babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » national news   » International Criminal Court update...

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: International Criminal Court update...
Boinker
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 664

posted 11 January 2003 08:57 PM      Profile for Boinker   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
In August the US launched a worldwide campaign to persuade states to enter into bilateral agreements which seek to prevent US nationals from being surrendered to the International Criminal Court. Every country in the world has been urged to sign these bilateral deals, dubbed "impunity agreements" by NGOs. Governmental officials gathered at the September meeting of the ICC Assembly of States Parties recognized the US bilateral agreements as contrary to the objects and purposes of the ICC treaty and a distortion of the intent of a key provision – article 98 – of the Rome Statute. Nevertheless, the US has made a considerable political investment in securing these agreements from as many countries as possible, putting pressure on governments to find compromise language.


Canada did not sign on.It is typical of how US foreign policy seeks to undermine the rule of law and replace it with the rule of the jungle.

Utter lunacy!

The entire article can be read here


From: The Junction | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Linger
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3557

posted 12 January 2003 12:46 AM      Profile for Linger     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yes, totally. Hyper-power spinning far out of control, with a separate set of laws to apply to americans.

Be interesting to compile a list of treaties/resolutions the US backed out on, land mines, world court, Kyoto are on the top of my mind, but I know there's more.

The us/them perspective, it is a literal killer. Not that it's soley an american trait but I'm not so much worried if an amazonian tribe believes themselves supperior to all others. It's the hyper-power with that same myopic view that bothers me.

Power and responsibility, circle the one Ceasar Bush doesn't display.

peace,
Linger


From: Kingston | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Boinker
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 664

posted 12 January 2003 10:32 AM      Profile for Boinker   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Be interesting to compile a list of treaties/resolutions the US backed out on, land mines, world court, Kyoto are on the top of my mind, but I know there's more.

from the article

quote:
But the damage to international law and multilateralism is by no means limited to the field of arms control. There’s the Kyoto Protocol to the Climate Change Treaty. Trade protectionism. And an all-too-frequent disregard for the UN.

also the ABM treaty...

14 countries have signed bilateral agreements including Israel.

Canada's contribution to Nuclear weapons in India and Pakistan is often overlooked.Canada at 10 billion a year is in the top ten per cent of military spenders.


From: The Junction | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
swallow
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2659

posted 12 January 2003 12:21 PM      Profile for swallow     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Canada contributed to nuclear weapons in Pakistan? Didn't know that, is there more info available?

Sometimes we feel helpless in the face of American power, but Canada was able to resist the pressure to sign these non-extradition pacts with the US. Smaller countries had to go along or risk losing aid.

Here's the agreement imposed on East Timor

Countries that have signed: Afghanistan, the Dominican Republic, East Timor, El Salvador, Gambia, Honduras, India, Israel, the Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Micronesia, Palau, Romania, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. I guess the US also promises not to extradite any war criminals from these countries. Pretty depressing all round.


From: fast-tracked for excommunication | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
ReeferMadness
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2743

posted 12 January 2003 05:06 PM      Profile for ReeferMadness     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
This is all about having a separate standard of justice for the rich and powerful. But then, how different is that from the typical criminal justice system?
From: Way out there | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Boinker
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 664

posted 12 January 2003 05:13 PM      Profile for Boinker   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
It is extremely difficult to estimate the number and types of nuclear weapons in Pakistan's arsenal. Outside experts estimate the country has between 24 and 48 nuclear weapons. The weapons are based on an implosion design that uses a solid core of highly enriched uranium, requiring an estimated 15–20 kilograms per warhead. Seismic measurements of the tests conducted on May 28 and 30, 1998, suggest that the yields were on the order of 9–12 kilotons and 4–6 kilotons respectively, lower than Islamabad announced. Chinese tests in the 1960s used similar designs, and it is suspected thatthe Chinese assisted Pakistan's program in the 1970s and 1980s.

I think I meant that Canada had an indirect affect on Pakistan by selling Candu reactors to India.


From: The Junction | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Boinker
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 664

posted 12 January 2003 05:18 PM      Profile for Boinker   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
This is all about having a separate standard of justice for the rich and powerful. But then, how different is that from the typical criminal justice system?

Reefer, have you been inhaling the whacky weed again?

This thread is about how the rich and powerful (the US) are undermining the rule of law. In other words you have got it exactly backwards, updide down, whatever...


From: The Junction | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 12 January 2003 08:13 PM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I assume that rabblers on this thread support the international community forcing Americans to submit to the ICC even if they don't sign on. Ei. They would try a U.S. citizen if he was arrested even if the U.S. did not sign on to the ICC. WOuld you support the International community standing up to any threat the U.S. made to try to stop them? I assume yes.

If this is the case do you also support the International community forcing North Korea to submit to the non proliferation of nuclear weapons even though they unilaterally withdrew from the treaty? Do you support the U.N. imposing sanctions even though N.Korea threatens that it would consider it an act war and retaliate militarily?

Just curious if your consistent in your support of the international community and international law.


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Boinker
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 664

posted 12 January 2003 10:37 PM      Profile for Boinker   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
I assume that rabblers on this thread support the international community forcing Americans to submit to the ICC even if they don't sign on. Ei.

No but if an American breaks the law in a country other than the US he could be tried there as is now the law. But as well, if War criminals caught in any of the member states countries they can be also tried by the court. This seems reasonable to me. I don't understand why the US would oppose it since it would certainly make the policing of international terror more effective. I can only assume that they are afraid of their own practices being hampered by ethical principles.


quote:
They would try a U.S. citizen if he was arrested even if the U.S. did not sign on to the ICC.

They do this anyway now. The point being that if a terrorist or a CIA agent provocateur sponsors a murder in a member state and flees to another member state the cops can nab him and try him in the world court. Surely this would be beneficial to all citizens of the planet? Far preferable than bombing a sovereign state to oblivion to see if you can get him...

quote:
WOuld you support the International community standing up to any threat the U.S. made to try to stop them? I assume yes.

I assume you mean by force? Well that would be pretty foolish as who could contest US military might? The US is also formidable economically and could threaten trade embargoes and sanctions in the circumstance you describe. Here, however the world could manage more effectively. The US is also a masterful diplomatic power as well but could be matched here I think because they would be facing some pretty fundamental human rights principles.

quote:
If this is the case do you also support the International community forcing North Korea to submit to the non proliferation of nuclear weapons even though they unilaterally withdrew from the treaty?

I don't see how this applies since to have nuclear weapons is not a criminal offence. If it were then the entire US military big shots would all be in big trouble.There are however, a number of high profile US politicians who might be investigated for crimes against humanity, Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Kissinger according to Chomsky...to name a few. But nobody is forcing the US to sign on. They are simply saying that anyone including US citizens who committ crimes against humanity can and will be tried by ICC no matter which member state they now reside in. Pretty reasonable I'd think you'd have to agree. Or would you let Osama Bin Laden go back to Saudi Arabia to be tried if we caught him here in Canada?

quote:
Do you support the U.N. imposing sanctions even though N.Korea threatens that it would consider it an act war and retaliate militarily?

The point here is against who would they retaliate? The entire world? Unlikely.

quote:
Just curious if your consistent in your ] support of the international community and international law.

I think a world criminal court is a good idea because it basically says that people shouldn't hide behind nations to further their personal beliefs. Human Rights is the basic bedrock on which countries are built. The world has demonstrated that it does not want vigilante type justice that the US is making into a national instituition. If leaders can be tried and convicted of leading their citizens to mayhem and murder in the name of say, improving oil revenues for their corporate sponsors then war will become obsolete which is fine by me.


From: The Junction | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
swallow
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2659

posted 13 January 2003 11:35 AM      Profile for swallow     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
They would try a U.S. citizen if he was arrested even if the U.S. did not sign on to the ICC.

A couple of comments: the ICC is only able to prosecute if the national government concerned refuses to do so. Any American accused of war crimes cannot be transferred to the ICC if the US criminal system prosecutes him. Nor can any prosecution be undertaken for any crimes committed before 2002. The Security Council can defer prosecutions for a year. ICC jurisdiciton only applies to the territory of signatory states. In effect, American war criminals are already safe from prosecution under this court. US opposition is designed, then, to allow Americans immunity from future crimes and to wreck the application of international justice systems under genuinely international control.

However, and regardless of the ICC, the principle of universal jurisdiciton means that war criminals can be prosecuted in any country. Thus Pinochet could be prosecuted in Spain if he had been extradited. Kissinger is afraid to travel to France for fear of arrest. A number of Latin American and Indonesian generals have been convicted in absentia of war crimes under US international torts law.

quote:
If this is the case do you also support the International community forcing North Korea to submit to the non proliferation of nuclear weapons even though they unilaterally withdrew from the treaty?

Of course. Just as the US and all other nuclear powers should disarm, as called for in the Non-Proliferation Treaty. What i don't support is the US unilaterally forcing other countries to abide by treaties and other international legal norms, while refusing to abide by any checks and balances on its own power and freedom of action.


From: fast-tracked for excommunication | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 16 June 2003 01:05 PM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
ICC's first chief prosecutor sworn in

Bump!

quote:
Legal and human rights activists said the court's first cases were likely to focus on Colombia and the Democratic Republic of Congo, both of which have ratified the court treaty.

"We expect him to become a champion for justice. We expect him to be impervious to any pressure from governments. This is essential to the credibility of Luis Moreno-Ocampo's tenure as prosecutor," Human Rights Watch spokesman Richard Dicker said.



From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Courage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3980

posted 16 June 2003 02:37 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Markbo:
I assume that rabblers on this thread support the international community forcing Americans to submit to the ICC even if they don't sign on. Ei. They would try a U.S. citizen if he was arrested even if the U.S. did not sign on to the ICC. WOuld you support the International community standing up to any threat the U.S. made to try to stop them? I assume yes.

If this is the case do you also support the International community forcing North Korea to submit to the non proliferation of nuclear weapons even though they unilaterally withdrew from the treaty? Do you support the U.N. imposing sanctions even though N.Korea threatens that it would consider it an act war and retaliate militarily?

Just curious if your consistent in your support of the international community and international law.


What we have here is called a 'false dichotomy'. Leave it to Markbo to reach for the logical fallacies from the get-go.

There is no 'dichotomy' in supporting initiatives to create an international court that would try war criminals regardless of nationality, and not supporting international efforts efforts to rope in North Korea's weapons building. Just as I don't need to accept the authority of all domestic laws equally prime facie, the same holds for international laws. I can be against the prosecution of, say, marijauna cultivation, but for the prosecution of, say, rape charges, and be entirely consistent.

Regardless of one's politics on either issue, the false dichotomy consists in positing that one's support for international laws must be 'all or nothing at all'. I personally think that a court enabled to gather in individuals for war crimes regardless of their state of origin is a good thing, whereas forcing small states to kow-tow to the hipocritical nuclear whims of a massive and expanding American imperium is not just. In fact, the proliferation of a few threats of mass destruction might just keep America's filthy hands from carrying out any further war crimes. Witness the difference in the treatment of Iraq and North Korea and the efficacy of the programme is obvious.

The key difference between the two initiatives can be summed up as the difference between a law intended to treat all equally, and one which is an attempt to solidify in law an existing inequal power relationship. One is for all, the other only for some. There is no inconsistency in this position.

Don't be hemmed in by Markbo's rhetorical devices.

[ 16 June 2003: Message edited by: Courage ]


From: Earth | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Willowdale Wizard
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3674

posted 16 June 2003 03:21 PM      Profile for Willowdale Wizard   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
the act that prevents members of the U.S. military from being prosecuted by the ICC, the American Service-Members Protection Act, makes for interesting reading.

i) rewriting of international treaties via the UN Security Council:

quote:
Effective beginning on the date on which the Rome Statute enters into force pursuant to Article 126 of the Rome Statute, the President should use the voice and vote of the United States in the United Nations Security Council to ensure that each resolution of the Security Council authorizing any peacekeeping operation under chapter VI of the charter of the United Nations or peace enforcement operation under chapter VII of the charter of the United Nations permanently exempts, at a minimum, members of the Armed Forces of the United States participating in such operation from criminal prosecution or other assertion of jurisdiction by the International Criminal Court for actions undertaken by such personnel in connection with the operation.

and,

ii) the setting up a special club of nations that will not face penalties for being part of the ICC:

quote:
(a) PROHIBITION OF MILITARY ASSISTANCE- Subject to subsections (b) and (c), and effective 1 year after the date on which the Rome Statute enters into force pursuant to Article 126 of the Rome Statute, no United States military assistance may be provided to the government of a country that is a party to the International Criminal Court.

(b) NATIONAL INTEREST WAIVER- The President may, without prior notice to Congress, waive the prohibition of subsection (a) with respect to a particular country if he determines and reports to the appropriate congressional committees that it is important to the national interest of the United States to waive such prohibition.

(c) ARTICLE 98 WAIVER- The President may, without prior notice to Congress, waive the prohibition of subsection (a) with respect to a particular country if he determines and reports to the appropriate congressional committees that such country has entered into an agreement with the United States pursuant to Article 98 of the Rome Statute preventing the International Criminal court from proceeding against United States personnel present in such country.

(d) EXEMPTION- The prohibition of subsection (a) shall not apply to the government of--

(1) a NATO member country;

(2) a major non-NATO ally (including Australia, Egypt, Israel, Japan, Jordan, Argentina, the Republic of Korea, and New Zealand); or

(3) Taiwan.


[ 16 June 2003: Message edited by: Willowdale Wizard ]


From: england (hometown of toronto) | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Boinker
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 664

posted 16 June 2003 05:29 PM      Profile for Boinker   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
This is really bad then. To get the big nations to sign on to a treaty for world government institutions like the ICC you have to make them virtually exempt from there provisions.

Jaggi Singh pointed out a while back that the UN itself is tainted with hypocricy. Never-the-less it has symbolic merit and the principle of an unbiased international tribunal is appealing.

It sure beats the military courts like they are setting up in Cuba that begin construction with the execution chambers...

That might be a good first step, a high profile case,the Trial of the Taliban in the International Criminal Court. If the ICC wants to demonstrate fortitude they should demand that the prisoners be released to their custody...(like this is really going to happen )

[ 16 June 2003: Message edited by: Boinker ]


From: The Junction | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
NDB
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1234

posted 17 June 2003 12:05 PM      Profile for NDB     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Craven UN caves in

The UN Security Council has given US peacekeepers an exemption from prosecution at the ICC.

Perhaps someone with a greater sense of history can correct this if it's incorrect: were the "great powers" (specifically the US, UK, and France) not excluded from UN peacekeeping missions at the outset of the program? I believe it was for two reasons; first, because of fears of imperialism of newly independent states based on their colonial pasts; second, because of concerns they would be targets of violence. Despite the implications of the commitment it would take from the rest of the world, would UN peacekeeping missions not be better off returning to this type of system? Specifically excluding the US, which seems to suffer from both of the above problems? It would resolve the US's concern over prosecution during peacekeeping and the rest of the world's concerns of the US's relative lack of interest in peacekeeping.


From: Ottawa | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Hawkins
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3306

posted 17 June 2003 08:58 PM      Profile for Hawkins     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
First time it came around the canadian ambassador said some pretty good things in defense of the ICC against the American onslaught.

Here

The problem is the US is in a position to veto all missions. What I think should happen is the rest of the world say screw you, and set up a team independant of the UN if the US is really willing to screw everyone so its measily contributions can't be tryed in court.

I personally don't understand their direction except as a way to insult the court and peacekeeping in the same breath. Or rather they can turn and say their troops are peacekeepers in some form?

The American foreign policy is scum. The rest of the world should unite, ala kid show style, to defend themselves from the bully.


From: Burlington Ont | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Boinker
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 664

posted 18 June 2003 07:56 PM      Profile for Boinker   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Adoption of this proposal could place Canada in the unprecedented position of having to examine the legality of a Security Council resolution.

Sixth, such a step would undermine the standing and credibility of the Security Council itself because its mandate to maintain peace and security should not be used for other purposes.


Thanks Hawkins!

I think Canada should question the legitinacy of the security council. The UN should abolish it in favour of another institution that is backed by the UN General Assembly and which does not give veto rights to powerful states.


From: The Junction | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
John K
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3407

posted 18 June 2003 10:16 PM      Profile for John K        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Giving the job of enforcing decisions around international peace and security to the General Assembly would be equivalent to putting a Triple E Senate in charge of Canada. It's an undeniable fact that there are vast differences between nation states in terms of population, economic clout and military might. To suggest that the great powers would defer to the General Assembly on matters of war and peace is a complete non-starter. It's difficult enough to get the great powers - especially the U.S.- around the table at the Security Council.
From: Edmonton | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
April Follies
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4098

posted 18 June 2003 10:17 PM      Profile for April Follies   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Better yet, have the UN turn such matters over to a body whose members are elected by the citizens of the member nations.

What? What? I can dream, can't I?


From: Help, I'm stuck in the USA | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Boinker
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 664

posted 19 June 2003 06:41 AM      Profile for Boinker   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
How about PR for the UN security council or some new body to keep the global peace?

Then you would have dictatorships like China and Indonesia with enormous clout and countries like Canada with no say at all virtually.

I think the point is that all the conceptual work has been done by the UN over the decades that would make the UN a workable world body but for great power hypocricy particularly and more recently the US and Britain.

I think they should be kicked out or suspended for using the "corked bat" of WMD to "justify" there shameful war of imperialism to gain oil reserves.


From: The Junction | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Boinker
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 664

posted 28 June 2003 10:27 PM      Profile for Boinker   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Which gives me another idea...

Why doesn't the UN have elected representatives from the respective member states but voted on by everyone?

You couldn't possibly be controlled and it would you could vote for the most progressive platforms.

Voting could be done anonymously.


From: The Junction | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca