Let's get something straight about the ICC (International Criminal Court)

[rooboy]

A lot of people posting here keep talking about getting this or that person charged with war crimes and fronting the ICC. Let me give you 2 words which apply to almost every case:

WON'T HAPPEN.

The ICC is NOT set up to be some sort of de-facto world court. Its statutes make it clear that it may only hear cases where the country of the accused is either unwilling or structurally unable to investigate the charges.

So if a British soldier is charged with a war crime, all the UK has to do is investigate the charge. If they find him innocent, that's it - there is NO recourse to the ICC.

If on the other hand, you have a state in anarchy, the ICC can become involved because there is no pre-existing legal entity to investigate and hear the charges.

I just want to get this straight. The ICC is not a permanent 'Nuremberg trial'.

[Gman]

1. Very true about the ICC, but

there have been special courts, such as the Nuremberg trials, convened to try war criminals.

[kiahzero]

2. That, and the US hasn't signed the treaty

So no US soldier will ever go in front of the ICC.

As to your example of the Brits trying a citizen of their own - if someone complains that the case was fixed, I would think it would be possible for the ICC to try the case.

Otherwise, what would prevent a dictator from "trying" his own military for war crimes, and absolving them of all guilt?

[rooboy]

3. The US's failure to sign the treaty is very sinister...

because it indicates that the US govt must have had NO INTENTION of trying soldiers accused of crimes. Powell's main job was to run around the world and get ADDITIONAL agreements signed with countries who were signatories to the ICC, in order to prevent them from handing over any wanted US citizens/soldiers to the ICC.

What happened in Abu Ghraib and Afghanistan doesn't surprise me at all. As soon as Powell started his world "exempt from prosecution" tour, I knew torture and murder were on the cards.

[kiahzero]

4. Not necessarily

You oversimplify the nature of the conservative opposition.

Conservatives tend to oppose any sort of encroachment of national soverignity. It's a symptom of a realpolitik worldview.

In their twisted worldview, they probably did think that there would be politically-motivated accusations against US soldiers.

[rooboy]

6. There is no doubt that the conservative worldview opposed it...

but the basic fact doesn't change. If the US agrees to simply investigate the charge, then nobody gets handed over.

So politically motivated accusations are irrelevant.

[bpilgrim]

10. there are always 'politically-motivated accusations against US soldiers'

but it is the LEGIT charges they are very concerned about, specially given the way they KNEW they were going to prosecute this war.

the u.s. will do whatever it takes to not only secure but dominate the renaining very large oil reserves in that region and they know - based on history - it will eventually come to a miitary head... they are just being PROACTIVE in thier minds and is why even kerry is even on board with the war... he just be more 'SUCCESSFUL' at it aledgedly.

and so it goes...


peace

[KharmaTrain]

9. Just As Sinister Was The Pull-Out

You nailed that one right.

Last week, when this story broke, I asked about the jurisdiction of the ICC and the UN regarding possible war crimes being done by this regime and got the info you related. It was as this regime new they were gonna do whatever they wanted...the world and Geneva Convention be damned.

From what I did cull in my surfing on the topic, a special tribunal could be convened if several member nations, such as France, Germany or Russia (yes, Russia is a signatory) call for an investigation. The IRC could also present a case to the ICC naming the U.S. or members of the government as unindicted conspirators or there are various civil courts that could launch investigations (similar to what happened with Pinochet).

Of course that's asking for a lot of cards to fall in the right places. As was noted to me, while our friends abroad may despise this regime, they still like the Benjamins and don't want the politics to disrupt the business.

But I just can't see all of what's been revealed over the past two months to go unnoticed. With the entire debunking of the cause of this war, the concept of "pre-emption" must now be investigated as an agressive action, not a defensive one, and with the admitted and documented cases of torture and murder, the moral grounds for the invasion and occupation are invalid as well.

[bicentennial_baby]

5. Thank you!

I wrote a 12 page paper on this for Int'l Politics at midterms. With the combo of the "unsigning" of the Rome statute, the fact that ratification would take an eternity (it took the Senate 40 years to ratify the Genocide Convention 1948-1988), Dozens of bilateral immunity agreements in place, and the American Servicemembers Protection Act, it will not happen. Period.

[AndyTiedye]

7. It MUST Happen

That is the only way America can redeem itself.

[goclark]

8. And the USA?

Thanks fo helping me to understand this. I get so frustrated with all the lies that I want a "String them up Trial" immediately.
I believe that you are saying that the ICC investigates only War Crimes-right?


I'm asking because my thoughts go back to the 2000 selection.When the Supreme Court gave the election to Bush it shows me that we are "structurally unable to investigate the charges." We knew that the election was fixed but our voices were not heard.

Now we have Rumsfeld and his lies and WMD lies and on and on, Nothing anyone does or says seems to stick.

I understand that we have the capacity to investigate our officials but my question now is- WHAT IF BUSH STEALS THIS ELECTION!? There will probably be a War in this country if it happens again.

I pray for our country!