Bush may be next up for International Criminal Court

[GroundedSailor]

Link

Ex-UN prosecutor: Bush may be next up for International Criminal Court
03/07/2009 @ 3:52 pm
Filed by Stephen C. Webster

An ex-UN prosecutor has said that following the issuance of an arrest warrant for the president of Sudan, former US President George W. Bush could -- and should -- be next on the International Criminal Court's list.

The former prosecutor's assessment was echoed in some respect by United Nations General Assembly chief Miguel d'Escoto Brockmann of Nicaragua, who said America's military occupation of Iraq has caused over a million deaths and should be probed by the United Nations.

"David Crane, an international law professor at Syracuse University, said the principle of law used to issue an arrest warrant for [Sudanese President] Omar al-Bashir could extend to former US President Bush over claims officials from his Administration may have engaged in torture by using coercive interrogation techniques on terror suspects," reported the New Zealand Herald.

The indictment of Bashir was a landmark, said Crane, because it paved a route for the court at The Hague to pursue heads of states engaged in criminality.

"Crane also said that the [Bashir] indictment may even be extended to the former president George W. Bush, on the grounds that some officials in terms of his administration engaged in harsh interrogation techniques on terror suspects which mostly amounted to torture," said Turkish Weekly.

"All pretended justifications notwithstanding, the aggressions against Iraq and Afghanistan and their occupations constitute atrocities that must be condemned and repudiated by all who believe in the rule of law in international relations," Brockmann told the Human Rights Council. "The illegality of the use of force against Iraq cannot be doubted as it runs contrary to the prohibition of the use of force in Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter. It sets a number of precedents that we cannot allow to stand."

The Bush administration boycotted the Human Rights Council. The day Brockmann made his accusations happened to be the first in which the United States had observers at the council, on orders from President Obama.

According to Iranian news network PressTV, the Iranian government called the Bashir indictment "a blow to International justice" and an "insult directed at Muslims."

Iran's plainly stated sentiment toward the court's legitimacy is similar in spirit to that of the United States. Because the US Government has refused to recognize the court by becoming a signatory in its statute, "the only other way Bush could be investigated is if the [UN] Security Council were to order it, something unlikely to happen with Washington a veto-wielding permanent member," said the Herald.

Due to the International Criminal Court's lack of any real police force, it has traditionally relied upon signatory states for enforcement of its rulings. But when the leader of one such state is indicted, the court's authority and enforcement capability is called into question. Even the arrest of Bashir is a far cry, for now. And without a UN Security Council order, former US President Bush would not go on "trial" before the court any time soon.

However, on January 26, United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture Manfred Nowak insisted that the pursuit of Bush and members of his administration for the torture of terror war prisoners is crucial if justice is to be served.

Nowak added that he believes enough evidence exists currently to proceed with the prosecution of Donald Rumsfeld, the former Secretary of Defense who was credited as being highly influential in the crafting and push for America's invasion of Iraq and the prior administration's abusive interrogation tactics.

The following video was published to YouTube on March 6 by the non-profit, Web-based news service LinkTV.

See link for video and additional links.

Here's the issue. US has not ratified the ICC and Bush & Co cannot be held accountable to that court. Yet Sudan has not ratified the ICC either but an arrest warrant for Sudans' president was issued, which is probably not going to be enforceable. Similarly the ICC could issue a warrant for Bush which would not be honored by the US.

But imagine the publicity and humiliation worldwide. Not to forget something like this will ramp up the pressure within the US to bring Bush & Co to some kind of justice even though Pelosi has said impeachment is off the table.

 

[Greenman]

Rule one, if it's from the UN, it's almost certainly bullshit designed to get someones palm greased.

 

[MovingTarget]

It is a non-issue here. We do not recognise the jurisdiction of the ICC. As much as I think that Bush should be tried for things he did as POTUS, I would still give a giant middle finger to the ICC if they issued a warrant for him. He is our problem now. Hopefully our current leaders will grow a spine and hold him accountable...or at least investigate him to find out what the hell he was up to...

 

[MotF Bane]

Who's going to enforce a warrant for a former POTUS on our soil? This is a pipe dream.

 

[Genx87]

Laughable

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: MotF Bane
Who's going to enforce a warrant for a former POTUS on our soil? This is a pipe dream.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Laughable

Yes, because he shouldn't have to answer for blatantly obfuscated truths, lies, half-truths, and propaganda that hoodwinked the country (and Congress) into supporting a war of aggression.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Genx87
Laughable

Yes, because he shouldn't have to answer for blatantly obfuscated truths, lies, half-truths, and propaganda that hoodwinked the country (and Congress) into supporting a war of aggression.

He should, to the US courts. Do you support giving jurisdiction over the country to the ICC for crimes that were only crimes by American laws really?

What about the American Soldiers who followed orders that might have comitted war crimes sanctioned by the Administration? (Circumventing PoW definition for the Geneva).

There is good reason why stable democracies do not submit to the will of he ICC and why rogue failed states have no choice.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Genx87
Laughable

Yes, because he shouldn't have to answer for blatantly obfuscated truths, lies, half-truths, and propaganda that hoodwinked the country (and Congress) into supporting a war of aggression.

He should, to the US courts. Do you support giving jurisdiction over the country to the ICC for crimes that were only crimes by American laws really?

What about the American Soldiers who followed orders that might have comitted war crimes sanctioned by the Administration? (Circumventing PoW definition for the Geneva).

There is good reason why stable democracies do not submit to the will of he ICC and why rogue failed states have no choice.

Yes, let's be a lawless nation internationally, where laws don't apply to us but are used by us when convenient against other weaker nations, might makes right.

The concerns we have simply display again our double standards - we worry about the potential for abuse and unfair targetting of our people, even while we abuse systems in order to unfairly target others. No wonder we're for a United Nations where we can veto literally any act by the Security Council, even if every other nation in the world votes for it, while less powerful nations can only have one vote against such measures. And we still complain about it.

I have some concerns about the potential for the ICC too, but I'm in favor of getting past that issue and finding a way to have some accountability that applies to us, too.

Gee, maybe we' actually curtail some abuses if there were any such accountability, rather than just a 'politicians' club' absolving each other for crimes. The horror.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Genx87
Laughable

Yes, because he shouldn't have to answer for blatantly obfuscated truths, lies, half-truths, and propaganda that hoodwinked the country (and Congress) into supporting a war of aggression.

He should, to the US courts. Do you support giving jurisdiction over the country to the ICC for crimes that were only crimes by American laws really?

What about the American Soldiers who followed orders that might have comitted war crimes sanctioned by the Administration? (Circumventing PoW definition for the Geneva).

There is good reason why stable democracies do not submit to the will of he ICC and why rogue failed states have no choice.

Yes, let's be a lawless nation internationally, where laws don't apply to us but are used by us when convenient against other weaker nations, might makes right.

The concerns we have simply display again our double standards - we worry about the potential for abuse and unfair targetting of our people, even while we abuse systems in order to unfairly target others. No wonder we're for a United Nations where we can veto literally any act by the Security Council, even if every other nation in the world votes for it, while less powerful nations can only have one vote against such measures. And we still complain about it.

I have some concerns about the potential for the ICC too, but I'm in favor of getting past that issue and finding a way to have some accountability that applies to us, too.

Gee, maybe we' actually curtail some abuses if there were any such accountability, rather than just a 'politicians' club' absolving each other for crimes. The horror.

Sure, and the ICC could go after Obama, serve a warrant on him and lock him up right now for keeping the Bay open during his watch that would force us to have another election right now.

As I said, there is a reason stable democracies do not answer to the ICC, we are able to handle our own problems.


The answer to "accountability" is not give up your sovereignty as a nation.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: RichardE
[Sure, and the ICC could go after Obama, server a warrant on him and lock him up right now for keeping the Bay open during his watch that would force us to have another election right now.

As I said, there is a reason stable democracies do not answer to the ICC, we are able to handle our own problems.

And as I said, it's a double standard how we run around attacking governments for trumped up reasons when our real motive is often simply greed or power, from interference in their political system - bribes, creating opposition, all the way down to creating terrorist armies and assassination.

You say we are 'able to handle our own problems'.

I can't tell you how many cases there of when our people do something wrong overseas, where we demand jurisdiction and then outrage the other nation with a slap on the wrist.

That's not 'handling our own problems'.

An American kid who went to train with a force *who the US was not fighitng and was even funding* and who had never fought an American got a 20 year sentence for that, with mob hysteria, while there are dozens of murdered prisoners in our custody for whom no one has had any prison time - and those we have convicted for something have received far lighter sentences. That's not handling our own problems.

You again missed the point I made on prevention as well. JFK once was furious with a reported for revealing information about the planned secret invasion; he later said he wished the reporter had published enough of the truth to actually cause the cancellation of the invasion. Perhaps he would have valued the pressure of accountability for illegal invasions as well - 'should we invade? Don't forget the international criminal court'.

If the system were as willy nilly 'just arrest Obama for no reason' as you say, then it should be scrapped for anyone, as should all international law enforcement mechanisms.

But it's not.

To repeat - I'm for putting some protections in place against abuse, and then having some accountability for violating international law. The lack of which has helped us screw up.

It's just the nature of things, when you have one group with a lot more power, they're going to tend to abuse that power and harm less powerful groups.

That's why 'law' exists, to create more ustice than the 'might make right' policies have. It's why the Mayor's son can't come rob you with impunity becase the Mayor has 'power'.

Horrors happened in societies like Germany and Japan when the authorities felt an immunity from accountability. Losing the war created a force that was able to hold them accountable. Now, you are supporting the people who want the US to follow in their footsteps with little accounatability, so that the next Abu Ghraib, the next El Salvadoran death squads, the next destruction of a democracy to install a thug, the next Contra terrorist army, have no constraints preventing them.

The time to prevent a police state is before it happens. It gets a hell of a lot harder after. Now is when we need to be preventing the precedents that pave the way for corruption.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: RichardE
[Sure, and the ICC could go after Obama, server a warrant on him and lock him up right now for keeping the Bay open during his watch that would force us to have another election right now.

As I said, there is a reason stable democracies do not answer to the ICC, we are able to handle our own problems.

And as I said, it's a double standard how we run around attacking governments for trumped up reasons when our real motive is often simply greed or power, from interference in their political system - bribes, creating opposition, all the way down to creating terrorist armies and assassination.

You say we are 'able to handle our own problems'.

I can't tell you how many cases there of when our people do something wrong overseas, where we demand jurisdiction and then outrage the other nation with a slap on the wrist.

That's not 'handling our own problems'.

You again missed the point I made on prevention as well. JFK once was furious with a reported for revealing information about the planned secret invasion; he later said he wished the reporter had published enough of the truth to actually cause the cancellation of the invasion. Perhaps he would have valued the pressure of accountability for illegal invasions as well - 'should we invade? Don't forget the international criminal court'.

If the system were as willy nilly 'just arrest Obama for no reason' as you say, then it should be scrapped for anyone, as should all international law enforcement mechanisms.

But it's not.

To repeat - I'm for putting some protections in place against abuse, and then having some accountability for violating international law. The lack of which has helped us screw up.

It's just the nature of things, when you have one group with a lot more power, they're going to tend to abuse that power and harm less powerful groups.

That's why 'law' exists, to create more ustice than the 'might make right' policies have. It's why the Mayor's son can't come rob you with impunity becase the Mayor has 'power'.

Except, as I stated earlier the laws he broke were US laws, the only "international" laws broke were centered around Geneva conventions which are ones Obama is currently breaking.

The Iraq war was never put forward infront of the UN it was withdrawn at the times, and a case could easily be made that given the information provided to multiple states at the time Iraq was a justified war.

You people need to step back and see that the only laws Bush broke for the most part were US laws and if you really wanted him prosecuted Obama was your best bet. As we can see Obama is continuing the same actions that are "illegal" in the international community. We have promises from him so far, how much do you think the ICC cares about promises? To them the US is currently a rogue nation through two elected leaders so far. (The situation looks different from inside the fire than outisde)

Bush would server more years locked up for the US laws (Which means US law currently serves to protect against a police state) he broke than any international ones, which means my first assessment was correct, prosecute him under US law, no need to give the ICC jurisdiction over a stable democracy.



Another note. As of *right* now Obama is just as guilty as Bush on the international scene. No actual actions have been taken, we have a bunch of promises but until those are followed through it means nothing. Your idea of "willy nilly" is mute since both Bush and Obama would be arrested and someone put in charge who would immediatly put an end to the Bay and maybe the Iraq war. Just because you believe Obama does not mean the ICC does or will.

 

[StageLeft]

I think it would be awesome, but it will never happen.

 

[Craig234]

Richard, since you brought it up, of course the ICC has no place enforcing US laws and no one has suggested that. I'm only talkiing about their enforcing international law.

You can say what you like about what you think the situation is, but the ICC has not said anything about the specific laws Bush should be charged with are, that I've heard.

I'm speaking about the general policy, not the details of what to charge Bush with.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: Craig234
Richard, since you brought it up, of course the ICC has no place enforcing US laws and no one has suggested that. I'm only talkiing about their enforcing international law.

You can say what you like about what you think the situation is, but the ICC has not said anything about the specific laws Bush should be charged with are, that I've heard.

I'm speaking about the general policy, not the details of what to charge Bush with.

Fair enough. I am just saying that you can't selectively chose with the ICC like you said when you stated "some barriers" or safeguards. If we give the ICC jurisdiction it is 100% not 20% or sections 1-6 but not 8 and only half of 7.

The reason the ICC only applies to failed states is due to the fact those states need the ICC. It is not "favoritism". The people of Sudan had no tools to remove there leader, the American do and did.

As far as enforcing international law, like I said it is a 100% thing or nothing. Say they prosecuted Bush for Geneva War crimes in the Bay, well they would *have* to prosecute Obama as well since when he came to power he left it thereby enabling it. The ICC is great for countries of people who otherwise have no tools to stop there leaders, the US is not one of these though.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Craig234
Richard, since you brought it up, of course the ICC has no place enforcing US laws and no one has suggested that. I'm only talkiing about their enforcing international law.

You can say what you like about what you think the situation is, but the ICC has not said anything about the specific laws Bush should be charged with are, that I've heard.

I'm speaking about the general policy, not the details of what to charge Bush with.

Fair enough. I am just saying that you can't selectively chose with the ICC like you said when you stated "some barriers" or safeguards. If we give the ICC jurisdiction it is 100% not 20% or sections 1-6 but not 8 and only half of 7.

The reason the ICC only applies to failed states is due to the fact those states need the ICC. It is not "favoritism". The people of Sudan had no tools to remove there leader, the American do and did.

As far as enforcing international law, like I said it is a 100% thing or nothing. Say they prosecuted Bush for Geneva War crimes in the Bay, well they would *have* to prosecute Obama as well since when he came to power he left it thereby enabling it. The ICC is great for countries of people who otherwise have no tools to stop there leaders, the US is not one of these though.

If you consider the removal of LBJ from office for starting a war that finally killed 2 million Vietnamese to be 'working fine', then things are working fine.

Of course, the Vietnamese may not feel justice was entirely served; and you do have some explaining to do about the next president continuing the war for years.

If you consider the mere removal of Bush from office - not by democracy throwing him out in 2004 after invading Iraq, but when term limits pushed him out, is fine - then it's 'fine'.

I'm not sure that the people who were murdered in custody would say that justice has been served.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Craig234
Richard, since you brought it up, of course the ICC has no place enforcing US laws and no one has suggested that. I'm only talkiing about their enforcing international law.

You can say what you like about what you think the situation is, but the ICC has not said anything about the specific laws Bush should be charged with are, that I've heard.

I'm speaking about the general policy, not the details of what to charge Bush with.

Fair enough. I am just saying that you can't selectively chose with the ICC like you said when you stated "some barriers" or safeguards. If we give the ICC jurisdiction it is 100% not 20% or sections 1-6 but not 8 and only half of 7.

The reason the ICC only applies to failed states is due to the fact those states need the ICC. It is not "favoritism". The people of Sudan had no tools to remove there leader, the American do and did.

As far as enforcing international law, like I said it is a 100% thing or nothing. Say they prosecuted Bush for Geneva War crimes in the Bay, well they would *have* to prosecute Obama as well since when he came to power he left it thereby enabling it. The ICC is great for countries of people who otherwise have no tools to stop there leaders, the US is not one of these though.

If you consider the removal of LBJ from office for starting a war that finally killed 2 million Vietnamese to be 'working fine', then things are working fine.

Of course, the Vietnamese may not feel justice was entirely served; and you do have some explaining to do about the next president continuing the war for years.

If you consider the mere removal of Bush from office - not by democracy throwing him out in 2004 after invading Iraq, but when term limits pushed him out, is fine - then it's 'fine'.

I'm not sure that the people who were murdered in custody would say that justice has been served.

The people in the Bay would welcome the removal of Obama so would every Iraq who had a family member killed since he came to office. Emotional appeals are easy to do Craig.

My points still stand, the American people have the tools to deal with rogue leaders, failed states do not which is the point of the ICC. The ICC is not a "bring them to justice!" it is a "help the states that cannot do it themselves". It is an alternative to wars which would help people but serve no purpose.

 

[Zebo]

Might makes right. Always has always will.

 

[Craig234]

Objectives of the ICC:

The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court was adopted on 17 July 1998 at a United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court. The Statute establishes an international criminal court to try individuals for the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole and seeks to establish a fair and just international criminal justice system with competent and impartial judges and an independent prosecutor. Unlike an ad hoc tribunal, the Court is a permanent institution, which ensures that the international community can make immediate use of its services in the event of atrocities occurring, and also acts as a deterrent to those who would perpetrate such crimes.

Link

Where does the list of objectives refer to being limited to failed states?

Rather, it refers to what I mentioned - a "fair and just" system. It even mentions the same deterrent value I'd mentioned.

You make an accusation of 'emtional argument', but it's nonsense. That's like saying obejection to the Holocause is just 'emotional', since it partly is.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: Craig234
Objectives of the ICC:

The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court was adopted on 17 July 1998 at a United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court. The Statute establishes an international criminal court to try individuals for the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole and seeks to establish a fair and just international criminal justice system with competent and impartial judges and an independent prosecutor. Unlike an ad hoc tribunal, the Court is a permanent institution, which ensures that the international community can make immediate use of its services in the event of atrocities occurring, and also acts as a deterrent to those who would perpetrate such crimes.

Link

Where does the list of objectives refer to being limited to failed states?

Rather, it refers to what I mentioned - a "fair and just" system. It even mentions the same deterrent value I'd mentioned.

You make an accusation of 'emtional argument', but it's nonsense. That's like saying obejection to the Holocause is just 'emotional', since it partly is.

I called your argument emotional since of your last post was just that, an emotional appeal based on "millions of deaths".

It doesn't state any objective of failed states, but that is what it is suppose to be used for. Would you support the ICC arresting George Bush and President Obama for violating the Geneva conventions with regards to Guantanamo Bay as well as any soldiers and officers who followed order to commit these atrocities to be tried by an International court Craig? Would you give them that jurisdiction over American citizens?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Craig234
Objectives of the ICC:

The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court was adopted on 17 July 1998 at a United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court. The Statute establishes an international criminal court to try individuals for the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole and seeks to establish a fair and just international criminal justice system with competent and impartial judges and an independent prosecutor. Unlike an ad hoc tribunal, the Court is a permanent institution, which ensures that the international community can make immediate use of its services in the event of atrocities occurring, and also acts as a deterrent to those who would perpetrate such crimes.

Link

Where does the list of objectives refer to being limited to failed states?

Rather, it refers to what I mentioned - a "fair and just" system. It even mentions the same deterrent value I'd mentioned.

You make an accusation of 'emtional argument', but it's nonsense. That's like saying obejection to the Holocause is just 'emotional', since it partly is.

I called your argument emotional since of your last post was just that, an emotional appeal based on "millions of deaths".

Repeating the same nonsense doesn't make it smell better.

You're claimiing that in discussing war crimes, any discussion of an actual situation is invalid if it elicits any emotions? What nonsense.

It's emotional is it elicits emotions *and lacks any substance*. Calling something an emotional argument is proper when and only when the emotion is replacing substance.

Sorry, but there are events involving the killing of millions that are not just 'emotional'.

So lest the discussion get derailed, you need to put that little canard bag where it came from - or we can continue this circular exchange on it and derail the thread.

It doesn't state any objective of failed states, but that is what it is suppose to be used for. Would you support the ICC arresting George Bush and President Obama for violating the Geneva conventions with regards to Guantanamo Bay as well as any soldiers and officers who followed order to commit these atrocities to be tried by an International court Craig? Would you give them that jurisdiction over American citizens?

Technically, no, because we didn't ratify it, so they weren't subject to it.

But I'd support ratifying it in a manner that did allow for accountability; they'd have a deterrent against those policies, and if they did them, yes, arrest them.

I'm not exactly sure what the protections would look like; it might involve the ability upon the same basis that we ratify a treaty, for us to be able to withdraw.

That way, if the ICC abused its power, we could withdraw - but there's be a political price, because to evade a proper prosection, people would have to defend leaving the treaty.

Clearly, the pendulum is tilted far to one side now, away from any accountability.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Craig234
Objectives of the ICC:

The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court was adopted on 17 July 1998 at a United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court. The Statute establishes an international criminal court to try individuals for the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole and seeks to establish a fair and just international criminal justice system with competent and impartial judges and an independent prosecutor. Unlike an ad hoc tribunal, the Court is a permanent institution, which ensures that the international community can make immediate use of its services in the event of atrocities occurring, and also acts as a deterrent to those who would perpetrate such crimes.

Link

Where does the list of objectives refer to being limited to failed states?

Rather, it refers to what I mentioned - a "fair and just" system. It even mentions the same deterrent value I'd mentioned.

You make an accusation of 'emtional argument', but it's nonsense. That's like saying obejection to the Holocause is just 'emotional', since it partly is.

I called your argument emotional since of your last post was just that, an emotional appeal based on "millions of deaths".

Repeating the same nonsense doesn't make it smell better.

You're claimiing that in discussing war crimes, any discussion of an actual situation is invalid if it elicits any emotions? What nonsense.

It's emotional is it elicits emotions *and lacks any substance*. Calling something an emotional argument is proper when and only when the emotion is replacing substance.

Sorry, but there are events involving the killing of millions that are not just 'emotional'.

So lest the discussion get derailed, you need to put that little canard bag where it came from - or we can continue this circular exchange on it and derail the thread.

It doesn't state any objective of failed states, but that is what it is suppose to be used for. Would you support the ICC arresting George Bush and President Obama for violating the Geneva conventions with regards to Guantanamo Bay as well as any soldiers and officers who followed order to commit these atrocities to be tried by an International court Craig? Would you give them that jurisdiction over American citizens?

Technically, no, because we didn't ratify it, so they weren't subject to it.

But I'd support ratifying it in a manner that did allow for accountability; they'd have a deterrent against those policies, and if they did them, yes, arrest them.

I'm not exactly sure what the protections would look like; it might involve the ability upon the same basis that we ratify a treaty, for us to be able to withdraw.

That way, if the ICC abused its power, we could withdraw - but there's be a political price, because to evade a proper prosection, people would have to defend leaving the treaty.

Clearly, the pendulum is tilted far to one side now, away from any accountability.

We have accountability within American Law. The fact that Obama has chosen not to persue this avenue or prosecution does not take away from the fact it is available. Bush broke some very real and very serious American laws, I think someone counted at least 26 or 25.

Another problem in regards to the ICC is that at some point for American protection a event might need to occur that would violate International law. At this point we get back to the idea of the "good" lawbreaker, someone who might have to break a law for the overall good, but the ICC as an international body could still prosecute such a person for whatever the crime was that might have saved American lives.

These are only some of the problems of attempting to give an outside body power over a successful state. There is nothing good that can come from giving the ICC jurisdiction over the US and way too many potential drawbacks to even consider it. The laws are already in place to prosecute Bush, petition Obama or the AG to do it.

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: MotF Bane
Who's going to enforce a warrant for a former POTUS on our soil? This is a pipe dream.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have already had an almost infinite number of send GWB&co. to the Hague type threads on P&N.

On the moral grounds that be it resolved, GWB&co meets all the legitimate definitions of international war criminals, almost everyone on P&N agrees that a legitimate case can be made for that under international law. We may differ on weather an international court should convict GWB&co or not, we have the the Motf Bane question of " Who's going to enforce a warrant for a former POTUS on our soil?"

Which may well depend on how the the larger world's international community defines the question.

Basically the USA's other non international war crimes issues have basically collapsed the world economy. And its also effected the US economy which now must depend on massive foreign capital And if the international community make a US bailout contingent on surrendering GWB&co., I would have no problem doing so.

 

[WaTaGuMp]

This is about as likely to happen as is Chris Brown to end up in jail.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Craig234
Objectives of the ICC:

The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court was adopted on 17 July 1998 at a United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court. The Statute establishes an international criminal court to try individuals for the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole and seeks to establish a fair and just international criminal justice system with competent and impartial judges and an independent prosecutor. Unlike an ad hoc tribunal, the Court is a permanent institution, which ensures that the international community can make immediate use of its services in the event of atrocities occurring, and also acts as a deterrent to those who would perpetrate such crimes.

Link

Where does the list of objectives refer to being limited to failed states?

Rather, it refers to what I mentioned - a "fair and just" system. It even mentions the same deterrent value I'd mentioned.

You make an accusation of 'emtional argument', but it's nonsense. That's like saying obejection to the Holocause is just 'emotional', since it partly is.

I called your argument emotional since of your last post was just that, an emotional appeal based on "millions of deaths".

Repeating the same nonsense doesn't make it smell better.

You're claimiing that in discussing war crimes, any discussion of an actual situation is invalid if it elicits any emotions? What nonsense.

It's emotional is it elicits emotions *and lacks any substance*. Calling something an emotional argument is proper when and only when the emotion is replacing substance.

Sorry, but there are events involving the killing of millions that are not just 'emotional'.

So lest the discussion get derailed, you need to put that little canard bag where it came from - or we can continue this circular exchange on it and derail the thread.

It doesn't state any objective of failed states, but that is what it is suppose to be used for. Would you support the ICC arresting George Bush and President Obama for violating the Geneva conventions with regards to Guantanamo Bay as well as any soldiers and officers who followed order to commit these atrocities to be tried by an International court Craig? Would you give them that jurisdiction over American citizens?

Technically, no, because we didn't ratify it, so they weren't subject to it.

But I'd support ratifying it in a manner that did allow for accountability; they'd have a deterrent against those policies, and if they did them, yes, arrest them.

I'm not exactly sure what the protections would look like; it might involve the ability upon the same basis that we ratify a treaty, for us to be able to withdraw.

That way, if the ICC abused its power, we could withdraw - but there's be a political price, because to evade a proper prosection, people would have to defend leaving the treaty.

Clearly, the pendulum is tilted far to one side now, away from any accountability.

We have accountability within American Law. The fact that Obama has chosen not to persue this avenue or prosecution does not take away from the fact it is available. Bush broke some very real and very serious American laws, I think someone counted at least 26 or 25.

We do not have accountability within American Law, if American law is not enforced for political reasons. You don't seem to understand what accountability means.

The ICC allows for the host state to get priority in enfircing its own laws, and only steps in if they're not enforced for some reason. So if you're right, the ICC won't get involved.

Another problem in regards to the ICC is that at some point for American protection a event might need to occur that would violate International law. At this point we get back to the idea of the "good" lawbreaker, someone who might have to break a law for the overall good, but the ICC as an international body could still prosecute such a person for whatever the crime was that might have saved American lives.

Please tell me the situationin which the US would 'have to' protect itself with the policies of mass rape, forced impregnation, genocide, and the other crimes the ICC prosecutes.

There is no excuse for such crimes, and you are merely inventing a phony argument for something that doesn't exist.

These are only some of the problems of attempting to give an outside body power over a successful state. There is nothing good that can come from giving the ICC jurisdiction over the US and way too many potential drawbacks to even consider it. The laws are already in place to prosecute Bush, petition Obama or the AG to do it.

It took 60 countries to agree to the ICC for it to be created. That happened. A lot of countries disagree with your concerns, and there hasn't been any such abuse.

The most 'successful states' alongside the US, in the EU, strongly favor the ICC and placed themselves under its jurisdiction, with no problems. That argument is clearly contradicted.