Bush Admin's Irrational Hatred of the ICC

[housewolf]

<snip>

The Bush administration can't be seen as being "against" prosecuting those responsible for genocide, so it has fielded two seperate ideas for bringing the guilty to justice to counter the ICC referral. First they’ve recommended that an independent, ad hoc tribunal be set up somewhere in the region; second, they’ve toyed with the idea of referring the cases to the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda in Arusha, Tanzania.

Considering that the ICC is competent to try these kinds of crimes and is already open for business, setting up an ad hoc tribunal for Sudan would be unnecessarily costly and time consuming. Because the duplicative process would be entirely at the United States' urging, we would have to pick up most, if not all, of the tab. On the other hand, referring the Darfur war crimes charges to Rwanda would set the genocide trials up for failure. Unlike its sister court for the former Yugoslavia, the Rwanda tribunal hasn’t been much of a success. Referring certain cases to national courts and training local judges should remain the Rwandan tribunal’s top priority.

Hawks in the Bush administration fear that allowing crimes in Darfur to be tried at the ICC might confer some sort of American legitimacy over the court. This fear displays a level of irrationality towards the court to which, sadly, I’ve grown accustomed. Here we have an operating court with some of the world’s best trained investigators, prosecutors, and judges. Not only that, European countries would basically foot the bill for the whole show. Yet the Bush administration still won't go along. They are being handed a win-win situation for dealing with the genocide in Darfur, yet they are seemingly too blinded by their own ideological opposition to the very idea of an international criminal court that they can’t fathom that the court, in practical terms, might actually serve U.S. interests.


<snip>

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2005/01/index.html#005336

[LynnTheDem]

1. If YOU were a war criminal, YOU'D be terrified of the ICC too.

;)

[imenja]

2. exactly, it's not irrational

They don't want the court to establish itself as the forum for trying war crimes, so they are opposing it's jurisdiction over Sudan. They don't want precedent set that will bring Americans, and them in particular, before the court.
That's my theory.

[henrik larssonisking]

3. ICC

if you have ever had the misfortune of being involved with any UN operations you to would be real skeptical about the ICC. Me personally would hate to think i could be brought up in front of these guys without the protections of the constitution. We must remember that the ICC isnt a judicial tool but a political tool.

[LynnTheDem]

4. Absolute total bullshit.

That's rightwingnut rhetoric that is just as true as anything else spouted by rightwingnuts.

[henrik larssonisking]

5. total bullshit

tell you what, once youve worked with the UN you can report back to me. Do you really trust the ICC not to be political, how would you react if your hubby was hauled up before it without the protections of the constitution.

on edit: its not rightwing propaganda, but live experience of having dealt with the people who are part of the ICC.

[LynnTheDem]

6. Yep total bullshit. Total rightwing bullshit.

And ya know what they say about ASSUMPTIONS dontcha? The mother of all fuck-ups. So careful with the way you assume I've never worked with the UN.

Yes I do trust the ICC to not be political and if you knew the FACTS instead of the rightwingnut bullshit, you'd know the procedures in place preclude it being used for politics, and you'd know why, and you'd know how idiotic it is of the rightwingnuts to carry on spewing their BULLSHIT about the ICC being used for political purposes. And that's a FACT.

And I don't "rreport back" to anyone and certainly not to someone spouting rightwingnut talking points.

[henrik larssonisking]

7. facts

its simple, are you prepared to give up all your constitutional rights, so you can stand trial. If you are not prepared to do it then why should any other american have to.

ps, i forgot anyone who dosent agree with you must automatically be using rightwing propaganda. get real

[kiki]

8. Henrik,

do you have any actual anecdotal evidence from your time working with the UN, beyond a vague claim that you have done so? Because otherwise, you really just sound like you're regurgitating points you read elsewhere.

And if you truly want justice, and are concerned about the proceedings being corrupt or "political", do you really think it's a good idea to let a war criminal government try its own war criminals?

"Mr Goering has decided that the Nuremberg trials will be too 'political', so he'll be conducting his own investigation of himself. Sound fair?"

[henrik larssonisking]

9. examples

id rather not get into to many details, do to nondisclosure, but i have had the misfortune to have been charged by one of these international institutions, and the right not to incriminate oneself and the right to silence was not recognised. I personally would rather be tried by a jury of my peers with the full protection of the constitution.

[kiki]

12. Deeply,

deeply unconvincing.

Sorry.

[henrik larssonisking]

13. no problem

its probuably impossible to convince people with tthe anonimity of the forums, but ask yourself this question, would you be happy to submit to a legal system that didnt give you the protections you enjoy here. I dont think many people here would like to think that they could be tried without the benefit of a jury of their peers, or without legal representation, or the right not to incriminate themselves.

[kiki]

14. Please present evidence

that standards of justice in the ICC are objectively worse than those of the US.

[LynnTheDem]

10. That is bullshit. Not facts.

Why do you keep spewing rightwingnut bullshit?

Agreeing with me or not has nothing to do with it. You are IN FACT wrong. You are IN FACT spewing the exact bullshit the rightwingnuts spew.

ONLY if the US government could not or would not investigate a US citizen accused of crimes of genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity would a case go to the ICC against an American.

Why not try doing some actual research into the facts.

[henrik larssonisking]

11. once again

say you are on trial in the US for crimes, you use your right to silence and the case can not be brought, next thing you know your in the haugue without the protections that the constitution guarentees you. Once again how mad would you be if the feds decided to remove the right to remain silent from your rights.

[LynnTheDem]

15. Once again you are not listening and you do not know the facts.

The ICC CANNOT try any citizen from any nation UNLESS that citizen's OWN nation WILL NOT OR CANNOT investigate the charges of GENOCIDE, WAR CRIMES, OR CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY itself.

ANYONE can accuse me to the ICC of war crimes. And IF the charges seem credible, the ICC will NOTIFY AMERICA. And then AMERICA will investigate the charges and either prosecute me or not.

ONLY if America REFUSED TO INVESTIGATE THE CHARGES AGAINST ME would I stand trial before the ICC.

Some primer links:

The US Shouldn't Fear International Criminal Court

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0103-05.htm

The United States and the
International Criminal Court

http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/international_justice/icc/us_role/us_role.htm

An International Criminal Court is in the U.S. National Interest

http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/international_justice/icc/us_role/us_role_04.htm

U.S. Should Stay Engaged With the ICC

http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/international_justice/icc/us_role/us_role_05.htm

[henrik larssonisking]

16. once again you are not listening

as i said and what if the US cannot build a case against you, what if all the evidence is circumstantial, dodgy eye witnesses, no chain on evidence etc, you are not tried if they cannot build a case under the rules of US laws, then you are hauled of to europe to be tried under a different set of rules. Would you be happy if you were on trial under a set of rules that dont meet the same burden of proof that you enjoy here.

[LynnTheDem]

19. Yet again, BULL. SHIT. Would you PLEASE do some RESEARCH!

Good grief.

They don't have to build a case against me! They have to do an honest INVESTIGATION into the charges against me.

It's not "COULD NOT" as in they couldn't get enough evidence to build a bloody case! GEEEEEZ!

It's COULD NOT DO AN INVESTIGATION OF THE CHARGES AGAINST ME.

For example, SOME countries get INVADED and bloody razed to the ground; they are NOT ABLE to investigate charges of war crimes, genocide, and/or CAH because they've got no bloody cities left standing.

If a nation says they CAN NOT investigate, they are UNABLE to, for whatever reasons, THEN the case goes back to the ICC.

[Just Me]

24. henrik, you are clearly without any knowledge about the ICC,...

,...and the procedural due process which dictates its judicial functions. It is a FAR SUPERIOR justice system than the US-created GITMO set-up.

The ONLY reason the neoCONimperialists demand exemption from the ICC is because they KNOW they are breaching both US Constitutional and international laws.

Instead of watching TV or listening to neo-fascist on HATE radio, I URGE you to READ a variety of "balanced" resources!!!

[henrik larssonisking]

26. ok question

you brought up Gitmo, were the prisoners are not getting constitutional protection, now we all think they should be subject to the protections granted by the constitution and bill of rights etc. So tell me why you would be prepared to remove the constitutional rights of your fellow citizens. In my reading of the ICC procedures i dont see any mention of the constitution being the overriding document therefore we can only conclude that they dont abide by it.

[Just Me]

29. You obviously haven't a clue and obviously have NOT READ ICC

procedures or laws creating the ICC which have the same fundamental protections as those contained within our Constitution.

Whomever is giving you this MISinformation is bullshitting you.

The ONLY reason the neoCONimperialists demand exclusion from the ICC is because they are breaching both our constitutional laws and international laws!!!

[LynnTheDem]

17. Remember I said you are spewing rightwingnut bullshit?

Does this sound familiar???

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.”

Gee it does. Sounds just like the rightwingnut bullshit YOU keep posting.

[henrik larssonisking]

18. bingo

i actually agree with this statement, our citizens should be protected against prosecution from an unaccountable prosecutor operating under procedures inconsistant with our constitution, or are you willing to let our citizens be tried by the aforementioned prosecutor. or i guess if you believe that the constitution governs us and not some court in a foreign land then you must be a fascist.

[LynnTheDem]

20. Yes BINGO...and it's BULLSHIT.

TRY to get that into the head...what they're saying is NOT TRUE.

[henrik larssonisking]

21. so

your saying that any american who goes to the hague will have constitutional protections, if not then basically you want to throw away the rights of your fellow citizens.

[LynnTheDem]

22. AAAAAARRRRRRRRGH!!!!!

The ONLY WAY an American citizen would EVER stand trial at the ICC is if AMERICA REFUSED TO INVESTIGATE THE CHARGES HERSELF against the accused.

[henrik larssonisking]

23. yes i know

and if america refused to investigate, you would be happy to have a fellow citizen tried without constitutional protections.

[LynnTheDem]

25. If America REFUSED TO INVESTIGATE an American accused of

GENOCIDE??? :wow:

Get REAL.

1. IF the USA refused to investigate THEY KNOW the case would go back to the ICC. WHY would America REFUSE to investigate charges against an American(s) accused of GENOCIDE? War crimes? Crimes against humanity?

Anyways wouldn't that accused American have his own lawyer who would make one f*ck of a huge stink if the USA refused to even investigate???

2. PLEASE go read the actual statues for the ICC; the ICC will only look into war crimes, genocide, crimes of humanity, WHEN INSTRUCTED TO DO SO by the UN Security Council.

WHO HAS A PERMANENT VETO on that Council? The USA.

This bullshit about our troops being charged and made to stand trial in front of North Korean judges & w/out Constitutional rights etc is BUSHIT.

Say you're in Uzbekistan, and are accused of war crimes. WITHOUT the ICC you ARE going to be upshit a creek. Because YOU are going to stand trial in UZBEKISTAN.

WITH the ICC, Uzbekistan would hand you over to the ICC, who would take the Uzbek proof and you, and hand you & the proof back over to AMERICA.

ONLY IF America REFUSED to investigate, (or was unable to because say there's a raging civil war here at the time), would the case go back to the ICC.

[henrik larssonisking]

27. so therefore

if we have veto power, then whats the point in even signing up for the ICC, but you havent answered my main question, which rights under the constitution and bill of rights should americans be willing to give up so they can be tried by the ICC.

[LynnTheDem]

28. You are so NOT listening.

I have provided you with several links. I can provide you with several more. Go RESEARCH the facts because you presently do not have possession of any in regards to the ICC.

[henrik larssonisking]

30. listening

heres what it all boils down to, and the quote you gave from kissenger etc sums it up perfectly, do you believe that citizens of the US should put themselves under the jurisdiction of an international court if that court does not operate under the auspices of the constitution and the bill of rights. Does the government have the right to sign up to an international court that does not provide us with constitutional protections. If you believe that the constitution can be signed away then you and i are so far apart we may as well be married. :)

[Just Me]

31. No. What it boils down to is the neoCONimperialists are breaking

both constitutional and international laws and want to be excluded from the ICC which operates by the same fundamental restrictions and protections as you find in our Constitution.

You don't get it.
You don't want to get it.
You just keep repeating MISinformation.
You have been hoodwinked by bullshitters.

[LynnTheDem]

32. No that is not the bottom line.

If you go to Canada and commit GENOCIDE, wtf do you think happens to you??? Canada doesn't have a US Constitution and US Bill of Rights.

Gee, guess you better not go to Canada and commit genocide or war crimes.

NO American will ever stand before the ICC unless American courts refused to hear the case. And even then, the US holds veto power.

America would only be giving away sovereignty if they REFUSED to hear the bloody case.

Research the facts. Or don't. Your choice.

But the ICC has nothing to do with taking away our Constitutional rights and not one single little shred of US sovereignty is given away. In fact, the ICC would help PROTECT Americans, most especially our troops. And only rightwing bullshit says otherwise.

[henrik larssonisking]

33. ok

so lets say 10 years from now, someone brings genocide charges against the shrub, the US courts refuse to hear it, pow the ICC takes up the case. Now as much as we dislike shrub, do we let him be tried without the protections that he has guarenteed in the constitution. If truman was alive today does he get charged for hiroshima, churchill for dresden. NO i believe that as americans you have rights that are yours and if a US court wont entertain them why should any US citizen be handed over to an international court to be tried without the protections. We just have a different viewpoint, yeah i know your gonna accuse me of rightwing thinking, so be it i just disagree with you.

ps do you really believe the ICC isnt going to be political.

[kiki]

34. Do you really believe American courts aren't political? n/t

[LynnTheDem]

36. Why would a US court refuse to hear the case???

So you're fine with Americans being able to wander the world committing genocide and never being brought to court???

Edit:

If a US court refused to hear the case because the PROOF WAS NOT CREDIBLE then the accused STILL WON'T FACE THE ICC.

America just has to INVESTIGATE THE CHARGES as to whether they are CREDIBLE enough to send to trial or NOT CREDIBLE.

If America TOTALLY REFUSED point blank to even look at the charges, then yes the case would go back to the ICC but WHY would America refuse to even investigate the charges???

And if an American is wandering around the world committing genocide, and if after being notified of it and given the proof, America refused to even investigate then HELL YES I want that American brought to trial at the ICC.

[henrik larssonisking]

37. ok

if an american commits war crimes and there is evidence that can be used in court, fine, but the problem arises when you have say a colonel who is accused but there is insufficent evidence, what do we do ship him off to the ICC. My problems with the whole concept of the ICC is that it is going to be political, do you honestly believe that there are not people and governments in the world who would happily use the ICC to try americans with flimsy evidence.

thinnk about extraditions, if you commit a crime abroad, does the US just hand you over, no the other party has to show proof and evidence that satisfies the court here. So if a court here cannot find you committed a crime why should we hand you over to the ICC.

[LynnTheDem]

38. NO NO NO NO NO NO NO!!!

If the proof is NOT CREDIBLE then END OF STORY.

America just has to INVESTIGATE THE CHARGES.

A col. is accused of genocide and there is no proof, then the ICC WON'T HEAR THE CASE.

The UN SC first has to request the ICC look at the case. THEN if the ICC thinks the proof is credible on the face, it hands the file over to AMERICA.

If America looks into the proof and finds it NOT credible or FALSE, then end of the story.

And by the way, AMERICA would be voting on WHAT JUDGES would be on the ICC if America were a member.

So LAST TIME:

IF someone accuses YOU of genocide in NationX, they would go to the ICC and say you did the crime & here's the proof.

The ICC would look at the proof and IF it looked credible on the face it would have you & the proof sent to America.

America would look at the proof and investigate. If credible then you're probably going to get sent up for trial. IN AMERICA.

If NOT CREDIBLE or found to be FALSE, then that's the end of the story.

The ICC is COURT OF LAST RESORT.

[LynnTheDem]

39. They WOULDN'T.

-"So if a court here cannot find you committed a crime why should we hand you over to the ICC."

A court here DOES NOT HAVE TO FIND YOU GUILTY!!! You ,may never even be sent to trial.

Good GRIEF already, LOL!!!

America JUST HAS TO LOOK INTO THE CHARGES. That's ALL.

IF the charges are BOGUS, that's END OF STORY. The US will tell ICC the charges are bogus, and why. PERIOD.

IF the charges are CREDIBLE, then AMERICA will charge you and you will face an AMERICAN TRIAL. If you're found GUILTY do your time, you dirty rotten genocider!

If you're found INNOCENT then CONGRATS and have a nice life.

If the US said hey we aren't going to look into those charges, we don't care what he does, if he wants to wander the world genociding, that's his business, we don't care...THEN your case would be heard by the ICC.

[henrik larssonisking]

40. thanks i will

but then dosent that make the ICC totally useless, whats the point of it, why bother, kinda like me signing up for breastfeeding class, might be interesting but a waste of time and resources.

[LynnTheDem]

42. Not useless

The point is, there are many nations in this world who would say hey we know he is but we don't care if our henrik is wandering around genociding people and we're not gonna stop him or prosecute him in any way.

SOMEONE needs to be able to prosecute henrik IF HIS OWN COUNTRY WON'T.

So if it's PROVED that henrik is wandering around genociding, and his own country says SO WHAT...then that someone is the ICC.

The whole idea behind a world court is to have ONE central court that will have ONE SET OF TRIAL STANDARDS so that EVERYONE will be treated the same.

You do NOT want to stand trial in say Uzbekistan. And you would not want a mass-murdering evil SOB to stand trial in a country that LIKES mass-murdering evil SOBs!

So for AMERICANS, yes the ICC is pretty much pointless UNLESS America turned into a regime that doesn't care if its citizens are wandering around mass-murdering.

The goal of having an ICC is to set international standards for ALL nations regarding genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity, and those 3 are referring to MASS murders, rapes, torture.

ONLY if your own nation will not investigate the charges, and IF the charges are proven true, your own nation also refuses to send you to trial, THEN the case goes to ICC. There is no way America would refuse to send you for trial if they found genocide charges against you to be true...but not all nations are like America; many nations WOULD refuse to do anything about your nasty genociding habit.

With the ICC in place, nations can't get away with that, because if THEY won't take care of it, the ICC will.

But the ICC will hear cases by UN Security Council request and we're not talking someone jay-walking. The only cases ICC will hear are for MASS murders/rape/torture.

[LynnTheDem]

43. I forgot to say why WE should sign up...it would help PROTECT us.

You CAN be charged AND tried by other countries for genocide etc. Would you like to be tried for such charges in UZBEKISTAN??? They're the ones like to boil prisoners to death.

This explains better than I can:

Why is the U.S. so upset about the ICC statute? The answer is this: Under the statute, the ICC can take jurisdiction over a national of even a non-party country if he or she commits a crime in a party country's territory.

The U.S. vehemently objects to this. But in fact, it's nothing new. Under well-established principles of international law, the crimes prosecuted in the ICC - genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and the crime of aggression - are crimes of universal jurisdiction.

That means that an alleged perpetrator can - and always could - be arrested anywhere. Indeed, the United States itself has asserted jurisdiction over foreign nationals in anti-terrorism, anti-narcotic trafficking, torture and war crimes cases.

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0909-13.htm

So instead of Uzbekistan being able to charge you and send you to (hah) trial, assuming your own nation said hey we don't care about whatever he does, then you'd stand trial at the ICC.

Now this also means America would have to do likewise; if the US arrested & charged a Canadian for genocide, the ICC would require Canada to investigate the charges & prosecute if credible, NOT America.

And THAT right there is your answer as to why bush & the rightwingnuts refuse to have anything to do with the ICC.

In one word, why bushCartel refuse the ICC;

GITMO.

bush is taking EVERY NATION'S SOVEREIGNTY away. HE wants to be able to arrest and imprison ANYONE he wants to, regardless what nation they're from. And yet he accuses the ICC of wanting to do that to Americans! And they wonder why we're so hated by the world...

[RuleofLaw]

41. You keep saying that

an accused before the ICC does not have any constitutional rights or protections.

Can you please show some evidence to support that notion. As far as I know any one at trial before the ICC has the right to legal counsel. (Just look at Milosewicz, and others)

According to the ICC, these are the rights of the accused:

Rights of the Accused
Everyone is presumed innocent until proved guilty before the Court in accordance with the applicable law. The Prosecutor has the onus to prove the guilty of the accused in full respect of his/her rights and must disclose to the defense, as soon as practicable, any material that could mitigate the charges or tend to show the innocence of the accused.

According to article 67 of the Rome Statute, in the determination of any charge, the accused is entitled to a public hearing, to a fair hearing conducted impartially, and to the following minimum guarantees, in full equality:

(a) To be informed promptly and in detail of the nature, cause and content of the charge, in a language which the accused fully understands and speaks;

(b) To have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of the defense and to communicate freely with counsel of the accused’s choosing in confidence;

(c) To be tried without undue delay;

(d) To be present at the trial, to conduct the defense in person or through legal assistance of the accused’s choosing, to be informed, if the accused does not have legal assistance, of this right and to have legal assistance assigned by the Court in any case where the interests of justice so require, and without payment if the accused lacks sufficient means to pay for it;

(e) To examine, or have examined, the witnesses against him or her and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his or her behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him or her. The accused shall also be entitled to raise defenses and to present other evidence admissible under this Statute;

(f) To have, free of any cost, the assistance of a competent interpreter and such translations as are necessary to meet the requirements of fairness, if any of the proceedings of or documents presented to the Court are not in a language which the accused fully understands and speaks;

(g) Not to be compelled to testify or to confess guilt and to remain silent, without such silence being a consideration in the determination of guilt or innocence;

(h) To make an unsworn oral or written statement in his or her defense; and

(i) Not to have imposed on him or her any reversal of the burden of proof or any onus of rebuttal.

http://www.icc-cpi.int/defence/defaccused.html

I don't see anything in there that is not consistent with th rights guaranteed an accused under the US Constitution. I would actually claim that a defendant has more rights before the ICC than in an American court room!

[Just Me]

44. Excellent post, RuleofLaw.

Many people rely strictly upon "talking points".

The real bottom line is this:
The ICC offers procedures and protections consistent with our Constitution. The only reason the neoCONimpeialists demand exclusion from the ICC's jurisdiction is because they breach both constitutional and international laws.

[LynnTheDem]

35. Sources

Rights Groups Oppose US Bid for Exemption from War Crimes Tribunal
http://www.commondreams.org/cgi-bin/print.cgi?file=/headlines04/0521-04.htm

Bush's ICC Worries Are Hypocritical
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0712-02.htm

How the Bush Administration's Opposition to the International Criminal Court Has Put Peacekeepers and Others in Danger
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0909-13.htm

The US Assault On World Criminal Court
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0701-01.htm

United States Undermines International Criminal Court
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1203-08.htm

Stop the US Foul Play

The argument they made in demanding immunity from the ICC -- that this was simply a way of protecting their peacekeepers -- was a false one, and they know it. As Paul Heinbecker, Canada's permanent representative to the UN, pointed out, the United States has all the safeguards it needs -- particularly the fact that the ICC is a jurisdiction of last resort.

This means that if any crime were committed by an American, be it by a soldier stationed in Bosnia or by the Secretary of Defense in Washington, then the U.S. justice system -- civilian courts or military tribunals -- would be entitled to prosecute the case. The ICC only comes into play when a nation state is unwilling or incapable of exercising legal action against an act of genocide or a crime against humanity, as defined in the treaty.

http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0717-04.htm

Genocide Expert Lauds War Crimes Court

Benjamin Ferencz thinks there's one element the American people should know about the U.S. government's position on the International Criminal Court.

"They're lying," he said.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/intljustice/icc/2002/0928ferencz.htm