The International Criminal Court and the United States

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by S.A.M., Jan 7, 2008.

  1. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    The United States does not intend to join the International Criminal Court, which was established in 2002 as a permanent tribunal to investigate and prosecute genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. Although the then U.S. President, Bill Clinton, signed the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court in 2000, he stated he would not submit it to the Senate for ratification, and only signed so that the United States could participate in negotiations on the court's rules of procedure.


    In 2002, the U.S. Congress passed the American Servicemembers' Protection Act (ASPA), which contained a number of provisions, including prohibitions on the United States providing military aid to countries which had ratified the treaty establishing the court; however, there were a number of exceptions to this, including NATO members, major non-NATO allies, and countries which entered into an agreement with the United States not to hand over U.S. nationals to the Court (see Article 98 agreements below). ASPA also excluded any military aid that the U.S. President certified to be in the U.S. national interest.

    In addition, ASPA contained provisions prohibiting U.S. co-operation with the Court, and permitting the President to authorize military force to free any U.S. military personnel held by the court,[5] leading opponents to dub it "The Hague Invasion Act." The act was later modified to permit U.S. cooperation with the ICC when dealing with U.S. enemies.

    In addition, the Nethercutt Amendment to the Foreign Appropriations Bill suspends Economic Support Fund assistance to ICC States Parties who have not signed bilateral immunity agreements (BIAs) with the United States. The funds affected support initiatives including peacekeeping, anti-terrorism measures, democracy-building and drug interdiction. The omnibus appropriations bill containing the controversial amendment was signed by President Bush on December 7, 2004.

    As part of the U.S. campaign to exclude its citizens and military personnel from extradition by the ICC, the U.S. Bush administration has been approaching countries around the world seeking to conclude Bilateral Immunity Agreements, or “Article 98” agreements (a comprehensive compilation of NGO, government and inter-governmental documents related to US-proposed bilateral agreements seeking to ensure the non-surrender of US personnel — including both US nationals and foreign contractors working for the United States — to the International Criminal Court.).

    A resolution to exempt citizens of the United States from jurisdiction of the ICC was renewed in 2003 by Resolution 1487, but after the abuse of prisoners in Iraq, the United States withdrew its second proposed renewal of the resolution.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_the_International_Criminal_Court


    Opposition - Why?

    The opposition of the United States to the International Criminal Court appears as either a puzzle or an embarrassment to many of the nation's traditional supporters. A puzzle, because it is not at all obvious why the United States should feel so threatened by this new court. Supporters of the Court point out that there are ample provisions in the Rome Statute designed to protect a mature democracy's capacity to engage in legal self-regulation and self-policing.

    An embarrassment, because the United States appears to be exempting itself from rules of the game that it believes should apply to others. This is singularly inappropriate when the game involves allegations of crimes against humanity, genocide and war crimes. For the United States to take this position is particularly embarrassing, since it, more than any other modern nation-state, has held itself out as committed to and constituted by the rule of law.

    The US administration has campaigned long and hard against the ICC. With soldiers deployed in more than 140 countries, the Bush administration has made it absolutely clear that it will do everything in its power to undermine the work of the court. Leading Republican politicians have condemned the institution’s very existence as “a violation of US sovereignty”.

    Opposition to the creation of the new court was initially spearheaded by a collection of former US officials whose actions while in office would have made them candidates for war crimes prosecution. Former secretaries of state Henry Kissinger and George Shultz, former CIA director Richard Helms and former national security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski were among the signatories of a November 2000 open letter warning that the US must put “our nation’s military personnel safely beyond the reach of an unaccountable international prosecutor operating under procedures inconsistent with our Constitution.”

    http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/mar2003/icc-m17.shtml

    What is the point of an international criminal court without global jurisdiction?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Pandaemoni Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,634
    While there is no theoretical problem with the Court, the practical problem is that many parts of the rest of the world hate the U.S. and there is a real risk of our servicemen and women being charged with war crimes based on entirely legitimate military operations.

    While one would hope that the Court would not allow itself to be used in that manner, you can't ensure that it would not.

    We are the biggest man on the world stage. As such, we draw attention, in ways that that other member nations do not. there are plenty of governments who would *love* to use the platform of the ICC just to hurl insults at us, waste our time and money, and generally try to embarrass us. Those goals are open even if the U.S. ultimately prevails on the merits of individual cases; if you call someone a war criminal, that label sticks in the imagination even when they are not ultimately convicted. In the meantime, you spend money on the soldiers' defenses, those soldiers get pulled off of their actual duties, cries of "war crimes" are all over the press emboldening people who already hate us to think that their hatred is fair and rational, and the adminsitration has new distractions with which to deal.

    That is not to say there are not occasions when U.S. personnel do commit crimes and deserve punishment, there are. I also accept that the U.S. is not a perfect policeman of its own armed forces' conduct, as there is an obvious appearance of bias (and, hence, likely an actual bias at least on occasion is not "often").

    Particularly with the war in Iraq, it's clear that we would be dragged into that court likely on a weekly basis, mostly for soldiers making judgment calls that may have turned out, in 20/20 hindsight, to have been wrong (much like when they fired on the car carrying Giuliana Sgrena of Italy, killing one of the men who rescued her...and she has accused the soldiers involved of war crimes ever since).

    In short, if the ICC were a criminal court devoid of any possibility of being used for political maneuvering (as opposed to the administration of justice alone), then I'd think we should join it. Since *every* court has the possibility of politics playing a part in its operations, though, and since global political rivalries are especially unfavorable to the U.S. in such a venue, I agree with the decision to remain out of it.

    Instead, we need to vigorously guard against our own misbehavior.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    Like Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, Iraq...

     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Pandaemoni Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,634
    This would be why I'm against joining.

    Abu Ghraib we did self-police. Who broke that story? The U.S. military did, itself.

    Gitmo, there are allegations of waterboarding and allegations that a mans Koran was thrown in a toilet. Do we really need an international tribunal over those? Granted that waterboarding is bad and I am personally against its use, but it is also on the cusp of what is acceotable for many people (and therefore, a debatable tactic to use in interrogations). That's not a great reason to mount a full-fledged investigation into Gitmo, just so you and those like you can satisfy your suspicions that we're "really" up to something even worse.

    As for "Iraq," care to be less specific? Not everything done in Iraq is a war crime, nor worthy of an international criminal tribunal, even if you wish we had not gone in.

    Your own bias, clearly expressed, against the United States is the very reason not to joing the ICC. Search your own soul and I'm confident you'll discover (though perhaps not "openly admit") that you don't want the U.S. to have a fair shake in the ICC, you just want our men and women convicted and the U.S. put in its place, as you see it.

    Again, the problem with it isn't that war crimes need investigation or prosecution, it's that the U.S. can't find a fair venue in which to air those cases. Faced with a choice of using oone unfairly biased against the U.S. or unfaiorly biased in favir of it, I choose "in favor of it" because (a) I am American, (b) it costs me less in taxes to not throw money into that pit (getting a negative return on it in terms of U.S. power as a result) and (c) better that a 1000 guilty men go free than one innocent man go to prison. On the last one, a bias in favor obviously lets some guilty men go free, the bias against risks convicting innocent Americans because people like you hate their elected leaders.

    Shame on you.
     
  8. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    I think indefinite detention of thousands of people without charge or trial is a war crime. I'm sure if you were one of the people there (undergoing whatever torture the US army deems legal) you would have a different view.

    I think using lies and threats to invade and destroy a country is a war crime. I'm sure if you were an Iraqi who had seen his entire country destroyed by a liar, you would have a different view.

    Have you been waterboarded? Would you care to try it? Go to your bathroom, put a plastic trash bag over your head and lie down preferably with your head lower than your shoulders. Ask someone to hold you down (sitting on your chest?) and turn on a hose that hits you in the face with water. Use a plank under your shoulders for support if you like. Let me know your opinion after.

    Wow, on the one hand you think it alright for the US to detain people indefinitely without charge or trial and subjected to torture.

    On the other, shame on me for thinking the US should be held accountable for it.
     
    Last edited: Jan 8, 2008
  9. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    Bull.

    The US military did everything it could to cover that up, and largely succeeded. To this day none of the interrogators, doctors, or command in charge of setting up that interrogation regime have been prosecuted. Most have never even been identified.

    This illustrates a benefit of ICC membership - when one's own government has been corrupted, so that ordinary controls and domestic checks on its behavior are not functional, an outside source of regulation and law enforcement can be good thing. We would not be saddled, now, with the people and organizations and power groups that set up Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, Bagram, Bucca, various, various renditions, various other horrors. They would be in jail.
     
  10. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    Yes, and the tens of thousands in prisons wherever would have a venue to voice their desperation and helplessness.

    http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/americas/06/11/guantanamo.suicides/index.html
     
  11. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    As I understand it, the ICC has jurisdiction to try war crimes only when the nation of origin of the perpetrator is unwilling or unable to try the criminal itself.

    Most trials of this type have taken years. Judges on the ICC are drawn from a variety of nations, such that no single nation or group of nations can dominate the Court. Legal procedures are strictly adhered to, and spurious prosecutions are very unlikely to be sustained.

    Other nations might argue that the US and its allies would seek to use the ICC for their own political ends in exactly the same way you are arguing that other nations might use the ICC to unfairly punish the US. Yet, other nations are signing up to the ICC.

    I think you misunderstand the jurisdiction of the ICC, and the definition in international law of the term "war crime".

    The fact is, the US doesn't want to cede any degree of control over any of its citizens or to limit the actions of its government in any way. The reason it does not ratify the ICC statute is the same as why it won't ratify the Land Mines Convention to ban land mines, and the same reason it doesn't accept the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice, and why it does not participate in UN peacekeeping forces under the command of the United Nations.

    The ICC does not deal with "small fry". Prosecutions are against the instigators and systematisers of policies of torture, murder and other crimes against humanity.
     
  12. Pandaemoni Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,634
    You have no proof these people are being "tortured", so again, shame on you for jumping to the conviction without a trial. Even waterboarding is, in the eyes of many, not torture because (a) it is not lethal and (b) though uncomfortable, it does no permanent physical damage. It creates the fear and sensation of drowning and I understand that it is very bad. Again, I oppose its use. I oppose the recreational use of marijuana too, but I can see that others disagree, and am not Hell-bent on throwing them in jail based on the reasonable disagreement.

    As for Iraq, there were numerous arguments for going in, not one of which was shown to be a "lie" (though some were shown to be uincorrect when made, "mistakes" are not lies...if you have proof that the U.S. wilfully lied, as opposed to making a mistake, please feel free to share it with the the press, as they haven't offered up much so far). The arguments included:

    (1) Saddam was killing and torturing lots of people (apparently torture is only bad in your eyes when the U.S. does it?)

    (2) We had a large hand in placing Saddam in power, so every death, rape an multilation was, in some sense, on us.

    (3) Worse still, we encouraged democratic reformers to rise up against Saddam in the past, then pulled our support, leaving them to be massacred. As a result, there wasn't even anyone *left* who was in a likely position to topple Saddam. We might as well have painted targets on their chests, then ties a bow around the lot of them, because that was out parting gift to Saddam at the end of the First Gulf War.

    (4) Saddam was funding terrorist activities in Israel, a close ally of the U.S.

    (5) We believed, incorrectly, that Iraq had WMDs. That is not a lie, even if it was proved incorrect. Those WMDs might have eventually found their way into even worse hands than Saddam's.

    (6) Saddam was still taking shots at us as we patrolled the "no fly zone" making that a very expensive policing operation.

    (7) The Oil for Food program was a joke that was being massively scammed both by Saddam and by many others outside of Iraq. Worse, everyone in the U.N. knoew that sanctions were riddled with holes as a result of corruption, and no one cared.

    (8) Many honestly believed that in bringing democracy to Iraq, we would see a "reverse domino theory" take effect and lead to democracy sweeping through the region. Again, wrong, but not a "lie."

    Not any one of those were a good enough reason to go to war in my opinion, but taken collectively, I felt that they did make an okay (though not slam dunk) case for war. Granted that Iraqis may not agree, depending on how you frame the question, but if you were to ask "Do you like things better now, or should the U.S. have left Saddam in power?" and I think you'd see an answer that you would not like.

    As for all this "Have you been water boarded" stuff...have YOU? You know it's bad in precisely the same way that I do, through second hand accounts; so don't pretend you have some "better" understanding and that mine can be dismissed. Your fear of it can be just as easily dismissed and on the same grounds: you have no verifiable first-hand experience. That just shows arrogance and a lack of thought. (Though, given that I oppose water boarding, stated that position in my earlier post, and yet still you went to "OMG!!1!!1 You don't know what it feels like!!!11!1" does suggest that you weren't thinking straight on that one (unless you have, in fact, been water boarded, which is statistically unlikely)).
     
  13. Pandaemoni Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,634

    There is one thing they didn't do, THEY issued the Taguba Report. Reports of prisoner abuse arose starting in April, by May 4, an investigation was conducted and the report was completed, confirming abuse and providing details.

    That is hardly "doing everything it can to cover that up."
     
  14. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    Thats all I'm asking, lets have a trial. But not one where the accused is also the judge and jury.

    Past experience with US e.g. the Nicaragua trials have shown the US to be noncompliant with international laws. If there is derision on US ideas of "justice", you have only yourselves to blame.

    Its not like the US is going to comply with any court, but lets have no more cover ups or suicides.
     
  15. Challenger78 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,536
    The ICJ, ICC, IMF and World Bank are all US controlled institutions, Only by breaking out of the IMF did third world and second world countries manage to improve their situation.
    I think they fear loss of control on the ICC's part, and therefore don't want to risk it.

    Source : Noam Chomsky.
     
  16. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    No "proof", is it now, with the torture apologists.

    Hard to go lower than that. Especially a week or two after the latest incriminating videos were found to have been destroyed.

    Water torture, as it was called until recently, has been a common torture for a thousand years. The Gestapo, the Japanese, the old Chinese, the Romans, the Inquisition, the Argentinian Dirty Warriors, the Puritans, the English, the Spanish, basically everyone who tortures water tortures. When the evil English ship captain wanted to really punish someone, he keelhauled them - more severe than merely flogging to unconsciousness, or hanging by the thumbs. No one in those thousand years has ever questioned whether water torture was torture, until the last few months in the US. And all of a sudden we have sober, straightfaced people saying utterly ridiculous things and expecting to be taken seriously. It's an incredible feat of media manipulation.

    The first W&Co rep who stood up on their hind legs and said water torture wasn't really torture should have been treated the same way the first one who said Iraq had no issues of sectarian strife should have been treated - fired for lunacy, and whatever project they were trying to sell abandoned with prejudice.

    Meanwhile, water torture is just one of the torture techniques the US has developed, building on the Gestapo foundation and the lessons of the SERE training, and incorporating the latest in psychological and medical research - as well as technological breakthroughs, such as the microwave burning machine. The CIA handbook that detailed some of them has been expurgated, and a more presentable one written, but Gitmo is still there with its seven prison layers of hell, and the rendition teams still have their holes readied.

    No, our authorities really don't want the US involved with the ICC.

    Taguba's report, as tame and constrained and limited in scope as it was, ruined his career. It was an act of courage for him to submit it, and it was the merest beginning of an investigation. Not only was it not follwed up, as he recommended it be, but even some of its findings have been essentially suppressed - how often have you heard, for example, that every soldier in the guard force with a computer had some of those photos downloaded to it, that there were hundreds, even thousands, of photos and hours of video, that the taking of photos was recommended - possibly ordered - by the interrogators ?

    The military was faced with the internet. Some photos were loose on the web. They limited the damage to that. Nothing unconnected with the photos the military could not deny has ever been admitted, let alone prosecuted, by the military. Everything about contractors, interrogators, doctors, command, policy, connection with other prisons, etc, has been whitewashed.
     
    Last edited: Jan 8, 2008
  17. Pandaemoni Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,634
    Past experience with almost any nation with an extensive history shows incidents of their being in arguable violation of international law. In the Nicaragua case, the World Court agreed (though not unanimously) that the U.S. violated the law (and I accept that they did). Nicaragua wasn't exactly polishing its halo in those days either, though. (In fact, they were accused of war crimes, the biggest and baddest of international law violations, for their actions in and around 1983...the same period when the ICJ ruled it was unlawful for the U.S. to oppose them in the way it did).

    Of course no one could ever bring Nicaragua to the ICJ, because its consent to ICJ jurisdiction was terminable at will (at least back then, I have no idea if that is still true.) (If only the U.S. had been clever enough to include the same stipulation in its consent to jurisdiction.)

    If the U.S. could have comparable "terminable at will" provisions to its consent to ICC jurisdiction, I'd also have no problems with it.

    Suicides? What suicides? Sounds like we are verging on "tin foil hat" time, to me. In any event, if you think the argument "the U.S. should accept the jurisdiction of the ICC because I hate them and have already decided that they are guilty" is going to win any hearts and minds, you are deeply mistaken.

    It is mistrust of people like you that keeps us out of it. Look at the "Hague Invasion Act," the point of which seems to clearly be a belief that nutjobs like you are waiting to start snatching up our soldiers the instant we mistakenly accept the jurisdiction of the ICC.

    If you want the U.S. to join, then you are either going to have to (a) stop gunning for them or (b) hope that a liberal airhead (on the order of Bush, but from the left) is elected President and joins notwithstanding the fact that you plainly want to use it as a club with which to beat us.
     
    Last edited: Jan 8, 2008
  18. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    It's not the soldiers and ordinary civilians the ICC threatens.

    It's the upper level officials, who have escaped their country's checks and balances and the domestic rule of law.

    Your high government officials are not protecting you. They are protecting themselves.
     
  19. madanthonywayne Morning in America Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,461
    That's right. We do not support a one world government. Governments tend to become more bureaucratic and less free over time. Eventually, they become so bloated and unresponsive that they collapse. The barbarians than ride in and take over (the barbarians being all the formerly weaker nations).

    Now imagine a world ruled by one government. Over the years it grows more bureaucratic, more authoritarian, more oppressive. Yet there is no external competition. Disention is not tolerated. World civilization slips into a new dark ages. There are no barbarians at the gate. There is no competition.

    The oppressive government might just last forever, with mankind slipping into barbarism over the millennia.
     
  20. draqon Banned Banned

    Messages:
    35,006
  21. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    You seem happy to have a Federal Government. Would you prefer to stop government at the State level instead? Or perhaps at the town/city level. What do you think?

    I mean, the US is a large nation, and very diverse. The Federal government, by your argument, is an unnecessary bureaucracy, surely. And what have people in Iowa got in common with people in Texas, after all?

    Really, this is just convenient rationalisation, isn't it? It sounds, well, just a little bit ... desperate.
     
  22. Pandaemoni Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,634
    First, a question: does their charter forbid trials against low level soldiers? I don't know one way or another. People hate the U.S. *SO MUCH* though, they they'd probably love to start pulling soldiers (for example) out of Iraq, mid-tour, to answer charges. They wouldn't even have to be completely "trumped up" either. bad things happen in war, and it is understandable that those hurt by it might blame the U.S. soldiers, even if there was a commonly recognized military justification forthe actions that led to the loss.

    Second, I am not entirely sure that an organization devoted to harassing the leadership of nations certain people hate is entirely better. Again, if it is utterly impossible for the ICC to be misused, then I might change my position. "Hard to misuse" isn't enough though, as people are motivated enough to withstand the hardship.

    No one here has convinced me that the driving focus of the ICC would not become fucking the U.S. for as long and a hard as it can manage. In fact, some have reenforced my suspicion that that *is* what they want it used for....as a tool with which to browbeat us out of foreign policy positions they vehemently disagree with. The anger, then, comes from the fact that we have volunteer to be harrangued, and we haven't.
     
  23. madanthonywayne Morning in America Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,461
    Then perhaps I'm not making myself clear.

    I'm not a big fan of the federal government, either. In my opinion, all the federal government should really do is national defense. Leave everything else to the states. (Well, I'd also support NASA or some form of national space exploration).

    Power corrupts. The bigger and more powerful government is, the more corrupt it is. No matter how many regulations or rube-goldberg campaign finance laws you pass; the government will be corrupt so long as it wields so much power.

    A one world government would be so corrupt and inefficient, it would boggle the mind. And that 's the best case scenario. Worst case? It would become a flat out dictatorship and there'd be no where to run to get away from it.
     

Share This Page