Why should American Soldiers be immune from prosecution in the “International Criminal Court”? Should it’s armed forces not be answerable to the same authorities as everyone else’s?
Just looking for an American perspective.
Thanks all.
If you’d like a response direct from the halls of power, or at least someone with an office near them… here:
http://www.state.gov/p/9949.htm
If you don’t… well, for one thing, not everyone else’s forces are answerable. Only 139 states have ratified the treaty,and it only took 60 to make it “enforceable”- thus assuming a principle of interstate democracy which doesn’t really exist, at least not outside the UN.
Also, a number of US policymakers have reservations over entering into a binding jurisdiction when ICC judges may come from countries with less-than-just legal systems.
In my view, there are simply too many questions regarding whether the Court will rule based on “natural law”, or in other words, use some kind of “universal law” to establish guilt whether or not the actor being tried committed a crime according to his own state’s laws, or even those of most states.
Having said all that, I am all in favor of world government, and I really think us Yanks (although I’m as much a Briton as an American) should have taken a lead in ratifying the Court.
No respectable democracy allows the politicisation of their judicial process.
The US believes that the court will be politicised and will be used to needle the US, rather than solely act as a court for the trial of ‘world crimes’
I’ll elaborate on this whole natural law thing-
There are essentially two major schools of legal philosophy- the naturalists and positivists. Natural law thinkers believe that laws can only be just if they conform to some kind of higher law, whether it be philosophical truths, religious canon, or logic.
Positivists suggest that laws can only be judged in their own right- they cannot be compared to any “higher law” because none exists.
A good example of this can be found in one of the WWII war crimes tribunals at Nuremberg. A German woman (perhaps someone else could supply her name) disposed of her no-longer-wanted husband by reporting him to the Gestapo for sedition. He was sent to the front lines and summarily killed.
She was put on trial at Nuremberg for killing him, but nobody could really figure out what to charge her with. She hadn’t exactly murdered him, and although she had knowingly engineered his death, the action was not only legal under Nazi law, but required. Naturalists claimed that since she had clearly done something wrong, she was guilty of something. Positivists pointed out that convicting her of anything would have been an application of a law not in effect at the time of the crime- retrograde application has been unconscionable throughout the history of law. Eventually she was convicted of false imprisonment, which had been signed into law under the Weimar Republic and never repealed by the Nazis.
But you see the problem.
The only thing the rest of the world sees, is the US saying everybody else is subject to OUR rules/laws but when we do something we only answer to ourselves.
After all the US are the good guys aren’t they - thats what the movies show.
If you want the rest of the world to sign up then you have to put your own nuts on the block too.
The US is a rogue terrorist state and knows that its actions are criminal in international law, so of course they will pretend they are above the law. I am an American and love my country, but with all the bribery and extortion going on in the name of foreign policy, you would think the mafia have taken over the state dept and the pentagon.
I believe the USA is making a mistake here. The world is moving in a direction of making some crimes universal like has happened with piracy and slavery. Crimes against humanity are also entering that realm of universality and I think it is better to have an international tribunal set up by a majority international consensus than to have individual nations judging.
Recently some Argentinian officers have been extradited to France and Spain to be tried for torture and other crimes against humanity because Argentina would not try them. I believe an international tribunal would be a better choice than individual nations trying whoever they can get their hands on. This situation is more likely to result in impunity as some countries may no want to face the responsibility and consequences of trying a criminal and other countries may say the charges are political.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3030030.stm
The USA should cooperate with the international community and not behave as a rogue state.
For what it’s worth, this subject was debated here a year ago or so . . .
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=123463
I suppose the concern is over political prosecutions of American soldiers. Argualy, the U.S. is particularly vulnerable to this given our unpopularity in certain parts of the world and our interventionist policies.
Quite the contrary, it is standard procedure with international treaties of any kind.
Given that all judges have an international reputation of the highest degree and are not simply appointed by their countries, this is merely a declaration of being too lazy to read through the CV.
The ‘laws’ on which the court is based are defined in its statues.
3 lines of “wrong” do not a rebuttal make.
“Standard procedure with international treaties of any kind”- like the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty? While it may now be in force, it is because all the (fully) nuclear states have ratified it, not because a majority chose to.
“Given that all judges have an international reputation of the highest degree and are not simply appointed by their countries, this is merely a declaration of being too lazy to read through the CV.” - Lets look at requirements for a seat on the ICC’s bench, shall we?
“they must have 15 years of experience in a legal position, including as academics, and must be qualified in criminal law and international humanitarian law”
Reputations of the highest degree. Hmm, would this NOMINEE qualify? "Timoci Tuivaga, who, according to the articles below, has “attracted
criticism over his actions during the 2000 coup when he helped draft
the military’s martial law decrees.” - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/icc-info/message/2676
And the most laughable part of all… “The ‘laws’ on which the court is based are defined in its statues (sic)” -
Such as… “Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated” which is the Rome Statute’s definition of genocide. In other words, if you plan an attack that doesn’t go well, and you thought it might not go well, and some civilians die, you are guilty of genocide. Remarkable.
Now, notwithstanding the fact that I was simply providing “an American view” as requested by the OP, which you seem to have interpreted as a challenge, I think you have plenty to think about for now, don’t you?
I should also mention the huge liberal bent of the eighteen selections so far- not that this is out of keeping with my views, but certainly less in keeping with about half of those they represent…
Again, I see no benefit to the United States to sign up. Most crimes of this type will go unprosecuted simply due to the fact that no one will want to go in to a country to “arrest” the violators, which would mostly be dictators or military-types during a civil war or something. Things the US and the EU don’t like getting involved in.
Much better to just set up temporary tribunals or let the country in which the acts were committed deal with it.
I believe the U.S. should recognize and be a part of the ICC. The U.S. needs to be held accountable for its actions just like any other country. While there is the potential that the U.S. could be unfairly targeted and prosecuted for politically motivated reasons, the possibility of this happening would be greatly reduced if the ICC is set up with the proper procedures for fairly and impartially investigating crimes. Which I believe it will be. If all accusations are thoroughly, fairly, and impartially investigated then I don’t have a problem with the U.S. being a part of the ICC.
Not joining the ICC and trying to pressure and bully other nations into giving the U.S. government immunity will just put more strain on our ties (ties that are already being seriously tested as it is) with the EU and other countries. It will also continue to harm our already fragile international credibility. Besides the threats and bullying by the U.S. has not really been all that effective. According to this article, 90 countries have become members of the ICC despite the opposition of the U.S. Here is a quote from Prince Zeid Raad al-Hussein of Jordan, the president of the assembly of nations that signed the treaty establishing the court:
The ICC is going to be formed with or without American approval, so tactics like threatening to stop military and financial aid is just silly. That and it unfairly punishes the countries that really need the aid.
Threatening to withold educational aid and defense aid to countries like Croatia is just low. I don’t think imposing a sanctions policy like this is really going to be effective. As Richard Dicker, a director of Human Rights Watch in New York put it:
The U.S. should definitely join the ICC. The sooner the U.S. can be held accountable for its actions the better.
Actually, american soldiers won’t be immune from prosecution by the ICC whether or not the US sign the treaty. If the the crime is commited on the territory of one of the signatories, or the victims are citizens of a country which is part of the treaty, they can be prosecuted.
That’s why the US are busy signing bilateral treaties with as much countries as possible, to avoid its soldiers being extradited by said countries in case they would be prosecuted.
It’s very possible that you knew this, but I noticed that many people on this board don’t, and believe that as long as the US don’t sign the treaty, US citizens can’t be tried by the ICC.
On the other hand, of course, if an american is the victim of a war crime, the ICC won’t be able to prosecute the criminal. For instance, the ICC wouldn’t have be competent for war crimes commited during the war in Irak by Iraki people on American soldiers or by American soldiers on Iraki people, since nor Irak nor the US are signatories.
You obviously overlooked the words “intentionally” and “in the knowledge”.
And yes…courts have to interpret the laws. Nothing new, here.
You know, it is also quite illegal for Congress to approve any court with a theoretically higher power than the Supreme Court. Its right in the Constitution.
And before you foereigners suggest it, tyou can go straight to the Devil’s homeland before we’ll change it on your account.
What I’m still trying to figure out is why being held “accountable” to countries like France is a good thing. Peh. Silly people.
Um, no he didn’t. His description of the genocide rule is completely accurate. If you plan an attack and you know that there is a strong possibility of civilian deaths, even if the attack is on a legitimate military target, and a civilian dies then you will be prosecuted for genocide. Seems like a good incentive for the attackee to set up military installations in dense civilian areas.
You still have yet to provide a reason why signing this treaty is in the best interests of the US.
Credibility is not exactly established by lying about the statement you reply to. But thanks for demonstrating that you are willing to argue only on the bottommost level of civility.
I hate to tell you, but there are way more treaties than the nuclear test ban treaty. And plenty of them have a quorum.
Why don’t you do what you said you wanted to do? You said you wanted to look at the requirement for a seat. What you list, however, is the requirement for CANDIDACY.
Um, would you do me a favor and check a dictionary? Being a nominee doesn’t make one a judge.
Thanks for showing that you have to resort to typos to actually be able to make a point.
No, not in other words. Only in the words of someone who has (as shown above with the NOMINEE) severe problems with literacy. We are not talking about ‘some civilians die’, we are talking about ‘clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated’.
Coincidentally, the additional protocols to the Geneva Convention prohibit the very same conduct. But hey, we all know that butchery, when done by the right people, isn’t butchery at all.
Yes, I have to think about people who engage in argumentation that would have been fit to apologize crimes tried at Nuremberg and obviously highly ignorant of the larger body of international treaties feel fit to froth rabidly at others.
There is no need to change it. It has neither bearing or relevancy to the ICC. It might be incomprehensible for you to grasp that, but the US constitution is inapplicable outside US borders. You have no rights under it when outside the US. You don’t get a free shot at murder in Germany, just because you don’t get a trial with a jury of your peers, and if you run around with a firearm without the proper licenses, you don’t get to point at the second amendment. When you’re abroad, the laws and courts recognized by the country you are in apply. If you don’t want that to be the case, stay at home. It’s as simple as that. The ICC is not any different in that than any other court. It is the most basic thing that you can be tried at a court recognized by Germany if you are caught in Germany, under a warrant recognized by Germany, and the same is the case in any other given country.
I know that nationalists hate that fact, but the world is not the US’s backyard, and ‘because I am American’ is not an excuse for committing crimes.