World leaders could face prosecution for acts of state aggression — potentially including the invasion of Iraq — under calls for the International Criminal Court to extend its powers.
Britain and the US are among nations wary of such a move. The change would make “manifest violation of the Charter of the United Nations” an indictable offence at the court, which currently prosecutes those responsible for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide.
[...]
Adding the crime of state aggression to the ICC’s remit “would be a significant step forward in the development of international law and an important extension of the court’s jurisdiction”, said Christian Wenaweser, president of the Assembly of States Parties to the ICC, meeting in the Ugandan capital.He added that the Security Council should be the first body to determine whether state aggression had taken place. Some pressure groups think that this would compromise the court’s independence. While the definition of what constitutes an act of aggression has been hotly contested, the key is who decides when the criteria are met.Human Rights Watch said that it had “long opposed control of any crime within the court’s jurisdiction by external bodies because it would undermine the ICC’s judicial independence”.
#20 The UCMJ should be sufficient to hold our military accountable for their actions. I was subject to the UCMJ when I was in the military and believe me, it covers everything.
Our military is sworn to protect the Constitution of the United States and they should be protected by that same Constitution if there is allegations of misconduct. No ifs, thens, or buts about it.
The UN is a corrupt organization and its International Criminal Court is by its very nature prejudiced against US citizens and I really doubt that justice could possibly be served.
I advocate that the US should leave the UN, expel its diplomats from our soil, and stop giving money or support to that organization. We would better be served making our own treaties with the various foreign governments than be involved with a organization like the UN.
Also, do you think that the ICC will assert more crimes under its jurisdiction? How soon until Americans can be prosecuted in the ICC for mere speech. A US citizen could be arrested for speech over the Internet and be shipped overseas and tried without benefit of their Constitutional rights.
#16 “We were supposed to be the good guys…”
Yes we were.
Sadly, it’s been a very long time – at least as far back as Teddy Roosevelt – since we’ve been “the good guys”.
England had the Hudson Bay Company to colonize North America, and its army to colonize India in order to get cheap cotton, and on and on.
We took over the Phillipines (since given their independence), Guam (still a US Territory), American Samoa (a US territory from which we get football players and where we have US factories with slave-like labor conditions), and Puerto Rico (where our manufacturers get immense tax breaks they could not get on the mainland. G-d forbid they do their fair share to support the country that allows them to exist).
I could go on; but it’s the same old imperialistic story. The only things that have changed are the players.
It’s about time we stopped deluding ourselves. It would save a lot of American lives.
#21 Benjamin -
Don’t wave your military service as proof of expertise in my face… I also served 8 years honorably.
You didn’t even read my post. Do you realize that over 70% of our current ‘military’ is not subject to the UCMJ, because it is composed of civilians? That means that out of our current ‘military’, only 3 out of 10 are subject to the UCMJ. As has been shown in Iraq, a large portion of our ‘military’ is not subject to ANY laws, either local or military or US laws.
Also, the UCMJ consists of the military judging itself, and is not independent by any means. The UCMJ can (and has bee used) as a means to hide misconduct at the level where an international tribunal would be judging. It is secret and basically unaccountable to the civilian population.
But this is not about the US military. We should expect and assume that they will behave honorably. It is about the military of other countries, and the opportunity for us to hold them accountable for their actions.
Suppose that there is a massacre done by the military of country ‘A’. It is well documented, yet the leadership of country ‘A’ refuses to deal with it’s own military misconduct. As in Bosnia, or Uganda, or Mexico, or the US… how is the international community supposed to deal with this? Just ignore it?
Some people are just so mind numbingly parochial, arrogant and ignorant!
So there are corrupt people in the UN? There are corrupt people in corporations, governments and everywhere else. It is called being human. Deal with it.
If we prosecute criminal aggressors on our own, there is nothing for the UN to do.
We were not defending ourselves in Iraq. We were not even avenging what was done on 9/11 by Saudis etc who were based in Afghanistan.
We were being misled by some very criminals of our own who had got to the top. If you want to attack something bad, start with them!
Benjamin:
>>Our military is sworn to protect the Constitution of the United States and they should be protected by that same Constitution if there is allegations of misconduct. No ifs, thens, or buts about it.
Well, that just shows how little you know of military law and it’s relationship to the constitution.
People in the US military are not subject to the US Constitution. They may be sworn to defend it, but they are not subject to it or protected by it. Military personnel are not allowed free speech, freedom of movement, freedom to congregate. They are not guaranteed the right to a trial by their peers. You can not quit the military at any time if you want to. You can not refuse a ‘lawful order’, because the refusal is a military crime in itself. In the military, the UCMJ supersedes the Constitution.
#25 Awake said, on June 1st, 2010 at 1:32 pm
“In the military, the UCMJ supersedes the Constitution.”
Not quite true the UCMJ is subservient to the Constitution. The Constitution did make provisions for military law. I do not believe it said to sell our service members out to be tried by foreign courts.
“They are not guaranteed the right to a trial by their peers.”
Not true. You have the right to a court marshal that is by other members of the military and you have a JAG officer (lawyer) appointed to represent you. You have the right to not incriminate yourself under the 5th amendment as well.
“You can not quit the military at any time if you want to. You can not refuse a ‘lawful order’, because the refusal is a military crime in itself.”
So since you can’t really quit anytime you want and you have to follow orders when you are told to deploy to Iraq and fight, then how can you justify trying them in an International Court when that court takes a position that deploying to Iraq to fight is a “manifest violation of the Charter of the United Nations?” Is it damned if you do, damned if you don’t? Sounds like a shitty way to treat our servicemen on the day after Memorial Day.
I joined the military for college money. I served during peace time, but a war could have broken out anytime and I would have gone where they sent me and had to follow orders. I would have been angry if put in a catch 22 between following orders or being tried by the ICC. It’s wrong, short-sighted, and un-Constitutional and US citizens should never be subjected to an International Criminal Court.
Benjamin –
>>You have the right to a court marshal that is by other members of the military and you have a JAG officer (lawyer) appointed to represent you.
Not true. That only applies in ‘capital offenses’ such as murder and rape. You can not request a court martial in lieu of UCMJ article 13. The UCMJ requires a court martial for certain offenses, but leave the majority of offenses under the purview of the commanding officer, including imprisonment. In civilian life any felony allows for trial by a jury of your peers (and only a felony allows imprisonment).
Article 1 of the Constitution basically defines that you are not subject to the Constitution when you are serving in the military.
For example:
You live off base with your family. Your commanding officer dictates that there will be a “Health and Welfare” inspection and searches your residence of your house and only your house, including the rooms of your children. He does not require a warrant to search or even a reason to order the search. If items that are not allowed are found, you can be charged under the UCMJ. That would be utterly unconstitutional for the police to do to a civilian, but it is utterly allowed within the military.
>> You have the right to not incriminate yourself under the 5th amendment as well.
Again, not true. You do not have a right to plea the 5th amendment. You have a right to use Article 31 of the UCMJ, but that has NOTHING to do with the 5th amendment. Article 31 is part of the UCMJ, not the constitution. Again… you may not plea the 5th if you are a member of the military, since you are not given the same guarantees as the Constitution.
Another example. I am sure that when you served you were regularly asked to take a ‘piss test’. As a civilian, the worst that could happen is that you could lose your job if you had agreed to take regular piss-tests as a condition of your employment. In the military, a refusal to take a piss-test is a failure to obey a lawful order, punishable in many many ways, including prison. And if you take the piss test and failed, you would be subject to punishment also. You do not have the right to avoid self-incrimination by refusing to take a piss test.
Benjamin, your original claim is that it would be wrong for members of the military not to be covered by the constitution, when in reality they are not covered by the Constitution because the Constitution says they aren’t covered in the first place.
And ATTACKING A HUMANITARIAN CONVOY ON THE HIGH SEAS AND ***KILLING PEOPLE ON THE SHIP*** ???
#28 JimD
Don’t forget taking hostages, and forcing them to sign confessions in order to be released.
Pointless gesture as ICC needs the backing of the support of the UN to pull this off and if i remember correctly if any of the big 5 veto a motion it dies in committee, also the us likes its power of stomping under developed countries too much to let anyone hold them accountable.
“>>Our military is sworn to protect the Constitution of the United States and they should be protected by that same Constitution if there is allegations of misconduct. No ifs, thens, or buts about it.”
thats so horribly inaccurate i don’t even know where to begin.The military sucks the cock of whatever dip shit president we have regardless of domestic or international law as they see themselves as above it.
>> jman said, on June 1st, 2010 at 5:03 am
>> what about Mexico’s invasion of the US? will they rule on that and stop it?
Does it count as an invasion if the army comes “armed” with law rakes, baby wipes and toilet brushes?
Holding countries accountable for acts of aggression is a good idea but I’m not holding my breath that this will ever happen.
Cool. The UN Police can arrest Barack Obama for very same war crimes the libtards accused Bush of. Get busy!
Oh, wait. This is the same UN that puts Iran in charge of human rights issues.
Benji–you ever get the feeling you don’t know whats going on?
Can a virgin also be simply “untouched” by experience? I think so.
Read the full article, people! In a commentary, one of the participants in the ICC meeting says:
“… Firstly, it should be noted that the Court does not enjoy retroactive jurisdiction, so there is no possibility of it exercising jurisdiction over any crime of aggression that may have been committed by the 2003 invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq by the Coalition of the Willing. …”
Secondly, there is exactly zero chance that ordinary U.S. soldiers will be indicted or prosecuted by the International Criminal Court. Certainly no one under the rank of at least a 3-star general, and even then only if that person acted on his/her own.
When this court was proposed, Cheney and all his gang were loudly against it, trumpeting the danger to U.S. sovereignty. I thought at the time that they were just being their usual pugnacious “The U.S. is always Right (We Are Right!) and must be allowed to do whatever it wants!!!” selves. Little did I realize that their opposition was because they had actual plans!
We
Are
Right
#27 “Not true. That only applies in ‘capital offenses’ such as murder and rape.”
Or other “serious crimes” such as underage drinking. I was in the military and knew several people that requested court marshal for underage drinking. You can always have a court marshal in lieu of captain’s mast. They teach that in boot camp. It is basic stuff.
““Health and Welfare” inspection ”
These occur on base (not off base and at home) and there is general knowledge that they can happen. They were generally looking for things that attracted vermin, but I do have stories about other things that were found.
“You do not have the right to avoid self-incrimination by refusing to take a piss test.”
Taking a piss test is not self-incrimination. You know ahead of time that you could be subject to a drug test and you can just not take illegal drugs while you are serving in the military.
I did my 4+ years in the US Navy. I saw first hand the cost of defending america’s ‘freedom’. If by freedom you mean ‘strategic interests’ yeah I was part of that, unfortunately.
I got nothing against patriotism, or stupidity, or ignorance, but I do make an effort to avoid all three.
Not gonna happen. Senate would never ratify. More socialist wet dreaming.
“I never wanted to go into Iraq! It was Cheney. He’s the one who kept promising the WMDs! I’m the victim here!”