Quote:
Originally Posted by Surf n Turf
International Criminal Court (ICC)
But the people who should be feeling really nervous about this development are the citizens of the United States and more especially their armed forces. The signs are that the grandstanding Barack Obama is preparing to subject the United States to the jurisdiction of the ICC. In May, 2002 President Bush withdrew the United States from the Rome Statute which established the ICC. With America heading into global conflict, he had no wish to see US troops arraigned for alleged war crimes before a kangaroo court.Last month US Ambassador Susan Rice, in a closed meeting of the Security Council, supported the ICC, saying it "looks to become an important and credible instrument for trying to hold accountable the senior leadership responsible for atrocities committed in the Congo, Uganda and Darfur". A week later Ben Chang, spokesman for National Security Advisor General James Jones, took a similar line, telling the Washington Times: "We support the ICC in its pursuit of those who've perpetrated war crimes."
The next logical step is for the United States to sign up to the ICC. That would flatter Obama's ego as the conscience of the world. It would also put US servicemen at the mercy of any American-hating opportunists who might choose to arraign them on trumped-up charges before an alien court whose judges are likely to be ill-disposed towards America too.
"If the United States were to join the ICC, one would have to accept at least the theoretical possibility that American citizens (particularly political and military leaders) could be prosecuted before the ICC on charges of committing atrocity crimes."
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/gerald_...criminal_court |
Court Orders Probe of Afghan Attacks
By JOE LAURIA
UNITED NATIONS -- Investigators at the International Criminal Court have begun looking into accusations of war crimes and crimes against humanity in Afghanistan to determine whether there is cause to open a formal investigation, Luis Moreno-Ocampo, the court's chief prosecutor, said on Wednesday.
The prosecutor said forces of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization -- which include U.S. servicemen -- could potentially become the target of an ICC prosecution, as the alleged crimes would have been committed in Afghanistan, which has joined the war-crimes court. However, every nation has the right to try its own citizens for the alleged crimes, and the ICC can step in only after determining a national court was unable or unwilling to pursue the case.
The specter of international trials of U.S. troops was central to the Bush administration's objection to joining the court, and the U.S. hasn't ratified the Rome Statute that set up the ICC in 1998. While the Obama administration has spoken more positively of the court, the president hasn't signed the treaty, which would need Senate ratification.
Mr. Ocampo said the court was also looking into the actions of the Taliban.
"We have not seen [Mr. Ocampo's] comments, but I can assure you that allied forces are operating under very difficult circumstances and are doing everything they can to avoid hurting civilians," a U.S. official said. "It is the Taliban that have been intentionally killing people, maiming them, taking them hostage, executing them.
"There are cases and incidents of misbehavior of troops, and every country is obligated to take steps against these folks. We take those types of things seriously. Our military courts would obviously investigate those things first, and where there needed to be prosecutions and sentencing, all of that would happen," the U.S. official said.
The ICC's preliminary inquiry is "very complex," Mr. Ocampo said. The court is trying to assess allegations of crimes including "massive attacks," collateral damage and torture, he said, adding that his investigators were getting information from human-rights groups in Afghanistan and from the Afghan government.
Under its statutes, the ICC can prosecute alleged crimes committed by nationals of a country that has joined the court; alleged crimes by nonmember nationals if they are committed on the territory of a state that has signed and ratified the treaty; or cases referred by the U.N. Security Council.
Mr. Ocampo's remarks come after NATO forces this week acknowledged that civilians were among the dozens killed in an airstrike on two hijacked fuel trucks. They were struck by U.S. warplanes after being called in by German ground command.
The killings were the latest in a series of U.S. airstrikes that have inadvertently killed Afghan civilians, U.S. officials say.
Mr. Ocampo said that under certain circumstances, so-called collateral damage -- the inadvertent killing of civilians in a military strike -- could be prosecuted as a war crime. "It's very complicated," Mr. Ocampo said. "War crimes are under my jurisdiction. I cannot say more now because we are just collecting information."
Controversy could arise, for instance, if the U.S. and the ICC disagreed on whether an alleged incident involving a U.S. serviceman amounted to a crime.
Mr. Ocampo said on Wednesday that his investigators have also opened preliminary inquiries in Gaza, Georgia, Kenya and Colombia.
The ICC came into force in 2002, and 109 nations have joined. Mr. Ocampo, an Argentine, became prosecutor in 2003. Since then the court has opened formal investigations into alleged crimes in Northern Uganda, Congo, the Central African Republic and the Sudanese province of Darfur. It has indicted 14 people, including Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir earlier this year. Seven are free, two have died and five have been apprehended.
The court began its first trial in January against Thomas Lubanga, a Congolese militia leader.