U.S. Troops Must Not Be at the Mercy of the ICC

...the US will need to worry about our troops/citizens being held to laws and rules that might be contrary to the US constitution.

This topic is interesting. I'd like to hear more about it from someone smart and unbiased. Can you guys all leave?

Thanks

This topic is interesting. I'd like to hear more about it from someone smart and unbiased. Can you guys all leave?

Thanks

It is my understanding that the US govt believes the US law and court system is competent enough to take care of US citizens and that our constitution trumps international law when applied to it's citizenry.

McGentrix wrote:

It is my understanding that the US govt believes the US law and court system is competent enough to take care of US citizens and that our constitution trumps international law when applied to it's citizenry.

If this really is so, why bother?

As I said: either the senator (and obviously you, too) don't know much but write/publish a lot about the ICC or ... :wink:

kickycan wrote:

This topic is interesting. I'd like to hear more about it from someone smart and unbiased. Can you guys all leave?

Thanks

I'm gonna assume there is an element of humor in that word "all"...that I have missed here!

The United States is not a party to the ICC and does not recognize its jurisdiction. Even so, the court can currently arrest and prosecute our troops and personnel operating in U.N. peacekeeping missions if the host nation is a member of the ICC, accepts its jurisdiction voluntarily, or is directed by the U.N. Security Council.

It is my understanding that the US govt believes the US law and court system is competent enough to take care of US citizens and that our constitution trumps international law when applied to it's citizenry.

US admits more Afghan jail deaths

The US army has admitted that eight detainees have died in its custody in Afghanistan - two more than it had previously acknowledged.
The army's admission came after the campaign group Human Rights Watch said it knew of three new incidents.

The group sent an open letter to US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, saying the US has failed to investigate or punish abuses by its soldiers.

A US official said at least three deaths were still being investigated.



"It's time for the United States to come clean about crimes committed by US forces in Afghanistan," said Brad Adams, Asia Division director for Human Rights Watch (HRW).
A failure to prosecute soldiers for incidents in Afghanistan had led to "a culture of impunity" which may have spread to Iraq, he said.

There was fury earlier this year when photographs emerged of Iraqi prisoners being physically and sexually abused by American prison guards.

The latest revelations are a further embarrassment for the US military and will only intensify scrutiny of the way it treats its prisoners, says the BBC's Ian Pannell in Washington.

Four accused

The US military said eight deaths in Afghanistan had been documented.

It released only basic details of the cases, which included:


A "Mr M Sayari", killed in August 2002. The army said the case had been investigated and closed.
HRW pointed to an investigation launched into a death about this time, in which four soldiers were accused of murder. But it said there was no record of any court martial against the accused.


Sher Mohammed Khan, who died in September this year after being arrested near Khost. The army said initial reports suggested he had a heart attack, though investigations were continuing.
HRW says the documents only came to light after a request by another US campaign group under the Freedom of Information Act.
HRW says it is aware of "only a handful of criminal investigations" into the cases and into many claims of torture by detainees.


It says it knows of only two US personnel being charged with any crime.
The HRW letter also claims that the US-run detention system in Afghanistan operates entirely outside the rule of law, and that commanders have repeatedly refused requests for visits by the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission.

HRW also urged the US military to publish a delayed internal report on its Afghan detention centres.

The US authorities promised to release parts of the report several months ago, but a spokesman said on Monday that no date had been set for publishing the report because its findings were still being reviewed in Washington - but that no abuses had been uncovered.

By using my quote, I assume you are using this article of an example of what I said. These cases are being investigated by US investigators. Just as Abu Ghraib was.

How would this be an example of why the ICC should be able to have jurisdiction over US citizens or soldiers?

The following has nothing to do with ICC :
[...]

The United States is not a party to the ICC and does not recognize its jurisdiction. Even so, the court can currently arrest and prosecute our troops and personnel operating in U.N. peacekeeping missions if the host nation is a member of the ICC, accepts its jurisdiction voluntarily, or is directed by the U.N. Security Council.

Consider: A U.N. report issued last week called for the Security Council to refer suspected cases of war crimes to the ICC. Almost simultaneously, war crimes charges were filed in a German court against Defense Secretary Rumsfeld for prison abuses at Abu Graib in Iraq.

A German human rights group argued, under the much abused and misunderstood concept of "universal jurisdiction," that any citizen or group can file a claim against any world leader who may be guilty of committing crimes against humanity. Can anyone reasonably believe that more such cases are not soon to follow?

Although the Clinton Administration helped negotiate the terms and scope of the ICC, and even signed the treaty that created it in 1998, it was never submitted to the Senate for ratification. On May 6, 2002, the Bush Administration formally renounced any commitment to join the ICC or recognize its jurisdiction, citing fundamental structural flaws that would allow the court to undermine the role of the U.N. Security Council in maintaining international peace and security, as well as concerns over unchecked prosecutorial power and efforts to assert jurisdiction over citizens of states that have not ratified the treaty.

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Or - might be he had, but he thinks, e.g. that the USA doesn' have a functional juridical system?

It is my understanding that the US govt believes the US law and court system is competent enough to take care of US citizens and that our constitution trumps international law when applied to it's citizenry. With this being the case, an international organization like the ICC can only undermine foriegn relations because the US will need to worry about our troops/citizens being held to laws and rules that might be contrary to the US constitution.

As usual, Walter is correct. Uncharacteristically, however, he failed to provide a link to the primary source (really, Walter, I'm disappointed!). Here's the official website of the ICC.