Time for the U.S. to take a second look at the International Criminal Court

San Francisco Chronicle ^ | 4/1/9 | William H. Taft IV, Patricia M. Wald

[SmithL]

The time has come for the United States to engage officially with the International Criminal Court. Established in 2002, the court exists to prosecute persons accused of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, and the United States should cooperate with all responsible efforts to combat such abhorrent acts. We should act now to develop a more formal relationship with the leading institution for prosecuting such violators.

The United States has been wary of the ICC and so far declined to join the 108 nations that are members. Objections began with the Clinton administration and were magnified after 9/11. Out of fear that the court would issue frivolous arrest warrants for American soldiers and otherwise overstep its bounds, the Bush administration in 2002 announced that the United States would have nothing to do with the court.

Those fears have not been realized. The ICC prosecutor has declined to investigate politically motivated charges in Iraq and elsewhere, and instead has focused on the gravest human rights cases of our time: in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Uganda, the Central African Republic and Darfur. The courthas compiled a commendable record in cases of considerable interest to the United States. Recognizing this, the Bush administration in 2005 began softening its opposition to the court and even supported some of its efforts, particularly in Darfur, where the court issued an arrest warrant against Sudanese President Omar Al-Bashir.

The American Society of International Law convened an independent, nonpartisan task force of American legal experts, which we chaired, to examine the U.S. relationship with the court. The task force concluded unanimously that the Obama administration should take the next step and announce an explicit policy of positive engagement with the ICC. If that policy proves successful, we should then give serious consideration to joining the court.

[SmithL]

William H. Taft IV is former deputy secretary of Defense; Patricia M. Wald is a former chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

[SmithL]

All of the April-Fools are out in force, today.

[GeronL]

nuke the ICC

[Virginia Ridgerunner]

Taft’s great-great grandfather would be ashamed of him.

[domenad]

The only reason for a second look is to confirm the coordinates for the JDAM strike.

[chuck_the_tv_out]

“The time has come for”

Most. pathetic. opening. ever.

[marron]

Our court system is based on two things; people are held accountable to laws that have been enacted, at least in theory, by their elected representatives in accordance with the US constitution.

And people are judged ultimately by a jury of their peers.

None of that is true in the case of the ICC.

And Taft thinks that, because they have yet to issue warrants for Henry Kissinger there is nothing to worry about. He is a fool. They haven’t yet issued the warrants because we haven’t yet accepted their authority. The moment we do, American officers and public officials will be fair game.

[Condor51]

Fourth, Congress should revisit the American Service-Members' Protection Act of 2002. Congress passed the law principally to protect members of our armed forces from International Criminal Court prosecution. In practice, without a specific waiver, the act prohibits cooperation of any kind by U.S. agencies with the court, unnecessarily tying our hands. Congress should consider amending or repealing this law.

FU

[stevie_d_64]

+1

I think Lex Luthor had it right...Buying up all that future beachfront property east of the San Andreas fault line...

Now if we only had a nuke...

[<1/1,000,000th%]

The ICC accused Bill Clinton of being a war criminal and wants him turned over for trial.

Not happening.

[chesley]

Those fears have not been realized. The ICC prosecutor has declined to investigate politically motivated charges in Iraq and elsewhere, and instead has focused on the gravest human rights cases of our time:

Of course not. The US hasn't signed on yet. Can't spring the trap until the prey is in it.

[PapaBear3625]

They haven’t yet issued the warrants because we haven’t yet accepted their authority.

And once we accept their authority, the stage is set for a socialist administration handing over people who are a bother to it, after the ICC trumps up some charges.

[Tailgunner Joe]

Out of fear that the court would issue frivolous arrest warrants for American soldiers

It doesn't matter whether the warrants are frivolous or not.

American soldiers may never be tried in a foreign court for war crimes. Americans have a right to a jury of the peers. This is one of the things we fought a Revolution over.