It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by Xcathdra
And this really bothers me. It goes to the point in the OP that sovereignty belongs to The People, not the State.
If the ICC cannot act within its own charter, there is no reason to trust that tyranny will not be an end result. A mockery of truth and liberty.
It is why i am so on the fence with this particular issue.
Originally posted by aptness
Contrary to what torture apologists and Bush doctrine supporters would want you to believe,
Originally posted by aptness
the International Criminal Court’s statute (Rome Statute) “contains the most comprehensive list of due process protections which has so far been promulgated,” and “[t]he list of due process rights guaranteed by the Rome Statute are, if anything, more detailed and comprehensive than those in the American Bill of Rights.”
Originally posted by aptness
“I can think of no right guaranteed to military personnel by the U.S. Constitution that is not also guaranteed in the Treaty of Rome.”
Originally posted by aptness
These are the words of Monroe Leigh, former President of the American Society of International Law, and former legal advisor of the Department of State and the Department of Defense, appointed by Henry Kissinger — hardly an advocate of anti-Americanism.
Mr. Leigh made this chart, a side-by-side comparison between the protections and rights in the ICC statute and the US Constitution. There you can see that, and far from what you are being told, the ICC statute is not in any way offensive to the Constitution.
Originally posted by aptness
Additionally, here is a list of dispelled myths regarding the ICC by the international human rights organization Human Rights Watch.
Originally posted by aptness
The opposition to the ICC by the United States has nothing to do with lack of rights afforded to the accused,
Genocide:
Article 6
Genocide
For the purpose of this Statute, "genocide" means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
Originally posted by aptness
but rather, because the US tried to maintain some control over the ICC, seeking modifications to the Rome Statute that would “enable it to sign the treaty,” proposing “agreed interpretations” of certain provisions, and even seeking clauses in the “relationship agreement” between the ICC and the United Nations that would exempt certain US citizens from the Court’s jurisdiction so long as the US was not a party, or unless the US gave it consent on a case-by-case basis.
ICC - Article 7 - Crimes against humanity
Part D - Deportation or forcible transfer of population
Part E - Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law
Part H - Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender as defined in paragraph 3, or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law, in connection with any act referred to in this paragraph or any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court;
Originally posted by aptness
This was obviously not acceptable, as preferential treatment would violate international law and would, in essence, delegitimize the Court.
Article 4
Legal status and powers of the Court
1. The Court shall have international legal personality. It shall also have such legal capacity as may be necessary for the exercise of its functions and the fulfilment of its purposes.
2. The Court may exercise its functions and powers, as provided in this Statute, on the territory of any State Party and, by special agreement, on the territory of any other State.
Originally posted by aptness
The US along with Iran, Iraq, China, Israel, Sudan and Libya, were the only 7 nations in 1998 to vote against the Rome Statute, in contrast with the 120 that voted in favor, including all European and NATO allies.
Originally posted by aptness
President Clinton signed the treaty in 2000 but didn’t submit it for ratification by the Senate.
Originally posted by aptness
The US, during the Bush administration, in 2002, when it couldn’t assure the exemption for certain US officials, and not wanting to submit to the same rules it insists others submit to, withdrew the United States signature from the Rome treaty. The US is one of three countries to withdraw its signature from the treaty, along with Israel and Sudan.
Originally posted by aptness
ICC critics point to Libya, and the recent referral of the possible international law violations by the Gaddafi regime, as an example that the ICC doesn’t work because this referral is against the statute of the Court, because “Libya is not a signatory to the ICC.”
This is incorrect. Article 13(b) of the Rome Statute specifies that the UN Security Council can refer a case to the Court, and can do so even if the alleged crimes occurred in the territory of a non-signatory. And this is what happened with Libya.
Originally posted by aptness
Only two cases, in the history of the Court, have been referred by the Security Council. There was complete agreement of the Council, with 15 votes in favor, including the United States, none against and no abstentions, to start an investigation regarding the actions of the Libyan regime. The other case referred by the Council was Darfur, in 2005.
Article 16
Deferral of investigation or prosecution
No investigation or prosecution may be commenced or proceeded with under this Statute for a period of 12 months after the Security Council, in a resolution adopted under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, has requested the Court to that effect; that request may be renewed by the Council under the same conditions.
Originally posted by aptness
It’s funny to see the torture apologists and Bush doctrine supporters, in their opposition to the ICC, put in the position of siding with the brutal regime of Gaddafi, instead of with the efforts of the international community to investigate and prosecute those who committed indiscriminate attacks against their own civilian population.
Originally posted by aptness
That should tell you something.
The International Criminal Court (ICC) is an independent, permanent court that tries persons accused of the most serious crimes of international concern, namely genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. The ICC is based on a treaty, joined by 114 countries.
The ICC is a court of last resort. It will not act if a case is investigated or prosecuted by a national judicial system unless the national proceedings are not genuine, for example if formal proceedings were undertaken solely to shield a person from criminal responsibility. In addition, the ICC only tries those accused of the gravest crimes.
In all of its activities, the ICC observes the highest standards of fairness and due process. The jurisdiction and functioning of the ICC are governed by the Rome Statute.
.............The Court shall exercise jurisdiction over the crime of aggression once a provision is adopted defining the crime and setting out the conditions under which the Court shall exercise jurisdiction with respect to it.
The jurisdiction of the ICC will be complementary to national courts, which means that the Court will only act when countries themselves are unable or unwilling to investigate or prosecute............
Only the right to trial by jury is missing from the Rome Treaty because of the impracticality of impaneling a jury to hear a case against someone like Pol Pot or Slobodan Milosevic. But the United States has long accepted that its citizens (including U.S. service members) will not get jury trials when accused of crimes in countries like France or Japan, where juries are not used. The United States has signed extradition treaties with many countries that explicitly permit Americans to be tried without a jury.
Note that 12(2) specifically omits 13(b) from that provision when the “states are parties” (signatories) or “have accepted the jurisdiction” of the ICC. This is because Article 13(b) is the Security Council referral provision.
In the case of article 13, paragraph (a) or (c), the Court may exercise its jurisdiction if one or more of the following States are Parties to this Statute or have accepted the jurisdiction of the Court in accordance with paragraph 3
The Court may exercise its jurisdiction with respect to a crime referred to in article 5 in accordance with the provisions of this Statute if: ... (b) A situation in which one or more of such crimes appears to have been committed is referred to the Prosecutor by the Security Council acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations
When a matter is referred by the Security Council, the Court has jurisdiction regardless of whether the State concerned is a party to the ICC treaty.
Following years of negotiations aimed at establishing a permanent international tribunal to prosecute individuals who commit genocide and other serious international crimes, the United Nations General Assembly convened a five-week diplomatic conference in Rome in June 1998 "to finalize and adopt a convention on the establishment of an international criminal court". On 17 July 1998, the Rome Statute was adopted by a vote of 120 to 7, with 21 countries abstaining.
To date, the Court has opened investigations into six situations, all of them in Africa: Northern Uganda, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the Central African Republic, Darfur (Sudan), the Republic of Kenya and Libya. Of these six, three were referred to the Court by the states parties (Uganda, Democratic Republic of the Congo and Central African Republic), two were referred by the United Nations Security Council (Darfur and Libya) and only one was begun proprio motu by the Prosecutor (Kenya).
Originally posted by aptness
The ICC critics and Bush doctrine supporters make the bogus claims that the ICC violates the Constitution because of “limitations of due process” protections, yet as you can see from the chart I mentioned above — but didn’t link correctly and my apologies to the interested parties — every single one of those bogus claims is debunked.
Originally posted by aptness
While it is true there is no trial by jury in the ICC — the only divergence with the Constitution —
Originally posted by aptness
the critics don’t mention the fact that US citizens, including military personnel, are already tried for crimes in countries where jury trials are not used — one of those countries being Israel, but they don’t mention this because it doesn’t support their narrative.
Originally posted by aptness
This fact was explained on the Human Rights Watch ICC fact page, I previously linked—
Only the right to trial by jury is missing from the Rome Treaty because of the impracticality of impaneling a jury to hear a case against someone like Pol Pot or Slobodan Milosevic. But the United States has long accepted that its citizens (including U.S. service members) will not get jury trials when accused of crimes in countries like France or Japan, where juries are not used. The United States has signed extradition treaties with many countries that explicitly permit Americans to be tried without a jury.
Originally posted by aptness
Further demonstrating their ignorance of the Rome Statute and the ICC, the critics insist the ICC “cannot be used against a nation that is not a signatory to the treaty,” and this, they claim, is based on the ICC statute itself.
Originally posted by aptness
Leaving aside the monumental lack of understanding and obvious incorrection that the ICC doesn’t investigate or prosecute nations but individual people, the Rome Statute, in Article 12 and Article 13 — namely 12(2) and 13(b), respectively — specify that the ICC has jurisdiction over crimes committed in the territory of non-signatories in case of a United Nations Security Council referral.
Originally posted by aptness
namely 12(2) and 13(b), respectively — specify that the ICC has jurisdiction over crimes committed in the territory of non-signatories in case of a United Nations Security Council referral.
Originally posted by aptness
Artiucle 12 / article13
Originally posted by aptness
Comically, and demonstrative of their disingenuousness, in trying to perpetuate lies about the ICC and attempting to discredit the information I presented, this critic actually has the audacity to link to this page — supposedly supporting his claims and disproving mine — but where we can actually read, among other things, the following unequivocal statement—
When a matter is referred by the Security Council, the Court has jurisdiction regardless of whether the State concerned is a party to the ICC treaty.
This is how disingenuous the ICC critics and Bush doctrine supporters are. They make bogus claims and provide numerous links they don’t even bother to read and purposely ignore the information that debunk their claims.
Originally posted by aptness
The critics, continuing their spectacular demonstration of ignorance, claim things like “there is no vote on the Rome Statute,” and that I couldn’t even get the numbers right, in order to confuse people and dismiss the information I presented. Even a simple wikipedia consultation would confirm the information I posted—
Following years of negotiations aimed at establishing a permanent international tribunal to prosecute individuals who commit genocide and other serious international crimes, the United Nations General Assembly convened a five-week diplomatic conference in Rome in June 1998 "to finalize and adopt a convention on the establishment of an international criminal court". On 17 July 1998, the Rome Statute was adopted by a vote of 120 to 7, with 21 countries abstaining.
Originally posted by aptness
Another bogus claim made was that I was wrong about my statement that “only two cases, in the history of the Court, have been referred by the Security Council” I made in my previous post. Again, a simple wikipedia consultation would confirm these facts—
To date, the Court has opened investigations into six situations, all of them in Africa: Northern Uganda, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the Central African Republic, Darfur (Sudan), the Republic of Kenya and Libya. Of these six, three were referred to the Court by the states parties (Uganda, Democratic Republic of the Congo and Central African Republic), two were referred by the United Nations Security Council (Darfur and Libya) and only one was begun proprio motu by the Prosecutor (Kenya).
Originally posted by aptness
The ICC critics and Bush doctrine supporters have no shame, and will gleefully spread lies and try to confuse people, contrary to the spirit of AboveTopSecret. I hope this post has been elucidative of their tactics.
Originally posted by aptness
I will gladly respond to the serious and intelligent members who wish to further debate the facts.
Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by GovtFlu
You read to far into my post. I am pointing out that the ICC specifically says it cannot be applied to countries who are not signatories of it. As we are seeing now, the ICC is ignoring its own rules by entertaining charges against Libya.
Article 6
Genocide
For the purpose of this Statute, "genocide" means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
Article 7
Crimes against Humanity
For the purpose of this Statute, "crime against humanity" means any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack:
(a) Murder;
(b) Extermination;
(c) Enslavement;
(d) Deportation or forcible transfer of population;
(e) Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law;
(f) Torture;
(g) Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity;
(h) Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender as defined in paragraph 3, or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law, in connection with any act referred to in this paragraph or any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court;
(i) Enforced disappearance of persons;
(j) The crime of apartheid;
(k) Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.
Originally posted by acrux
Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by sirjunlegun
Theoretically speaking (another reason the US did not sign the treaties) US soldiers could be detained and charged under the ICC for doing their jobs in Iraq and Afghanistan.
So murdering innocent civilians & stealing a countries resources qualifies as doing their job in your eyes.
Typical US arrogance.
Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by GovtFlu
The problem is it wont stop the war. Since the UN is not a soveriegn entity, and does not exercise control over member nations, they can pass all the resolutions or laws they want, it cannot force a country to abide by them. The countries will fall back to their domestic laws, which is the problem.
Its a circular argument to state the UN laws should trump domestic country laws, when the premise itself violates a nations sovereignty in the first place, which is the reason for the armed conflict.