Hello, zippo-ga!
Your question touches on a hot topic these days. The proponents and
opponents of the US involvement in the International Criminal Court
have been at each other’s throats for a while.
First, some background:
What is the International Criminal Court?
*********************************
“The Rome Statute to establish the ICC was adopted in July 1998 and
entered into force in July 2002. As of December 2002, the Statute has
been ratified by 87 countries; 139 countries have signed it. The Court
will try only the most serious perpetrators of mass crimes against
humanity, war crimes and genocide. It will try them only if national
courts cannot or will not do so. The ICC is the legacy of the
Nuremberg Trials, the Yugoslav Tribunal, and the Rwandan Tribunal: It
is the world's answer to the need for permanent accountability and
justice for the worst crimes known to humanity.”
“The ICC is governed by its own inter-governmental body (the
Assembly of States Parties), which will choose its judges and manage
its finances and administration. It is a treaty organization
independent of, but with close relations with, the United Nations.”
*** “The United States has played an active and important role in
establishing international human rights law and negotiating the Rome
Statute. However, the US has refused to join the ICC, citing
insufficient safeguards for US military personnel.” ****
Read “The Washington Working Group on the International Criminal
Court.”
http://www.wfa.org/issues/wicc/about.html
******************************************************************************
Although President Clinton signed the treaty in December 2000, just
weeks before he left office, neither Clinton or President Bush
submitted the treaty to the Senate for ratification.
******************************************************************************
Controversy over the Bush Administration’s Position
*******************************************
“The May 2002 decision to refuse to sign the ICC treaty “was hailed
by conservatives long skeptical of the ICC but was immediately
attacked by leading human rights groups and many of the 66 nations —
including almost all of America's NATO allies — that had ratified the
treaty.”
“Rep. Bob Barr, Georgia Republican, said the Bush administration
"showed real courage and leadership today in refusing to sacrifice
America's constitutional principles to those bent on creating a
one-world government."
“House International Relations Committee Chairman Henry J. Hyde,
Illinois Republican, said the United States "simply cannot accept an
international institution that claims jurisdiction over American
citizens superior to that of our Constitution."
“But officials in Canada, who spearheaded the effort to create the
global court, expressed sharp disappointment at the decision, as did
leaders of the European Union.
“Canadian Foreign Minister Bill Graham told reporters in Ottawa, "I
think there's a certain irony in the fact that the United States,
which tends to extraterritorially apply its laws rather widely, is not
willing to participate in a truly international consensus" for the
ICC.”
“Officials in the State Department's office of international
organizations and legal affairs office resisted the decision to
withdraw from the court, a senior administration official said.”
"Even now, some in the State Department are in denial about the
president's action," said the official, speaking on the condition of
anonymity. William H. Taft IV, the State Department's top legal
adviser, has been a key advocate of keeping the United States involved
in the treaty.”
“The action is viewed as a victory for Defense Secretary Donald H.
Rumsfeld "that has been long in coming," the official said. "This has
been actively frustrated by the State Department bureaucracy."
Read “U.S. Withdraws from Treaty on International Criminal Court,” By
David R. Sands. The Washington Times (May 7, 2002) at
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20020507-71388400.htm
How Could Participation in the International Criminal Court Affect the
US War on Terrorism?
***************************************************************************
1.There is a fear that “American citizens would be open to potentially
politically motivated prosecutions.”
Even though the ICC treaty, (also known as the “Rome Treaty) when
approved by the Clinton Administration, contained potential safeguards
“designed to discourage overzealous prosecutors or judges with
political agendas from sitting in judgment on whether the U.S., while
fighting terrorism, has trespassed against its vague definition of a
"crime of aggression." opponents of the ICC still have some genuine
concerns.
The main uneasiness is the lack of an “ultimate safeguard: a U.S.
veto in the form of a requirement that the U.N. Security Council
specifically vote to authorize each new investigation. Under the
present language, an ICC investigation of an alleged war crime or
crime against humanity can proceed -- unless all five permanent
members of the Security Council agree to suspend it.”
(Though the wording in the treaty offers some protection by stating
that ICC must defer to United States jurisdiction in cases involving
United States citizens or service personnel, proceeding in such cases
only if it determines that the United States has decided not to
prosecute the person concerned and that the decision resulted from the
unwillingness or inability of the United States to prosecute the
alleged crime,” this wording is not considered to be a concrete
safeguard.”
2.Another fear is that the International Criminal Court could “claim
jurisdiction over citizens of countries that have not agreed to be
members of it. “According to Jesse Helms, [M]any Americans may not
realize that the Rome Treaty can apply to Americans even if the Senate
has declined to ratify the treaty."
The above information is from “U.S. to Nix Participation in
International Criminal Court,” by Dave Eberhart, NewsMax (May 6, 2002)
at http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/5/5/130406.shtml
3. “The ICC's potential to go after U.S. military personnel in
"politicized prosecutions and investigations" could disrupt the Bush
administration's global war on terrorism or other military and
peacekeeping deployments around the globe.”
Read “U.S. Withdraws from Treaty on International Criminal Court,” By
David R. Sands. The Washington Times (May 7, 2002) at
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20020507-71388400.htm
The following excerpts are from “UN Criminal Court Threatens U.S.
Soldiers In Fight Against Terrorism,” by Tom DeWeese. American Policy
Center. (Feb. 26, 2002) at
http://www.americanpolicy.org/un/uncriminalcourt.htm :
“U.S. soldiers and pilots are risking their lives fighting the
terrorists who killed almost 5,000 innocent Americans on September
11th. They have been using massive firepower to rain destruction down
on the hide outs of Osama bin Laden and those who help to hide him.
Once the evil ones are destroyed in Afghanistan, the war theater will
shift to other nations that aid and abet terrorists. Our soldiers are
heroes in the tradition of the Doughboys of World War I and the GI’s
of World War II, who also sought to vanquish evil from the face of the
earth.”
“However, when our conquering heroes come home, rather than victory
parades, they may face criminal prosecution. And they may find
themselves tried for war crimes by judges from the very countries they
just defeated. Such is the reality of the United Nation’s
International Criminal Court (ICC).”
“UN propaganda sells the vision of the ICC as a tool for bringing
international criminals like bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and Libya’s
Qadhafi to justice. The truth is, the court is more likely to be used
as a tool for those criminals, against the United States. In a letter
to President Bush, Senator Jesse Helms said, "instead of helping the
United States go after real war criminals and terrorists, the
International Criminal Court has the unbridled power to intimidate our
military people and other citizens with bogus, politicized
prosecutions. Similar creations of the United Nations have shown this
to be inevitable."
** Read entire article for a very interesting perspective! **
Bush Administration Considered Arrogant by Some
*****************************************
The “American Service Members Protection Act,”
http://www.iccnow.org/pressroom/factsheets/FS-WFA-ASPAbySection.doc ,
signed into law in August 2002, is considered by many countries as a
sign of US arrogance.
“The bill includes provisions that prohibit U.S. cooperation with the
ICC, restrict U.S. participation in U.N. peacekeeping, prohibit
sharing the U.S intelligence with the ICC and prohibit military
assistance to most countries that ratify the ICC Rome Statute. It also
authorizes the president to use "all means necessary and appropriate"
to free from captivity members of the Armed Forces of the United
States or allied personnel detained or imprisoned by or on behalf of
the ICC. Included in that label is the military invasion of ICC, which
will be headquartered in the Netherlands--in the event that Americans
are held there.”
* On the other hand, the bill allows the United States full ability
to assist in bringing other international war criminals to justice. *
“Nothing in this title shall prohibit the United States from
rendering assistance to international efforts to bring to justice
Saddam Hussein, Slobodan Milosevic, Osama bin Laden, other members of
Al Qaeda, leaders of Islamic Jihad, and other foreign nationals
accused of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity," the
section says.”
The American Service Members Protection Act is seen by other
countries as a haughty step taken by the United States to provide
special exemption from participating in the International Criminal
Court.
“Bill Pace, Convenor of the Coalition for the International Criminal
Court said that "the U.S. demanded special exemptions from ICC
jurisdiction for its personnel because of its military power and its
leadership in the world. It was a proposal that could not have been
accepted."
“Pace emphasized that no one should be granted immunity from the ICC
jurisdiction, no matter who they are. "These are crimes considered an
assault on dignity of human kind and all governments should be held
accountable," Pace said.
Read “War Against Terrorism: Controversy Deepens Over International
Criminal Court,” by Tatjana Jegdic. The Earth Times Daily. (July 29,
2002) at http://www.earthtimes.org/jul/waragainstterrorismjul29_02.htm
Additional Information
********************
Refer to the 2002 letter from the Lawyer's Committee for Human
Rights, written by Executive Director Micheal Posener, highlighting
the many reasons that President Bush should not “unsign” the
International Criminal Court Treaty, at
http://www.lchr.org/IJP/icc.htm
Read “International Criminal Court Still Threatens Americans,” by Wes
Vernon. NewsMax.com (May 7, 2002) at
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/5/6/154932.shtml
There is certainly a wealth of information written about this topic,
terrorism, and how the United States can best deal with the threat
against the United States. I hope the information above gives you an
overall perspective of how the International Criminal Court could
impede the U.S. and its actions in fighting terrorism.
umiat-ga
Google Search Strategy
international criminal court
+US war on terrorism +international criminal court
american service members protection act |
Clarification of Answer by
umiat-ga
on
11 Jan 2003 16:42 PST
Hello again, Zippo,
I am sorry that my original answer was unclear. The background
information that I included in my original answer may have caused you
to pass over the answer to your question. The information which
directly answered your question was included under the heading:
How Could Participation in the International Criminal Court Affect the
US War on Terrorism?
***************************************************************************
At this point in time, the theories about how the existence of the
ICC may affect the US war on terrorism are theoretical, at best. The
primary potential "threats" from the ICC against the US war on
terrorism are basically included within the reasons the US does not
want to sign the treaty in the first place!
The 3 main points listed under this heading in my original answer are
the main areas that could cause trouble in the war against terrorism.
As yet, no instances have occurred, so they are the main speculative
problems seen arising from the International Criminal Court.
If you thoroughly read “UN Criminal Court Threatens US. Soldiers in
Fight Against Terrorism” at
http://www.americanpolicy.org/un/uncriminalcourt.htm , the article
goes into further detail concerning how the International Criminal
Court can create possible allegations against US soldiers and
tremendously impact the effectiveness of combat actions. I have
highlighted some excerpts for you in my initial answer, which I will
again excerpt here:
“However, when our conquering heroes come home, rather than victory
parades,
* they may face criminal prosecution. And they may find themselves
tried for war crimes by judges from the very countries they just
defeated. Such is the reality of the United Nation’s International
Criminal Court (ICC).” *
“UN propaganda sells the vision of the ICC as a tool for bringing
international criminals like bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and Libya’s
Qadhafi to justice. The truth is, the court is more likely to be used
as a tool for those criminals, against the United States. In a letter
to President Bush, Senator Jesse Helms said, "instead of helping the
United States go after real war criminals and terrorists, the
International Criminal Court has the unbridled power to intimidate our
military people and other citizens with bogus, politicized
prosecutions. Similar creations of the United Nations have shown this
to be inevitable."
***************************************************************************
Therefore, the main threat against our country and war on terrorism
is that our own soldiers could potentially be tried for war crimes
under the International Criminal Court. Thus, the very potential for
possible prosecution can undermine the confidence of our military.
****************************************************************************
The article goes on to discuss the ramifications that threats from
the International Criminal Court could have on the confidence of
soldiers and countries combating the “War on Terrorism.”
“Unlike any other treaty in history, the UN International Criminal
Court ignores national laws and declares jurisdiction over all
nations, whether they have ratified it or not.”
“The ICC defines as a war crime, any attack by our soldiers with
knowledge that inescapable collateral deaths or injuries "to civilians
or damage to civilian objects or wide-spread, long-term damage to the
natural environment... would be clearly excessive in relation to the
concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated." In other
words, you can have a war, but don’t break anything and don’t hurt
civilians or the environment.
** “It is physically impossible for the military to comply with
those restrictions and still achieve its mission. Bombs go awry.
Civilians get in the way. Intelligence agents make mistakes and target
the wrong buildings. In the early days of the war on terrorism, with
little intelligence on the ground, U.S. bombs mistakenly fell into a
residential neighborhood and killed civilians. A Cruise missile
strayed from its target and may have killed some UN operatives who
were working to clear mines. Several civilians were killed in an
Afghan village during bombing runs.
** Are the U.S. soldiers who are responsible for these actions to be
prosecuted by the ICC?” **
“But the International Criminal Court represents even greater threats
to American sovereignty and Constitutionally-guaranteed liberties.
Unlike the American system of justice, the ICC would not perform
trials by juries of peers; would not guarantee bail; and would not
grant prisoners the right to face their accusers. The United States
judicial system would not be permitted to intervene on behalf of
American citizens.”
************************************************************************
The weakening of US independence in pursuing terrorists is a very
real potential of the International Court.
*************************************************************************
“The UN’s International Criminal Court is a dangerous and powerful
tool for those who seek to weaken the independence of the United
States. Senator Daschle and the rest of Congress have a duty to
protect the U.S. Constitution from attack by the UN’s ICC.”
All of the above is excerpted from “UN Criminal Court Threatens US.
Soldiers in Fight Against Terrorism” at
http://www.americanpolicy.org/un/uncriminalcourt.htm
*****************************************************************************
Another ramification of the International Criminal Court’s impact on
the war on terrorism is that it is casting fears in the citizens of
allies who have pledged to support us in our efforts, but have joined
the ICC.
*************************************************************************
Look at the case of Britain:
Excerpts from the recent article, titled “Fight the Good Fight,” by
Kenneth Roth. The Guardian (10/22/2001) at
http://hrw.org/editorials/2002/ken-1022.htm follow:
“Before joining the US in a war on Iraq, Blair must lay down the law
on key human rights principles. If he doesn't, British troops could
face war crimes charges at the International Criminal Court, argues
Kenneth Roth.
“If America and Britain were to go to war against Iraq, it would be
the first British military action to be subject to ICC scrutiny.
Having taken legal effect on July 1, this permanent tribunal for
genocide, war crimes, or crimes against humanity can exercise
jurisdiction if such crimes are committed by a national or on a
territory of a government that has ratified the court's
treaty….Neither the United States nor Iraq is among the 81 governments
that have ratified that treaty so far, but Britain and the entire
European Union are. The ICC thus could prosecute British forces for
war crimes committed in Iraq, even though American forces would be
exempt. The ICC would act only if British authorities were unwilling
or unable to seek justice, but even this limited oversight is
significant.”
(Please read the remainder of the article for a more comprehensive
view!)
***********************************************************************
The US-led war on terrorism is also being affected by an increasing
view among potential supporters that we are mistaken in our refusal to
join the ICC, thus effectively undermining the US position against
terrorism.
*****************************************************************************
“Rather than launch a counterproductive international campaign
against the ICC, the US should actively help to establish it and the
Senate should ratify the treaty, rather than be completely isolated
from the process. The reality is the ICC comes on-line July 1, and it
will affect our foreign policies and our relations with our valued
allies.”
Read “Coalition Built on Shifting Sands? by Bill Miller. Former Chair
United Nations Association of USA 's Council of Chapters and Divisions
at http://comm-org.utoledo.edu/pipermail/announce/2002-July/000263.html
As I said earlier, the predictions of how the ICC will affect the war
on terrorism build on the very reasons the US is hesitant to sign the
treaty in the first place. I hope this has given you a clearer
understanding.
umiat-ga
|
