO troops, including American soldiers, fighting the Taliban may have to be put in the dock.

“We have to check if crimes against humanity, war crimes or genocide have been committed in Afghanistan,” Mr. Ocampo told me. “There are serious allegations against the Taliban and al Qaeda and serious allegations about warlords, even against some who are connected with members of the government.” Taking up his inquiry of Allied soldiers, he added, “there are different reports about problems with bombings and there are also allegations about torture.”

It was clear who the targets of these particular inquiries are but the chief prosecutor shied away from spelling it out.

Asked repeatedly whether the examination of bombings and torture allegations refers to NATO and U.S. soldiers, Mr. Ocampo finally stated that “we are investigating whoever commits war crimes, including the group you mentioned.”

[bustinchops]

Russian military analysts? This sounds like shit-stirring to me.

[concretebob]

They are being persecuted based on the moozie's "sworn statement"
They were offered non-judicial (i.e. career ending) punishment
They chose to be judged by a jury of their peers. Courts-martial will clear them and they don't lose their rank and America gets to keep three well-trained, highly-motivated ass-kickers.

Uncle Jimbo and Deebow, (both SO) have some thoughts over at blackfive.net

[stephenjohnbanker]

“Yes, but parents have played a role as well. My parents made sure I knew what communism was at home. Everything wasn’t left to the schools. I spoke at length to a father of kids from 7-17 last night. Believe me when I say his kids know what it is as well and it has caused more than a few problems at school.”

I had that advantage of parental tutoring as well. It is crucial to have this these days.

[RWGinger]

I agree but since obama agrees with all the USA haters around the world he won’t say a word to this Ocampo from ICC.
and the press will give plenty of attention to the USA being charged in an international court.

Don’t forget clinton signed onto the ICC and would have allowed any of our troops to be tried there.

I think it would be really funny and poetic if obama got charged with his drone attacks being war crimes

[itsahoot]

I was merely pointing out that you saying Officers must obey the CIC unquestionably is incorrect.

I don't think I ever stated that officers must follow unlawful orders, I just implied that they wouldn't be there unless they followed the orders issued by the President, legal or otherwise.

I first took my Oath to the Constitution in June 1954, so I know the difference between All Lawful orders and Unlawful orders.