I think the key aspect would be that he’s answerable to the US and US military:
US Code of Military Justice, Article 118, Murder
US Code of Military Justice, Article 133, Conduct unbecoming an officer and gentleman
18 U.S.C. § 2441, War Crimes
The last points to the Geneva Conventions, where firing on a shipwrecked person would constitute a war crime.
In essence, unless Trump pardons him, he’ll be at risk of going up for war crimes under the next administration. And, of course, if Trump does pardon him for war crimes then that’s an admission of guilt and Trump’s complicity in those crimes.
That’s why I usually shake my head and or laugh when someone around here or on Reddit gets in high dudgeon about something like that being illegal in international law. Who’s going to enforce it?
That said, part of our problem is that the President may sign treaties, but the Senate refuses to ratify them for absurd political reasons (see Kyoto Protocol for an example). That’s something that we should clean up about our system in some way, once the more glaring holes are plugged.
I don’t see why not, hypothetically. Those entities would not be seeking to prosecute Hegseth for violating U.S. federal laws, which is the only thing that a Presidential pardon can cover.
(That said, as has been noted in this and other threads in recent days, the U.S. is not an ICC member, so…maybe not to the ICC.)
That’s a great question. I’ll assume any kind of State crime.
I doubt the State has jurisdiction. I don’t know why exactly, though. I’m thinking it might be preempted by federal law and also, if he’s performing his duty as a federal official (like he was in this case) he’s probably protected from State (but not federal) law.
There may be an implicit admission of guilt when a pardon is accepted, but mostly that case was about whether a president could force someone to testify by issuing a pardon. And the answer was no- the pardon is not effective unless it is accepted. Do you think Hegseth would refuse a pardon so that some future AG could prosecute him?
So… someone can be charged by the ICC for illegal acts of war in Venezuelan territory, presumably including in their waters. What’s the juridsdiction of the ICC in international waters? Or can any state prosecute someone by itself for the act of piracy in international waters? IIRC, that was the basis of piracy prosecutions - whoever captured someone accused of piracy could prosecute them… regardless of country of origin, country of victims, etc.
So the answer for the OP, as others point out, is that he better not travel outside the USA after 2028.
The other wrinkle with pardons IIRC, is that like immunity from prosecution (same thing only different) they are now also unable to use the fifth amendment to refuse to testify in any future legal proceedings since it will not incriminate them. Which does not bode well for future civil cases.
I think the U.S. ensured that these attacks took place in international waters. Not that they cared, but I think they wanted to avoid the appearance of violating Venezuela’s sovereignty, or of an act of war. Someone may have considered the ICC but I don’t know if they’re that bright.
Pretty sure that bombing the shit out of boats is armed conflict. Conflict may not be the right word since the boats did not pose a threat and may have been unable to respond to such an attack (I’m guessing they may have had small arms).
I saw a post about some group supporting Palestinians in Canada, who sent a letter to the government demanding that the former prime mnister and defence minister of Israel be charged with war crimes when they come to Canada for a conference soon, regarding actions during the 2008 Gaza war (bombing UN schools and hospitals). Apparently Canada’s law regarding war crimes allows anyone to be charged for any war crime no matter what territory or citizenship involved. (Still, not likely to happen)
Also recall that Spain had the UK arrest Pinochet when he visited. The Spanish law, which UK was acting on, said the murder of any Spanish citizen no matter where was a crime prosecutable in Spain. I believe the USA has similar laws regarding US citizens.
I would not be surprised if a number of other countries have similar laws about international offences.
It’s the concept of Universal Jurisdiction. Other countries use it. It applies to crimes those countries think are an affront to all humanity and there should be no place to hide. Like war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide, slavery, etc.
I don’t think the US has any laws that have universal jurisdiction. The US would require some connection to the US.
Late: to be clear, it’s pretty bold. If a person commits a war crime in country x against country x citizens; zero to do with Spain - that is still a violation of Spanish law.
That’s the thing with human laws, we’re allowed to make them say whatever we want, without regard to what’s physically possible.
There was a time when US citizens could travel abroad to places that didn’t have age of consent limits, for the purposes of sexually abusing children. But then the Us decided that wasn’t acceptable, and passed laws that allowed them to charge people with a crime for doing that, regardless of the fact that it may have been legal in the country where it happened.
No reason we can’t all pass laws like this, if we want.
Homicide Exists Globally So Everyone Tosses Him In Jail Act
To be clear - Spain’s case against Pinochet had to do with some of the “disappeared” and those slaughtered during the Pinochet coup were (dual?) Spanish citizens.
And Pinochet avoided extradition from the UK, flew back to Chile, by claiming advancing dementia. I wonder if anyone is taking notes?
In this case, none, given that the US isn’t a signatory, and it doesn’t qualify as a crime against humanity, and the US could veto any case referred to the UN security council.
The ICC is a nonstarter here, and everyone needs to forget it. The involved parties will face no criminal consequences whatsoever unless Trump forgets to pre-emptively pardon them before leaving office. Then they could conceivably be charged during a future administration under the UCMJ or federal code, if the future Democrat-overseen DoD or DoJ feels like it, but I wouldn’t hold my breath on that.
There’s a small chance they’ll be embarrassed in a Congressional hearing, or possibly have their careers damaged. Apart from that, they’ve already gotten away with it.