Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

US Clashes With Europe Over War Crimes
Independent (UK) ^ | 6-11-2003 | David Usborne

Posted on 06/10/2003 5:58:16 PM PDT by blam

US clashes with Europe over war crimes

By David Usborne in New York
11 June 2003

The United States and several European countries are once again on a collision course at the United Nations, as Washington manoeuvres to renew controversial provisions that shield its troops from prosecution for war crimes.

The US is trying to keep its troops beyond the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court whenever they participate in international peace-keeping operations.

The Security Council is set to vote as early as tomorrow on a US-drafted resolution that will extend for another 12 months a one-year exemption for American soldiers serving as UN peace-keepers. The text is likely to be adopted, but not without extensive grumbling.

Tensions over the issue have been escalating sharply. Last week, Washington accused European governments of undermining its efforts to negotiate bilateral agreements with foreign governments, under which those governments would individually undertake not to use the new court to prosecute US soldiers.

In a formal diplomatic letter, Washington accused EU governments of lobbying states not to accept its appeals for bilateral agreements. "This will undercut all our efforts to repair and rebuild the transatlantic relationship just as we are taking a turn for the better after a number of difficult months," the letter states. A copy of the note was obtained by The Washington Post.

Diplomats predict that the new UN resolution, which is the same as the one passed amid much controversy a year ago, will be passed, precisely because of a desire not to reopen wounds inflicted in the run-up to the war in Iraq. But France and Germany, stalwart supporters of the tribunal, may register their disapproval by abstaining.

Some UN members not represented on the Security Council were pressing for a special open meeting of the Council at which any UN ambassador could speak. Tentatively scheduled for tomorrow, it would be an opportunity for governments to voice frustration with Washington. Supporters of the tribunal argue that special treatment for the US would weaken the court. Paul Heinbecker, Canada's ambassador to the UN, who is among those calling for the open session, said: "We would like to have the opportunity to register our support for the court.We see it as bringing accountability to the worst tyrants and the perpetrators of the crime."

The new court will have jurisdiction over war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide committed after 1 July 2002. It was established by the Treaty of Rome in 1998 and a total of 90 nations have so far ratified the treaty, while 139 have signed it.

The US at first signed it under Bill Clinton, the former president, but the Bush administration then rescinded it. The tribunal is set to begin working later this year.


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: clashes; crimes; europe; hagueicc; icc; un; us; war; warcrimes
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-29 next last
Get the US out of the UN!
1 posted on 06/10/2003 5:58:16 PM PDT by blam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: blam
So let me understand this. Not only will Western Europe not sign agreements to keep OUR soldiers safe from prosecution on THEIR hair-brained "peace keeping" missions (Kosovo), but they now want to keep, say South Korea, from signing an immunity pact with us.

Down with (Western) Europe!

And while I'm here:

Increase Eastern European Immigration!
2 posted on 06/10/2003 6:20:56 PM PDT by Pubbie (Bill Owens for Prez and Jeb as VP in '08.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pubbie
"Increase Eastern European Immigration!"

Yeah.

3 posted on 06/10/2003 6:29:19 PM PDT by blam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: blam
One cannot enforce rule of law for the world and yet want nothing to do with it once it comes to the US to sign on to officially ratify them. America needs to understand that either you are for international law or against it. The world assumes that America is not since the world sees America breaking international laws to enforce international rules and laws like Clinton did with Yugoslavia. The ICC is a good idea and any American committing international crimes should be subjected to their jurisdiction. It's what America always wanted since Wilson and the League of Nations.
4 posted on 06/10/2003 6:34:48 PM PDT by SQUID
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SQUID
It's what America always wanted since Wilson and the League of Nations.

Care to take a vote on that issue?

5 posted on 06/10/2003 6:42:31 PM PDT by itsahoot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SQUID
Que? "International law" is an oxymoron. The US does not enforce international law--it agrees to, and enforces, treaties; it supports its allies; it defends its vital national interests. The supreme law for all US citizens is the US Constitution. We recognize no superior international body of law or organization. We are free to honor or withdraw from any international commitment, e.g. the ABM Treaty. The ICC, and its adherents in Old Europe, are pathetic in their impotence.
6 posted on 06/10/2003 6:49:30 PM PDT by Faraday
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SQUID
Too bad the U.S. was never a member of the League of Nations.

Giving away legal sovereignty over its citizens is un-Constitutional, and any president who did so unilaterally would face impeachment.

Any Congress which voted to do so would be voted out of office so fast their collective head would spin.
7 posted on 06/10/2003 6:49:40 PM PDT by Own Drummer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: itsahoot
If they don't do what we want, don't give them any money and don't provide any people or equipment for the heavy lifting and difficult assignments,. If the UN wants to rule, they need to be independent, and we should help them by withholding all the means of support so they can develop, to use a word they dearly love. Why should we be listening to aristocrats from Sweden and Zimbabwe anyway? What do they know?
8 posted on 06/10/2003 6:49:49 PM PDT by mathurine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: SQUID
?

That's the strangest post I've ever seen you type.

Everybody knows there is no single world opinion about anything except the desirability of a permanent immigration visa to the United States.

Besides, this war criminal stuff is primarily Old World material. They've certainly got more than their fair share of them and if they did nothing beyond prosecute their own they'd be busy enough.

That goes for Germany and France as well. Not all the bad guys went down. People got off with light sentences because no one could find any witnesses. Now that the evidentiary trail has been substantially improved over the years, it's time to take some of those 80 - 100 year old war criminals and give them an end of life conviction of some consequence.

9 posted on 06/10/2003 6:51:49 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SQUID
"America needs to understand that either you are for international law or against it."

I couldn't agree less. The US has always been for a system of international treaties and agreements that advance its interests or promotes the peace, but I can't recall any instance were the US has agreed to relinquish its own soveriegnty to a manifestation that claims to be representing 'international law'.

From what I've seen of the ICC's workings so far, it's not much more than a Euro kangaroo court to be used for mainly political purposes. I can't think of any reason why the interests of the US would be advanced by submitting our military personnel or political leaders, regardless of party, to the whims of an evidently hostile judicial body.
10 posted on 06/10/2003 6:59:22 PM PDT by telebob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SQUID
Assuming you're not a DU troll, let me ask you one question - will you still support the ICC once Bush and Blair are indicted for war crimes because they led us to war in Iraq? It WILL happen, I guarantee you. In fact, I think the only reason it hasn't happened yet (at least to Bush) is because Chirac and his buddies want the indictment to be handed down closer to election time, so the Rats can use it as a campaign issue.
11 posted on 06/10/2003 7:07:25 PM PDT by CFC__VRWC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Faraday
Wall Street Journal Editorial, May 28, 2003 --

International Court Jesters

"I condemn the American pressure," George Soros thundered yesterday in Podgorica, Montenegro. He was referring to Washington's insistence that its Balkan peacekeepers are not subject to the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court . A year ago President Bush withdrew the U.S. from participation in the treaty that created the ICC -- a pact Bill Clinton had signed at the 11th hour of his Presidency, even though Mr. Clinton said it had "significant flaws" and urged his successor not to seek Senate ratification.

If any doubt remains that Mr. Bush did the right thing, the Athens Bar Association -- that's Greece, not Georgia -- should put it to rest. The association announced Monday that it plans to file a complaint for "crimes against humanity and war crimes" in connection with the Iraq conflict. The target of the complaint, naturally, is not Saddam Hussein but Tony Blair and other British officials. The Athenians say they may also seek charges against Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar, even though Madrid sent no combat troops to Iraq.

Yet the Greek complaint excludes the U.S., probably because the lawyers anticipate that they would lose any direct confrontation with the Bush Administration. The ICC claims jurisdiction even over countries that aren't party to the treaty, but Mr. Bush has made clear that the Constitution authorizes him "to take actions" -- presumably including military action -- "to protect U.S. nationals from the purported jurisdiction of the treaty."

Questions of "international law" often turn on arcane procedural matters. Mr. Blair's Attorney General is reported to have advised the Prime Minister in March that while military action in Iraq was justified under the 17 existing U.N. resolutions, it would be illegal if the Security Council rejected an 18th. Under this theory, Jacques Chirac's decision to veto would have made a criminal out of Mr. Blair. The Greek lawyers, of course, think ending Saddam Hussein's oppression was a crime with or without France's veto.

When Saddam or his henchmen are captured, they must face justice -- either in a reconstituted Iraqi court system or in a special international tribunal set up for that purpose, a la the former Yugoslavia. The unaccountable ICC, however, is looking more and more like a venue for political grandstanding -- a means for harassing U.S. allies while letting real criminals like Saddam get off on a technicality.


12 posted on 06/10/2003 7:13:21 PM PDT by Faraday
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: CFC__VRWC
"I think the only reason it hasn't happened yet (at least to Bush) is because Chirac and his buddies want the indictment to be handed down closer to election time, so the Rats can use it as a campaign issue."

Boy howdy, I hadn't thought of that.

13 posted on 06/10/2003 7:20:15 PM PDT by blam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: blam
Boy howdy, I hadn't thought of that.

I'll admit it's tin-foily now, but I put nothing past the slimy socialist weasels turning Western Europe into the 21st Century's Soviet Union. Especially if Bush continues to gain strength and the Left thus grows ever more desperate.

14 posted on 06/10/2003 7:24:28 PM PDT by CFC__VRWC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: CFC__VRWC
"Will you still support the ICC once Bush and Blair are indicted for war crimes because they led us to war in Iraq?"


If we were bogged down in this ICC as Clinton had intended, we would now be watching the trial of General Tommy Franks for war crime violations.. In addition to that, we would be bearing witness to the trial of 3 ARMY soldiers who would be charged with the murder of a journalist..

All of those would be just a preliminary for the Bush/Blair Tribunals..
15 posted on 06/10/2003 7:36:48 PM PDT by Chilijr (Teamsters Against Dues for Dems)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: SQUID
I agree. Bill Clinton and Madeline Albright committed war crimes in Yugoslavia and should have to answer for it along with Milosevich who seems almost less guilty than them.
16 posted on 06/10/2003 10:26:32 PM PDT by oilfieldtrash
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Faraday
International law is an extension to the Constitution of the United States once it is signed and ratified by our government so breaking international law is breaking the laws of this land.

Sure you are free to honor or withdraw just like any leader was free to honor or withdraw from and agreement but one has to accept the global consequences of this withdraw. Like it or not, a global government is forming with or without the US and one day will come where all of the countries in the world will force the US to accept these laws in full or you shall see an economic Goliath tumble when it's global resources are restricted by this international assembly.
17 posted on 06/11/2003 10:25:18 AM PDT by SQUID
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Own Drummer
That's not my point.
18 posted on 06/11/2003 10:35:44 AM PDT by SQUID
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: SQUID
One cannot enforce rule of law for the world and yet want nothing to do with it once it comes to the US to sign on to officially ratify them. America needs to understand that either you are for international law or against it.

OK, the US didn't sign the Kyoto agreement. I'm driving an M1A2 Abrams tank for peacekeeping duty in Kosovo. It is belching out hydrocarbon loaded exhaust and drips some fuel in the forest.

The UN charges the tank crew as criminals for violating 'World Environmental Regulations' and wants each member of the tank crew to pay fines of $20,000 to the UN Environmental Fund.

Does that sound like what you want? I can guaran-damned-tee you that is exactly what will happen!

19 posted on 06/11/2003 10:44:51 AM PDT by Cogadh na Sith (The Guns of Brixton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SQUID
International law is an extension to the Constitution of the United States once it is signed and ratified by our government so breaking international law is breaking the laws of this land.

Except that in the ICC you do not have the protections of the US Constitution, nor even a Common Law priviledge of a jury of your peers!

Do you want to see Geo. Bush and the pilots of the stealth fighters who bombed Saddam's hidey-hole charged as war criminals because Libya, Chad and Syria happen to be heading the 'UN Human Rights Commission'?

Is that what you want?

20 posted on 06/11/2003 10:49:17 AM PDT by Cogadh na Sith (The Guns of Brixton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-29 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson