Posted on 12/01/2004 3:52:31 PM PST by Jose Roberto
The Bush administration is adding an economic punch to its campaign to escape the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court.
The administration fears that Americans could be brought before the tribunal by foreign countries. That concern has led to the U.S. policy to undermine the court's work.
The ICC is the first permanent international body set up to investigate and prosecute individuals accused of crimes against humanity, genocide and crimes of war. It could possibly apply to the modern-day genocides in the Sudan and the Congo or Rwanda.
It replaces the ad-hoc war crimes tribunals set up by the United Nations, such as the court trying former Yugoslav president Slobodan Milosevic at the Hague.
The treaty creating the court was adopted in 1998 at an international conference in Rome after intense negotiations. Its purpose was avoid a repeat of the tragedies of what Human Rights Watch has called "the bloodiest century in human history," the 20th century. The pact was approved by 120 nations.
From the court's inception, the Bush administration has loudly proclaimed that American service members won't be subject to its jurisdiction, a theme that coincided with the U.S. invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.
Two years ago, Congress passed the American Servicemembers' Protection Act, which ended military aid to countries that refused to grant amnesty to U.S. nationals suspected of committing war crimes abroad.
Now comes a provision in the 2005 omnibus federal spending bill -- obviously part of the administration's foreign policy agenda -- that would bar economic assistance to any country that does not grant amnesty to U.S. citizens.
Administration lobbying and the threats of an aid cut-off have paid off. Some 96 countries have signed immunity agreements with the United States. Notable refusals have come from major U.S. allies Britain, France and Germany, who oppose these exemptions on grounds that they undermine the treaty. They also have blocked U.S. efforts to win immunity from the U.N. Security Council for Americans in U.N. peacekeeping operations.
The irony is that American officials were very much involved after World War II in initiatives to build a more humane world under international law. But that is old history for an administration that seems intent on ripping up the past.
The administration's adamant position about keeping Americans out of the ICC shows a sad disregard for our traditional respect for equal justice under the law. We seem to be saying, "We don't have to follow the rules, but we insist that everyone must do so."
How soon we forget.
Is it any wonder that we have become the image of the arrogance of power to the rest of the world when we seek to exempt ourselves from the laws that we helped create?
The treaty has now been signed by 139 countries and ratified by 97. Former President Bill Clinton signed the pact in December 2000. President George W. Bush renounced it in May 2001.
Bush expressed concern that an international prosecutor might conduct frivolous investigations and trials against American officials, troops and foreigners who work for the United States overseas. He also said the court -- based at the Hague -- was made up of "unaccountable judges and prosecutors" who "could pull our troops (and) our diplomats up for trial."
Actually, the United States does not have much to worry about because there are built-in safeguards. First, all military personnel involved in U.N. peacekeeping have the right to be returned to their home countries for trial. The ICC can get involved only if the home country is unable or unwilling to get involved or if the home-country legal proceedings were fraudulent and intended "to shield the suspect from criminal responsibility."
Defenders of the court say it was created for mass killers, such as Germany's Adolf Hitler, Cambodia's Pol Pot and Uganda's Idi Amin.
Of course, the United States would have no worries if it played by the rules of international behavior and had its military and civilian personnel serving overseas understand what is at stake.
As it stands, the Bush administration's posture confirms the global perception that Bush views himself as the lone gunslinger protecting the town from bandits.
Of course, the United States would have no worries if it played by the rules of international behavior
The Anti-American hag goes on and on and on...
Earth to Helen, we have already escaped the ICC.
Maybe there is a silver lining in it, but one would need a trial case or two to see how well it might work out. i would suggest handing Helen Thomas over to ICC for aggravated malignant liberalism. One could see what kind of condign punishment would be meted out to her there. Later one could always claim that the trial went unsatisfactorily, that it is not quite what we had in mind, and back out.
My only goal in life is to outlive Helen Thomas so that I can have much rejoicing.
Dear Helen: thanks for the progress report!
Bush was wise to refuse American participation in this tragedy.
I thought Al Lewis was going to retire after he lost his race for congress.
Bush was President in 1998? Then why did we go through all that crap stuff in Florida in 2000?
We haven't forgotten anything, Helen. Specifically, we haven't forgotten that organizations of this type inevitably morph into anti-American tools. This one won't, though. It was designed that way from the beginning.
Helen Thomas...please STFU!! This farse called ICC is nothing more than another attempt to bring down our exemplary soldiers. they are the most advanced in combat training, and humane force in in the world. You want to polish your empty filing cabinets? go hang some clerics... those are the responsible parties of much of the carnage taking place around the world
The bottom line is that the judges on that court are not accountable to anybody that we care about. Our own court system will try our own people, thank you very much. If the defenders of the ICC really only were targeting mass murderers, how come they care so much about the US wanting to get out of it? huuh?
The court's "inception" is the date that the treaty comes into effect (1 July 2002) not the date it was opened for signing.
For Example: Here comes a picture of <Susan Estrich, Hillary Clinton, Helen Thomas, ... > that for some reason I feel compelled to post.
Post the warning, and then count to about 5000 Mississippi. If you still feel that the thread absolutely requires the specified visage, then you may provide the hyperlink.
Please. We only have one set of eyes.
They don't have jurisdiction anywhere we go.
You were given fair warning by the title. My helenbot deployed long after the minimum 5000 mississippi standard. I figure if a picture is worth a 1000 words, I won't have to ever read the bitter old bag's bluster again.
Please see post #16.
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.