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.

 

Libya: ICC prosecutor seeks warrant for Gaddafi

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 16 2011 @ 07:40 AM
link   

Libya: ICC prosecutor seeks warrant for Gaddafi


www.bbc.co.uk

The International Criminal Court chief prosecutor is seeking the arrest of Libyan leader Col Muammar Gaddafi and two others for crimes against humanity.

Luis Moreno-Ocampo said Col Gaddafi, his son Saif al-Islam, and intelligence chief Abdullah al-Sanussi bore the greatest responsibility for "widespread and systematic attacks" on civilians.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on May, 16 2011 @ 07:40 AM
link   
Well here we go..... Love him or hate him, we knew it was coming.

Sorry if this was posted already but i couldnt find it in the search.

Lets see how this plays out.

What are your thoughts? Personaly i dont trust him but also dont trust the powers that be.... By the way i havnt posted for so long for these reasons.

Peace

www.bbc.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 07:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Master Shen long
 


Where's the warrants for G.W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Rumsfeld etc. Gaddafi's nothing. Come on ICC go after some real criminals.



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 07:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by AB173-1970
reply to post by Master Shen long
 


Where's the warrants for G.W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Rumsfeld etc. Gaddafi's nothing. Come on ICC go after some real criminals.


Never happen, they are sucking the ICC's worm.

On a side note its ironic the head of the global gangsters was arrested for sex crimes haaa



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 07:56 AM
link   

Luis Moreno-Ocampo said Col Gaddafi, his son Saif al-Islam, and intelligence chief Abdullah al-Sanussi bore the greatest responsibility for "widespread and systematic attacks" on civilians.


i think that now goes to NATO,as they now killed more civilians,then the rebels and gaddafi forces combined,with there nation bombing campaign in the name of freedom,and as the other poster already said,that bush,cheney and blair should be facing indictment outside the united states for crimes against humanity.



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 08:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheMaverick

Luis Moreno-Ocampo said Col Gaddafi, his son Saif al-Islam, and intelligence chief Abdullah al-Sanussi bore the greatest responsibility for "widespread and systematic attacks" on civilians.


i think that now goes to NATO,as they now killed more civilians,then the rebels and gaddafi forces combined,with there nation bombing campaign in the name of freedom,and as the other poster already said,that bush,cheney and blair should be facing indictment outside the united states for crimes against humanity.


Welcome to the matrix....BLue or red pill, either way your gonna have to bend over.

Shame.... lets hope the sheeple see it



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 08:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Master Shen long
 


Certainly an intresting, albeit illegal, move on the part of the ICC. The ICC is not a UN body and its own charter states it can only be used in 1 of 2 ways:

* - When a nation is a signatory to the treaty (which Libya is not)
* - When a non member country requests / refers a case to them(Libya has not).

Neither of which Libya has done...

While I agree with the sentiment about taking a more active approach when only humanitarian issues are present, it sets a dangerous precident.
edit on 16-5-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 01:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Master Shen long

Originally posted by AB173-1970
reply to post by Master Shen long
 


Where's the warrants for G.W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Rumsfeld etc. Gaddafi's nothing. Come on ICC go after some real criminals.


Never happen, they are sucking the ICC's worm.


US is not a signatory to the ICC. They took great protest to the idea of signing into the ICC (alongside total nuclear disarmament too, but that's another story). They claimed signing the ICC would put American's lives at risk or some usual BS like that



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 02:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
US is not a signatory to the ICC. They took great protest to the idea of signing into the ICC (alongside total nuclear disarmament too, but that's another story). They claimed signing the ICC would put American's lives at risk or some usual BS like that


Actually the US was a signatory to the treaty, however Congress never ratified it. President Bush withdrew the US when the Rome accords (follow up treaty covering other areas) had enough countries sign and ratify it to make it active.

The reason we dont sign it is because it violates our Constitution. While the ICC retains almost all the rights US citizens have, there are a few exceptions.

* Witnesses cannot be deposed / questioned prior to the trial,
* - It violates the Supremacy clause
* - There is no trial by jury
* - Double jeopardy is allowed by a term called error in facts.
* - Military personnell are not subject to civilian law while in performance of their duties, insted they are subject to the UCMJ. The ICC does not make an exception, which means military personnel are subject to civilian law. Civilian law and the UCMJ are not interchangable since they cover 2 completely seperate areas of law. It also causes conflict with our Status of Forces agreements, which specifically covers military personnel while stationed in foreign countries. Again, the ICC and the SOFA have completey different operational guidlines. What is valid under the SOFA would not be allowed by the ICC.

* - There is no guaranteed right to a speedy trial.
* - The way the ICC is worded, specifically the term called universal jurisdiction, would allow the ICC to prosectue Americans for crimes committed on US territory, ursurping domestic law as well as judicial jurisdiction.
* - It violates checks and balances. Under US law, the police (executive branch) investigate crimes. Those reports are then turned over to the Prosecuting Attorney (Judicial branch) for prosecution or denial of prosecution. Under the ICC the prosecutor is the investigating authority, creating a conflict of intrest.
* - While the jurisdiction of the ICC is confined to only a few specific crimes, the elements of those crimes are very broad and can be interpreted in different manners.
* - The ICC violates the 4th amendment in terms of how a search warrant is issued and executed.
* - The rules of evidence are completely different as well, so what would be thrown out in an american court would be allowed in the ICC.
* - There are no 5th amendment guarantees (self incrimination).
* - All that is needed to bring a charge is for a member state to make one, which can result in political retribution.It also gives the prosecutor the ability to file their own charges with the ICC.

* - There is no ability to appeal a decision made by the ICC
* - It places US citizens into a position of being deprived of redress of grievances.
The one glaring issue with the ICC is the fact they violate their own charter. Under the ICC, its specifically stated (Rome accords) that a non signatory nation does not fall within the jurisdiction of the ICC. Yet they are talking about charging Muammar Gadaffi and putting him on trial.

The only 2 methods for ICC jurisidction:
* - The nation is a signatory to the treaty
* - A non signatory nation requests ICC jurisdiction.

Libya is not a signatory to the treaty.


anyways, just my 2 cents.
edit on 17-5-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-5-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 03:31 AM
link   
Here is another thread on the subject
www.abovetopsecret.com...



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join