![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ebonlockBrief LOTR post:
For those interested in Hobbit architecture, I highly recommend:
Building Hobbit Holes.
I wanted to say how sorry I am that![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
elo_sf's lovely cat Daisy has been diagnosed with fibrous sarcoma. Vets are only beginning to understand feline cancers, and before you get your cat vaccinated you should discuss it in some depth with him or her. Fortunately my vet seems to be pretty on the ball and was the first to recommend that I minimize her shots to just rabies as she's an indoor cat and unlikely to come into contact with other cats. E- posted a great link on the subject for those interested in learning more:
http://www.geocities.com/~kremersark/aafp.html
The main argument I keep hearing from a lot of the pro-war folks these days is that the real reason Bush & Co. want to invade Iraq is that Saddam is an evil guy who's responsible for some truly horrible human right violations. Lord knows the US military and intelligence agencies aren't having any luck proving there are WMD in Iraq, so it makes sense to use this as their back up argument for the prudence of removing Saddam from power. Wanting to investigate this assertion a little further I started at what seemed to me to be a logical place, Amnesty International.
Here's a bit of what they have to say:
First their Rules of Engagement that they feel all political leaders who are in favor of this war should have to respond to. Seems like a pretty reasonable list if you ask me.
Also they've posted a petition (Human rights in Iraq - what about the people?.
Now if we really are this concerned about human rights and the Iraqi people I don't think it's unreasonable to deploy Human Rights Monitors. Indeed it seems almost as necessary as weapons inspectors really. And yes, the US should be held accountable by them, if we're going into this on the moral high ground we need to stay there.
No arguments yet? Cool, let's move on.
Here's a fantastic summary of the human rights abuses that can be directly linked to the Iraqi regime:
Iraq FAQ. Can't argue with that.
So let's consider for a moment what most of the nations of the world have agreed should be done about petty tyrants who commit such horrible crimes against their own people. The International Criminal Court is a multi-national judicial body that was formed specifically to prosecute individuals accused of international crimes (crimes against humanity). As of nine days ago 89 countries had adopted and ratified this treaty (you'll note that neither the US nor Iraq are on this list). Of particular note:
The United States of America was one of only 7 nations (joining China, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Qatar and Israel) to vote against the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court in 1998.
The Bush administration's hostility to the ICC has increased dramatically in 2002. The crux of the U.S. concern relates to the prospect that the ICC may exercise its jurisdiction to conduct politically motivated investigations and prosecutions of U.S. military and political officials and personnel. The U.S. opposition to the ICC is in stark contrast to the strong support for the Court by most of America's closest allies.
In an unprecedented diplomatic maneuver on 6 May, the Bush administration effectively withdrew the U.S. signature on the treaty. At the time, the Ambassador-at-large for War Crimes Issues Pierre-Richard Prosper stated that the administration was "not going to war" with the Court. This has proved false; the renunciation of the treaty has paved the way for a comprehensive U.S. campaign to undermine the ICC.
What is the basis for this withdrawal? Well the US wants exemptions for its military personnel. Basically we don't want to any other nation or international body to have the authority to monitor our actions or to hold us accountable for them. Specifically:
The Congress passed the American Servicemembers' Protection Act (ASPA), which was signed into law by President Bush on 3 August. The major anti-ICC provisions in ASPA are:
a prohibition on U.S. cooperation with the ICC;
an "invasion of the Hague" provision: authorizing the President to "use all means necessary and appropriate" to free U.S. personnel (and certain allied personnel) detained or imprisoned by the ICC;
punishment for States that join the ICC treaty: refusing military aid to States' Parties to the treaty (except major U.S. allies);
a prohibition on U.S. participation in peacekeeping activities unless immunity from the ICC is guaranteed for U.S. personnel.
The ICC Homepage
I have to shudder a little when I see what company we're keeping on that list of 7 nations who oppose the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court in 1998. If we are to hold other nations accountable for their human rights violations why on earth shouldn't we be held accountable too?
Does the ICC currently have "teeth", so to speak? Not really, but with major US backing it certainly could. UN sanctions against states who refuse to accept the jurisdiction of the ICC could be pretty damn compelling, made even more compelling by the threat of UN forces brought to bear on rogue nations.
Again, I'm not entirely anti-war, in that I believe there are definitely times that force should and must be used. But I also think there are processes that even the biggest and most powerful first world nation must and should go through before they can invade another nation. The US is a world leader and as such must adhere to even more strict standards of conduct and deportment. Our ethical standards must be high and uncompromised. Rather than acting like the biggest bully on the playground, we need to set an example, and our current one is rather alarming.
For those interested in Hobbit architecture, I highly recommend:
Building Hobbit Holes.
I wanted to say how sorry I am that
elo_sf's lovely cat Daisy has been diagnosed with fibrous sarcoma. Vets are only beginning to understand feline cancers, and before you get your cat vaccinated you should discuss it in some depth with him or her. Fortunately my vet seems to be pretty on the ball and was the first to recommend that I minimize her shots to just rabies as she's an indoor cat and unlikely to come into contact with other cats. E- posted a great link on the subject for those interested in learning more:http://www.geocities.com/~kremersark/aafp.html
The main argument I keep hearing from a lot of the pro-war folks these days is that the real reason Bush & Co. want to invade Iraq is that Saddam is an evil guy who's responsible for some truly horrible human right violations. Lord knows the US military and intelligence agencies aren't having any luck proving there are WMD in Iraq, so it makes sense to use this as their back up argument for the prudence of removing Saddam from power. Wanting to investigate this assertion a little further I started at what seemed to me to be a logical place, Amnesty International.
Here's a bit of what they have to say:
First their Rules of Engagement that they feel all political leaders who are in favor of this war should have to respond to. Seems like a pretty reasonable list if you ask me.
Also they've posted a petition (Human rights in Iraq - what about the people?.
Now if we really are this concerned about human rights and the Iraqi people I don't think it's unreasonable to deploy Human Rights Monitors. Indeed it seems almost as necessary as weapons inspectors really. And yes, the US should be held accountable by them, if we're going into this on the moral high ground we need to stay there.
No arguments yet? Cool, let's move on.
Here's a fantastic summary of the human rights abuses that can be directly linked to the Iraqi regime:
Iraq FAQ. Can't argue with that.
So let's consider for a moment what most of the nations of the world have agreed should be done about petty tyrants who commit such horrible crimes against their own people. The International Criminal Court is a multi-national judicial body that was formed specifically to prosecute individuals accused of international crimes (crimes against humanity). As of nine days ago 89 countries had adopted and ratified this treaty (you'll note that neither the US nor Iraq are on this list). Of particular note:
The United States of America was one of only 7 nations (joining China, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Qatar and Israel) to vote against the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court in 1998.
The Bush administration's hostility to the ICC has increased dramatically in 2002. The crux of the U.S. concern relates to the prospect that the ICC may exercise its jurisdiction to conduct politically motivated investigations and prosecutions of U.S. military and political officials and personnel. The U.S. opposition to the ICC is in stark contrast to the strong support for the Court by most of America's closest allies.
In an unprecedented diplomatic maneuver on 6 May, the Bush administration effectively withdrew the U.S. signature on the treaty. At the time, the Ambassador-at-large for War Crimes Issues Pierre-Richard Prosper stated that the administration was "not going to war" with the Court. This has proved false; the renunciation of the treaty has paved the way for a comprehensive U.S. campaign to undermine the ICC.
What is the basis for this withdrawal? Well the US wants exemptions for its military personnel. Basically we don't want to any other nation or international body to have the authority to monitor our actions or to hold us accountable for them. Specifically:
The Congress passed the American Servicemembers' Protection Act (ASPA), which was signed into law by President Bush on 3 August. The major anti-ICC provisions in ASPA are:
a prohibition on U.S. cooperation with the ICC;
an "invasion of the Hague" provision: authorizing the President to "use all means necessary and appropriate" to free U.S. personnel (and certain allied personnel) detained or imprisoned by the ICC;
punishment for States that join the ICC treaty: refusing military aid to States' Parties to the treaty (except major U.S. allies);
a prohibition on U.S. participation in peacekeeping activities unless immunity from the ICC is guaranteed for U.S. personnel.
The ICC Homepage
I have to shudder a little when I see what company we're keeping on that list of 7 nations who oppose the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court in 1998. If we are to hold other nations accountable for their human rights violations why on earth shouldn't we be held accountable too?
Does the ICC currently have "teeth", so to speak? Not really, but with major US backing it certainly could. UN sanctions against states who refuse to accept the jurisdiction of the ICC could be pretty damn compelling, made even more compelling by the threat of UN forces brought to bear on rogue nations.
Again, I'm not entirely anti-war, in that I believe there are definitely times that force should and must be used. But I also think there are processes that even the biggest and most powerful first world nation must and should go through before they can invade another nation. The US is a world leader and as such must adhere to even more strict standards of conduct and deportment. Our ethical standards must be high and uncompromised. Rather than acting like the biggest bully on the playground, we need to set an example, and our current one is rather alarming.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Re:
Date: 2003-02-19 11:53 am (UTC)I'm sorry, but this seems like a rather weak argument to me. If another nation accused our troops of such atrocities (falsely) we'd still be tried by an international jury in the Hague. And in this case we'd undoubtedly be found not guilty. If we have nothing to fear regarding the moral correctness of our actions then we have nothing to fear from such a court.
U.S. justice (be it a court-martial or a civilian criminal prosecution) for troops which engage in criminal acts during military campaigns is good enough for me.
Ahh, but probably not good enough for the rest of the world. What puts us above international law? Again, I say we should lead by example, if our actions are just and good then we have nothing to fear, do we? I'm not a big fan of "do as we say, not as we do".
no subject
Date: 2003-02-19 12:02 pm (UTC)I'm fine with other countries that participate in military campaigns meting out their own justice too. There's already a tribunal for international war crimes.
no subject
Date: 2003-02-19 01:17 pm (UTC)The ICC uses a panel of judges, not juries.
That aside, though, I'm absolutely unwilling to gamble the life of even one United States citizen that the ICC will "undoubtedly" acquit American defendants of unjust and/or politically-motivated allegations of war crimes or the like. Sorry if this comes off as a slam, but to believe that unjust and politically-motivated accusations will never fly in the ICC takes a degree of faith in the so-called international community that I just don't have, and that I think is dangerously naive.
What puts us above international law?
Two things:
One: our constitution. If the procedural rules of the ICC are incompatible with the constitutional guarantees afforded criminal defendants in the United States (and in some areas they are), then there is no constitutionally-permissible way for us to implement the requirements of the treaty establishing the ICC.
Two: the fact that there is really no such thing as "international law". "International law" is a consensus, not a code, and boils down to an amalgam of treaties and resolutions and so forth. There is no guarantee that international consensus is always going to be fair (never mind favorable) to the United States, and in any case, I fail to see why we should subordinate our national sovereignity to the moral judgement of, say, Syria, or even France.
no subject
Date: 2003-02-19 01:58 pm (UTC)A quick response from the ICC page itself:
The International Criminal Court will complement national courts so that they retain jurisdiction to try genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.
If a case is being considered by a country with jurisdiction over it, then the ICC cannot act unless the country is unwilling or unable genuinely to investigate or prosecute.
A country may be determined to be "unwilling" when it is clearly shielding someone from responsibility for ICC crimes. A country may be "unable" when its legal system has collapsed.
Could such unjust accusations be made? Hell yes, but I think there are enough safeguards included during the creation of the ICC to negate this. Unless, of course, we were to a) shield the US citizen(s) accused of said crime or b) had our own entire judicial system collapse. That seems pretty fair to me.
If the procedural rules of the ICC are incompatible with the constitutional guarantees afforded criminal defendants in the United States (and in some areas they are), then there is no constitutionally-permissible way for us to implement the requirements of the treaty establishing the ICC.
Which doesn't seem to be the basis of our current opposition, but let's say it is. Can you give me a link to the info that spells out the areas in which the ICC is incompatible with our constitution?
There is no guarantee that international consensus is always going to be fair (never mind favorable) to the United States, and in any case, I fail to see why we should subordinate our national sovereignity to the moral judgement of, say, Syria, or even France.
Well, no there is no guarantee that things are always going to be fair (or what we consider fair), but that is a part of the risk we take being international players. Are we honestly to say that we are the only ones with the right to morally judge our own? Actions taken on the international stage, whether we like it or not, are subject to international scrutiny, and they should likewise be held accountable on an international level.
no subject
Date: 2003-02-19 02:37 pm (UTC)The likelihood of the United States judicial system being unable to prosecute someone for genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes is so tiny that it's not worth argument.
Look at the language of the other part: "A country may be determined to be 'unwilling' if it is clearly shielding someone from responsibility for ICC crimes."
Who gets to decide whether a country is 'clearly shielding someone from responsibility'?
Hint: not us. We might reasonably believe that we're protecting somebody from an unjust and politically-motivated prosecution; the ICC signatories can turn around and say we're 'clearly shielding' et cetera, and try to claim jurisdiction.
Which is why I will quite happily help add some .308 caliber ventilation to the blue helmets of any UN peacekeepers who turn up in my hometown attempting to enforce ICC diktats.
Can you give me a link to the info that spells out the areas in which the ICC is incompatible with our constitution?
ICC rules track pretty closely with American criminal procedure until we get to the Fourth Amendment and the exclusionary rule. Evidence obtained in violation of a person's Fourth Amendment protections is usually inadmissible at trial. Article 69 of the Rome Statute, which covers evidentiary rules for the Court, offers no such guarantee.
Well, no there is no guarantee that things are always going to be fair (or what we consider fair), but that is a part of the risk we take being international players.
Ah, so: "We might get screwed, but that's just the chance we take?" Sorry if I don't find that a compelling bit of logic. :)
As to the rest, I don't think you understood what I said. I don't give a hang if the French and the Syrians and whomever else makes moral judgements about the behavior of the United States or her citizens.
What I do mind is subordinating our national sovereignity to those moral judgements. It is by no means apparent why the moral judgements of the so-called international community have more clarity or less bias than those we make of ourselves.
Re:
Date: 2003-02-19 03:02 pm (UTC)Um...ok...*backs away slowly*...you are a really scary man...But I think I finally and fully understand where you're coming from now, so I'll take that away from this conversation as my silver lining.
red herring
Date: 2003-02-20 05:28 am (UTC)The ICC undoubtedly would not be perfect. But is it any worse than Belgium now deciding to prosecute Ariel Sharon? Or the UK trying to detain Pinochet decades after it makes sense?
Yes, the ICC also would undoubtedly will have problems, but if we aren't there to help shape its formative years won't we have LESS chance to get changes/procedures implemented in a way we want?
Re: red herring
Date: 2003-02-20 08:58 am (UTC)That's fine. I think for you to believe that, you would have had to have ignored a lot of the debate surrounding U.S. ratification of the Rome Statute. This has not been the most prevalent issue -- judicial and national sovereignity is a much less technical and more viscerally appealing objection to the ICC. But it has been an issue.
The ICC undoubtedly would not be perfect. But is it any worse than Belgium now deciding to prosecute Ariel Sharon? Or the UK trying to detain Pinochet decades after it makes sense?
Wrong question. What you want to be asking is whether it's any better. The world's had an imperfect but halfway decent record at trying war criminals in an ad hoc manner, to date.
The Belgian prosecution of Sharon is a good example of exactly why the ICC is a bad idea. The prosecution is pure politics, but fortunately, even if they convict, all the Belgian courts can really do is push paper and make ominous noises about what'll happen to Sharon if he ever sets foot in Belgium.
The ICC, on the other hand, would have extra-national authority to demand Sharon's extradition to the Hague and so forth.
Fortunately, Israel would probably use military force to prevent the unjust and politically-motivated prosecution of one of its citizens. I hope that the United States would do the same.
Yes, the ICC also would undoubtedly will have problems, but if we aren't there to help shape its formative years won't we have LESS chance to get changes/procedures implemented in a way we want?
U.S. ratification of and participation in the ICC would help legitimize the institution. If our national interests are not served by the existence of the ICC in its current form, why would we help lend the body legitimacy? What does that get us?
I've got a better idea: how about ICC voluptuaries fix the problems first, and then the United States will reconsider whether or not to ratify.