World leaders could face prosecution for acts of state aggression — potentially including the invasion of Iraq — under calls for the International Criminal Court to extend its powers.
Britain and the US are among nations wary of such a move. The change would make “manifest violation of the Charter of the United Nations” an indictable offence at the court, which currently prosecutes those responsible for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide.
[…]
Adding the crime of state aggression to the ICC’s remit “would be a significant step forward in the development of international law and an important extension of the court’s jurisdiction”, said Christian Wenaweser, president of the Assembly of States Parties to the ICC, meeting in the Ugandan capital.He added that the Security Council should be the first body to determine whether state aggression had taken place. Some pressure groups think that this would compromise the court’s independence. While the definition of what constitutes an act of aggression has been hotly contested, the key is who decides when the criteria are met.Human Rights Watch said that it had “long opposed control of any crime within the court’s jurisdiction by external bodies because it would undermine the ICC’s judicial independence”.
Hard to have one world government without the rule of law that applies to everyone.
1
Support the Blog — Buy This Book!
For Kindle and with free ePub version. Only $9.49 Great reading.
Here is what Gary Shapiro CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) said: Dvorak's writing sings with insight and clarity. Whether or not you agree with John's views, he will get you thinking and is never boring. These essays are worth the read!
Put this ad on your blog!
Syndicate
Subscribe to Main Blog feed here:
Subscribe to Comments too (below):
Junk Email Filter
what about Mexico’s invasion of the US? will they rule on that and stop it?
P shows the common grasp of the functionality of the UN. It is as pointless and cowardly as the USA will allow which is the POINT of this topic. Obama won’t even go after BushCo==how in the world would he allow “foreigners” to indict himself, his team, or even the last team, and neither will other memebers of the security counsel.
So -BY CHOICE- the UN is kept weak and a punching bag for those with the insight of P.
Its really also why George Washington was such a great leader. He stepped away from power. Few can manage that.
Problem: The ICC would not be under the authority of the Constitution. US citizens have rights that are guaranteed under the Constitution. Therefore no court has authority over a US citizen except for courts set up under the Constitution of the United States.
#3 – No, it’s not as cowardly as the US will allow. The US has been pushing for action against North Korea and Iran for years, but to no avail.
The UN has completely lost its teeth, assuming it ever had any to begin with.
Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld. None will be able to travel to the United Nations any more.
This international criminal court is run by the same United Nations that elected Iran to the U.N. Commission on Women’s Rights?
Another great idea from the liberal elite.
Benjamin –
You are saying that a citizen of a country can only be prosecuted under the laws of his country and by their own country.
Suppose a US citizen in the USA commits an attack on a foreign country… according to you he is subject to prosecution only under US law, and the foreign country has no right to prosecute the US citizen.
Now suppose that a non-US citizen commits an attack on the USA from their own foreign country. According to your logic, they are only subject to the laws and constitution of their own country, and the US has no right to go after them. That would make Osama Bin-laden immune to US prosecution, him being only subject to Saudi laws as a Saudi citizen (or whatever nationality he is).
So there has to be some method for countries to address criminal actions that take place internationally, hence the need for international law and international tribunals.
Yeah right just what the world needs more institutional justification of the unjustifiable. War is wrong . (PERIOD) It’s like an illness the human race never seems to cure. A drain on our resources and a threat to our survival. And the madness continues, our leaders tell us who to fear and why and off we go sending our most precious blood, human sacrifices and martyrs in the name of the madness of war. Think about it, exactly how many nations have nukes? The club continues to grow, so much so, that a serious accounting of all the nuclear weapons is now impractical if not impossible. With every passing year nuclear war becomes more probable, until it reaches certainty. What happens when the world’s fuel supply runs out or some natural disaster effects the entire planet?
The end is coming.
If this were to succeed, which I _strongly doubt_, it would limit the US war machine to its claimed purpose, defense of the mainland, rather than its actual purpose which is entirely geopolitical. Of course, a monopoly of control over oil regions and routes could be considered defensive, just not in the way that “defense” is typically sold to the ignorati as “protection from ‘tourism,’ especially with “nukulur” weapons” as dipshit Dubya’ would have put it, with Obama now making the same claim, just pronounced correctly.
“Britain and the US are among nations wary of such a move”
Gee, I wonder why. Could it be that these 2 countries are the most egregious examples of illegal invasions of foreign soil? Say it ain’t so.
The UN is like its predecessor the League of Nations.
Useless, powerless and a farce.
Cursor_
please cite these “illegal invasions” you speak of zybch
# 12 Cursor_ said, The UN is like its predecessor the League of Nations.”
Sadly, you’re wrong. The UN is still around slurping up money and shitting out self-righteous bureaucracy as it grows larger and larger. The League of Nations had the good sense to wither and die.
This is all very predictable. The smaller, weaker countries want some protection from the larger and more powerful countries. The large and powerful countries want to be able to do what they want without limitations. Gee I wonder who will win?
#13 The obvious reply to your question is Iraq. After that, it depends on how far you go back.
I have no problems with indicting a previous leader of ours for sending our armed forces into such a dishonourable action. We were supposed to be the good guys…
The UN should be disbanded. It serves no purpose other then looking stupid every time it does anything.
So when Iran finally nukes Israel, the ICC is going to prosecute the leader of Iran? Oooh. I bet he is shaking in his boots.
#9 Do we really want to get in a situation where we prosecute out service members for fighting to defend our freedoms. Then we will have no freedom.
#17 I agree. The UN is an organization whose sole mission is to hate on the US and Israel; coddle dictators; and lose billions of dollars to graft.
#19 Benjamin –
>>Do we really want to get in a situation where we prosecute out service members for fighting to defend our freedoms.
Yes. I see no problem in having a recognized international tribunal, in which the United States participates, being able to hold members of the military (and their leadership) of ANY country accountable for their conduct. And given the perversion of our own ‘military’, where over 70% is composed of civilians that are not accountable to the UCMJ or in many cases to no other laws whatsoever, we need independent third party tribunals to keep the system honest in case our own leadership will not do so.
#20 The UCMJ should be sufficient to hold our military accountable for their actions. I was subject to the UCMJ when I was in the military and believe me, it covers everything.
Our military is sworn to protect the Constitution of the United States and they should be protected by that same Constitution if there is allegations of misconduct. No ifs, thens, or buts about it.
The UN is a corrupt organization and its International Criminal Court is by its very nature prejudiced against US citizens and I really doubt that justice could possibly be served.
I advocate that the US should leave the UN, expel its diplomats from our soil, and stop giving money or support to that organization. We would better be served making our own treaties with the various foreign governments than be involved with a organization like the UN.
Also, do you think that the ICC will assert more crimes under its jurisdiction? How soon until Americans can be prosecuted in the ICC for mere speech. A US citizen could be arrested for speech over the Internet and be shipped overseas and tried without benefit of their Constitutional rights.
#16 “We were supposed to be the good guys…”
Yes we were.
Sadly, it’s been a very long time – at least as far back as Teddy Roosevelt – since we’ve been “the good guys”.
England had the Hudson Bay Company to colonize North America, and its army to colonize India in order to get cheap cotton, and on and on.
We took over the Phillipines (since given their independence), Guam (still a US Territory), American Samoa (a US territory from which we get football players and where we have US factories with slave-like labor conditions), and Puerto Rico (where our manufacturers get immense tax breaks they could not get on the mainland. G-d forbid they do their fair share to support the country that allows them to exist).
I could go on; but it’s the same old imperialistic story. The only things that have changed are the players.
It’s about time we stopped deluding ourselves. It would save a lot of American lives.
#21 Benjamin –
Don’t wave your military service as proof of expertise in my face… I also served 8 years honorably.
You didn’t even read my post. Do you realize that over 70% of our current ‘military’ is not subject to the UCMJ, because it is composed of civilians? That means that out of our current ‘military’, only 3 out of 10 are subject to the UCMJ. As has been shown in Iraq, a large portion of our ‘military’ is not subject to ANY laws, either local or military or US laws.
Also, the UCMJ consists of the military judging itself, and is not independent by any means. The UCMJ can (and has bee used) as a means to hide misconduct at the level where an international tribunal would be judging. It is secret and basically unaccountable to the civilian population.
But this is not about the US military. We should expect and assume that they will behave honorably. It is about the military of other countries, and the opportunity for us to hold them accountable for their actions.
Suppose that there is a massacre done by the military of country ‘A’. It is well documented, yet the leadership of country ‘A’ refuses to deal with it’s own military misconduct. As in Bosnia, or Uganda, or Mexico, or the US… how is the international community supposed to deal with this? Just ignore it?
Some people are just so mind numbingly parochial, arrogant and ignorant!
So there are corrupt people in the UN? There are corrupt people in corporations, governments and everywhere else. It is called being human. Deal with it.
If we prosecute criminal aggressors on our own, there is nothing for the UN to do.
We were not defending ourselves in Iraq. We were not even avenging what was done on 9/11 by Saudis etc who were based in Afghanistan.
We were being misled by some very criminals of our own who had got to the top. If you want to attack something bad, start with them!
Benjamin:
>>Our military is sworn to protect the Constitution of the United States and they should be protected by that same Constitution if there is allegations of misconduct. No ifs, thens, or buts about it.
Well, that just shows how little you know of military law and it’s relationship to the constitution.
People in the US military are not subject to the US Constitution. They may be sworn to defend it, but they are not subject to it or protected by it. Military personnel are not allowed free speech, freedom of movement, freedom to congregate. They are not guaranteed the right to a trial by their peers. You can not quit the military at any time if you want to. You can not refuse a ‘lawful order’, because the refusal is a military crime in itself. In the military, the UCMJ supersedes the Constitution.
#25 Awake said, on June 1st, 2010 at 1:32 pm
“In the military, the UCMJ supersedes the Constitution.”
Not quite true the UCMJ is subservient to the Constitution. The Constitution did make provisions for military law. I do not believe it said to sell our service members out to be tried by foreign courts.
“They are not guaranteed the right to a trial by their peers.”
Not true. You have the right to a court marshal that is by other members of the military and you have a JAG officer (lawyer) appointed to represent you. You have the right to not incriminate yourself under the 5th amendment as well.
“You can not quit the military at any time if you want to. You can not refuse a ‘lawful order’, because the refusal is a military crime in itself.”
So since you can’t really quit anytime you want and you have to follow orders when you are told to deploy to Iraq and fight, then how can you justify trying them in an International Court when that court takes a position that deploying to Iraq to fight is a “manifest violation of the Charter of the United Nations?” Is it damned if you do, damned if you don’t? Sounds like a shitty way to treat our servicemen on the day after Memorial Day.
I joined the military for college money. I served during peace time, but a war could have broken out anytime and I would have gone where they sent me and had to follow orders. I would have been angry if put in a catch 22 between following orders or being tried by the ICC. It’s wrong, short-sighted, and un-Constitutional and US citizens should never be subjected to an International Criminal Court.
Benjamin –
>>You have the right to a court marshal that is by other members of the military and you have a JAG officer (lawyer) appointed to represent you.
Not true. That only applies in ‘capital offenses’ such as murder and rape. You can not request a court martial in lieu of UCMJ article 13. The UCMJ requires a court martial for certain offenses, but leave the majority of offenses under the purview of the commanding officer, including imprisonment. In civilian life any felony allows for trial by a jury of your peers (and only a felony allows imprisonment).
Article 1 of the Constitution basically defines that you are not subject to the Constitution when you are serving in the military.
For example:
You live off base with your family. Your commanding officer dictates that there will be a “Health and Welfare” inspection and searches your residence of your house and only your house, including the rooms of your children. He does not require a warrant to search or even a reason to order the search. If items that are not allowed are found, you can be charged under the UCMJ. That would be utterly unconstitutional for the police to do to a civilian, but it is utterly allowed within the military.
>> You have the right to not incriminate yourself under the 5th amendment as well.
Again, not true. You do not have a right to plea the 5th amendment. You have a right to use Article 31 of the UCMJ, but that has NOTHING to do with the 5th amendment. Article 31 is part of the UCMJ, not the constitution. Again… you may not plea the 5th if you are a member of the military, since you are not given the same guarantees as the Constitution.
Another example. I am sure that when you served you were regularly asked to take a ‘piss test’. As a civilian, the worst that could happen is that you could lose your job if you had agreed to take regular piss-tests as a condition of your employment. In the military, a refusal to take a piss-test is a failure to obey a lawful order, punishable in many many ways, including prison. And if you take the piss test and failed, you would be subject to punishment also. You do not have the right to avoid self-incrimination by refusing to take a piss test.
Benjamin, your original claim is that it would be wrong for members of the military not to be covered by the constitution, when in reality they are not covered by the Constitution because the Constitution says they aren’t covered in the first place.
And ATTACKING A HUMANITARIAN CONVOY ON THE HIGH SEAS AND ***KILLING PEOPLE ON THE SHIP*** ???
#28 JimD
Don’t forget taking hostages, and forcing them to sign confessions in order to be released.
Pointless gesture as ICC needs the backing of the support of the UN to pull this off and if i remember correctly if any of the big 5 veto a motion it dies in committee, also the us likes its power of stomping under developed countries too much to let anyone hold them accountable.
“>>Our military is sworn to protect the Constitution of the United States and they should be protected by that same Constitution if there is allegations of misconduct. No ifs, thens, or buts about it.”
thats so horribly inaccurate i don’t even know where to begin.The military sucks the cock of whatever dip shit president we have regardless of domestic or international law as they see themselves as above it.
>> jman said, on June 1st, 2010 at 5:03 am
>> what about Mexico’s invasion of the US? will they rule on that and stop it?
Does it count as an invasion if the army comes “armed” with law rakes, baby wipes and toilet brushes?