US opposes Hague trial for Darfur war crimes suspects

[NNN0LHI]

http://www.turkishpress.com/news.asp?ID=36269

AFP: 1/21/2005

WASHINGTON, Jan 21 (AFP) - The United States on Friday backed prosecution of Sudanese suspected of committing atrocities in the troubled Darfur region but opposed bringing them before the International Criminal Court.

"We have had a number of objections to the International Criminal Court, and therefore don't believe it's the best option for this," said State Department spokesman Richard Boucher.

The United States has refused to recognize the ICC, based in The Hague, fearing the court could be used to prosecute politically motivated charges against US diplomats or troops around the world.

more

[Pam-Moby]

1. Duh, I wonder why they don't want to get involved?

B*sh is probably afraid that he would be the first to be charged with war crimes.

[darkism]

2. Of course the US objects

The majority of the administration are war criminals themselves that should be answering to the ICC.

[NYC]

3. That's the exact reason.

May I live long enough to see them tried in the ICC.

[sweetheart]

9. Yep, courts don't jive well with being above the law

Those neocriminals should be brought to justice using ameircan
law.. high crimes against the people and the constitution.

[struggle4progress]

18. Yes, indeed.

[Charlie Brown]

4. So what is Boucher's solution?

He favors prosecution but not at ICC, the only court with any legitimacy to try int'l transgessors?

Guess we should send them all to Gitmo.

[Dover]

5. Bush: ".........is it getting a little warm in here?" ...nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

6. Precedent, how cute... look at them run

no precedent, we really don't want any stinking prededent

[MisterP]

hey, neocons! you demand the UN do something about Sudan,

then, when they do, y'all backtrack!

[MisterP]

7. abort! abort!

[UL_Approved]

8. This article also discusses the situation:

An article in the Expatica news section:

MUNICH - United States Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has cancelled a planned visit to Munich after a US human rights organisation asked German authorities to prosecute him for war crimes.

Rumsfeld has informed the German government via the US embassy he will not take part at the Munich Security Conference in February, conference head Horst Teltschik said.
The New York-based Center for Constitutional Rights filed a complaint in December with the Federal German Prosecutor's Office against Rumsfeld accusing him of war crimes and torture in connection with detainee abuses at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison.

Rumsfeld had made it known immediately after the complaint was filed that he would not attend the Munich conference unless Germany quashed the legal action.

The organisation alleges violations of German legislation which outlaws war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide independent of the place of crime or origin of the accused.

Article: Rumsfeld scraps Munich visit over war probe

Thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1170446">DU Forums - Rumsfeld scraps Munich visit over "war crimes" probe

Yes, indeed, are we getting a little warm, boys?

[mordarlar]

10. Pot calling the kettle black?????

[FlyByNight]

11. Hmmm... I wonder if those Sudanese suspected of...

committing the atrocities in Darfur have some American connection or affiliation of some sort?

[muriel_volestrangler]

12. Remind me, who said this when?

"The rulers of outlaw regimes can know that we still believe, as Abraham Lincoln did, those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves, and under the rule of a just God cannot long retain it."

Oh yes, it was the leader of the regime that refuses to recognise the ICC, a couple of days ago. What a fucking hypocrite.

[Solly Mack]

13. lolol Such hypocrites

[Vidar]

14. Our continuing status as a rogue nation persists.

[NNN0LHI]

15. Update: Darfur: Prosecutions Needed to End Atrocities

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/HRW/321427659473a51050cf0765c9310546.htm

(New York, January 24, 2005) - International prosecutions are needed to deter ongoing atrocities in Darfur, Human Rights Watch said today in a report documenting crimes the Sudanese government and its allied militias have committed with complete impunity. On Tuesday, the U.N. international commission of inquiry on Darfur is expected to report its findings to the U.N. Secretary-General. In September, Resolution 1564 mandated the commission to investigate violations of international humanitarian law and human rights in Darfur, to determine whether genocide has occurred, and to identify perpetrators with a view to holding them accountable.

"Regardless of whether there has been genocide, the scale and severity of the ongoing atrocities in Darfur demand an urgent international response," said Peter Takirambudde, Africa Director at Human Rights Watch. "Given Sudan's continuing failure to prosecute the perpetrators, the Security Council needs to refer the situation of Darfur to the International Criminal Court."

more

[confuddled]

16. Too close for comfort?

The U.S. may also have a problem with Human Rights Watch mentioning U.S. torture policy in the same breath with Darfur.

" While the two threats are not equivalent, the vitality of global human rights depends on a firm response to each—on stopping the Sudanese government’s slaughter in Darfur and on fully investigating and prosecuting all those responsible for torture and mistreatment in Iraq,Afghanistan and Guantanamo.

“The U.S. government is less and less able to push for justice abroad, because it’s unwilling to see justice done at home,” said Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch.

Human Rights Watch urged the Bush administration to appoint a special
prosecutor to investigate any U.S. officials who participated in, ordered or had command responsibility for torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. Human Rights Watch pointed out that senior administration officials have sought to blame the scandal on the young soldiers they sent to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan, instead of accepting responsibility themselves for the policies and orders that weakened the rules against torture and inhumane treatment."


More at: http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/01/07/global9968.htm

Yes,indeed. Haven't seen/heard much about this. Have you? Makes me even more proud to be an American.

[NNN0LHI]

17. Our media does not report human rights abuses any more either

Used to be big news when the US was condemning human rights abuses world wide. Made me proud to be an American. That all end four+ years ago. The high ground America used to possess has evaporated. And it didn't take long.

Don

[gottaB]

19. Jack Goldsmith: Support War Crimes Trials for Darfur

snipping:

In fact such a referral would be consistent with U.S. policy on the ICC. The United States has never opposed ICC prosecutions across the board. Rather, it has maintained that ICC prosecutions of non-treaty parties would be politically accountable and thus legitimate if they received the imprimatur of the Security Council. The Darfur case allows the United States to argue that Security Council referrals are the only valid route to ICC prosecutions and that countries that are not parties to the ICC (such as the United States) remain immune from ICC control in the absence of such a referral.

This course of action would signal U.S. support not only for the United Nations but for international human rights as well, at a time when Washington is perceived by some as opposing both. And it would give the United States leverage in seeking genuine sanctions against Sudan, especially with France, which for oil-related reasons has quietly resisted U.S. efforts on Darfur. France would have a hard time opposing a package of sanctions that included U.S. support for an ICC referral. Opposition by China and Russia would be harder to overcome but would at least make clear to the world that those two powerful nations are even more opposed to the ICC than the United States.

U.S. support for a Security Council referral might also point the way to a compromise with European nations that are anxious to secure U.S. backing for the international court but oppose state-to-state deals that overtly immunize U.S. citizens from ICC jurisdiction. Agreement on the need for Security Council approval for ICC prosecutions would provide a more principled way for Europe to alleviate U.S. concerns about rogue ICC prosecutions. Critics would decry this approach as a double standard for Security Council members, who can protect themselves by vetoing a referral. But this double standard is woven into the fabric of international politics and is the relatively small price the international system pays for the political accountability and support that only the big powers, acting through the Security Council, can provide.

The fears of "legitimizing" the ICC are overstated. It's too late to kill the International Criminal Court. The Security Council (including the United States) presupposed the ICC's authority when it voted in 2002 and 2003 to immunize U.N. peacekeepers from ICC prosecutions. And the institution is now up and running, preparing for cases already referred to it. For better or worse, the ICC is not going away anytime soon.

Support War Crimes Trials for Darfur....

Somewhere between pride and shame, I should think.