Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
- 37 Percent of People Completely Lost
- An Open Challenge to Michelle Rhee and the Corporate Education Zombies
- If Corporations Don’t Pay Taxes, Why Should You?
- Introduced Constitutional Amendment says: 'Democracy for People, Not Corporations'
- Which Members of Congress Are Standing Up for Economic Decency – And Which “Progressives” Aren’t
Popular content
Today's Top News
US Supports War Crimes Tribunal for First Time
UNITED NATIONS - The U.N. resolution imposing tough sanctions against Libya marked the first time that the United States has given its support to the International Criminal Court and signified a remarkable turnaround, though it includes a key exemption demanded by the Obama administration.
The resolution adopted unanimously by the Security Council on Saturday refers the actions of Moammar Gadhafi's regime since Feb. 15 to the court's prosecutor who must decide whether there is enough evidence of alleged crimes against humanity to warrant a full investigation. Prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo is required to deliver an initial report to the council in two months.
"It's a historic vote by the United States government because it's the first time in a Security Council resolution the United States has voted affirmatively on the side of the International Criminal Court," said Richard Dicker, head of the International Justice Program at Human Rights Watch. "That's a positive step."
But the United States insisted on including a provision in the resolution to protect Americans from investigation or prosecution by the International Criminal Court, known as the ICC. It requires that any citizen of a country that hasn't joined the ICC be investigated or prosecuted in his home country - not by the ICC - for any alleged actions stemming from operations in Libya authorized by the Security Council.
Dicker called this "carve-out" for nationals from countries that aren't parties to the ICC "troubling" though limited since it only deals with the current situation in Libya.
"If, for example, there is a no-fly zone established by the council, and the U.S. dropped bombs and accidentally killed 100 Libyan school children, that U.S. airman or those who ordered the attack would be subject to the jurisdiction exclusively of a U.S. court - not the ICC," Dicker told the AP on Tuesday.
The International Criminal Court, which began operating in 2002, was established after a long campaign to ensure that those responsible for the most heinous crimes could be brought to justice. Under the Rome treaty that established the tribunal, the court can step in only when countries are unwilling or unable to dispense justice themselves for genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes.
Currently, 114 countries have ratified the Rome statute and are parties to the statute. Libya is not a party to the ICC and therefore the Security Council stepped in to refer Gadhafi's deadly crackdown on anti-government protesters to the tribunal.
Liechtenstein's U.N. Ambassador Christian Wenaweser, president of the Assembly of State Parties to the ICC, told a press conference Tuesday that the U.S. support for the court and its sponsorship of the resolution was "an important development."
Former U.S. President Bill Clinton signed the Rome treaty on Dec. 31, 2000, but President George W. Bush renounced the signature, citing fears that Americans would be unfairly prosecuted for political reasons.
"We have seen for several months that certainly the U.S. is looking for a more positive engagement with the ICC," Wenaweser said. "The U.S. is participating again in the work of the Assembly of States Parties very actively. So there have been changes before, but certainly this is a very important step - while I don't think this will lead to ratification anytime soon."
He called the exception barring investigation or prosecution of citizens from non-ICC countries a "very, very narrow provision."
U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice agreed, telling reporters Tuesday "we have thought it important that if we were going to for the first time affirmatively support such a resolution to make sure that it was clear the limitations as to who jurisdiction applied to."
She said criticism "that somehow this provides a pass for mercenaries I think is completely misplaced."
"I don't think the International Criminal Court is going to spend its time and effort on foot soldiers that have been paid small amounts of money by Gadhafi," she said. "They're going to focus on the big fish."
France's U.N. Ambassador Gerard Araud told reporters after the vote that including the exception in the resolution "was a red line for the United States."
"It was a deal breaker," he said. "This is the reason why we accepted this unanimously."
Wenaweser and Jordan's U.N. ambassador, Prince Zeid al Hussein, who is leading the search to replace Ocampo whose term expires in June 2012, agreed that the council's referral of Libya was good for the court and will hopefully lead to new ratifications.
"Privately many ambassadors, ministers, will concede that eventually their countries will probably become state parties," Zeid told reporters Tuesday. "It's only a matter of time as to when."
"The court hasn't died because there are too many cruel people around the world willing to commit atrocities and so long as that's the case, unfortunately and sadly, tragically, there is a need for a court like this. For the foreseeable next few decades at least, we will continue to have these sorts of events, and the public will demand that governments be responsive."
The United Nations logo is displayed on a door at U.N. headquarters in New York February 26, 2011. REUTERS/ Joshua Lott)
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
25 Comments so far
Show Allthe US, UK, France, and Israel would love to prosecute Kadafi, Ahmadinejad , xhavez, kim jong-il, castro, etc as long as they themselves, the biggest criminals of all, are immune to prosecution and they are the sole judges/jury/executioners.
what a turnaround indeed!
lemme guess which bullshitting tribe edith lederer belongs to.
What are you jumping on Lederer for? She's just reporting it. And she mentions the Obama exception in the first paragraph.
FTA -- "United States insisted on including a provision in the resolution to protect Americans from investigation or prosecution by the International Criminal Court..."
Why not make it more specific: You can be prosecuted if you wear a turban or your name ends with an "i" but not if you have a crew cut or wear a Stetson hat.
Damn, when I saw the headline I got exciting. When I read it and saw that it didn't include some of the biggest war criminals in history: Bush, Cheney, Blair, and company, I realized it is just more bullshit.
I read the headline with great excitement, only to see that is not Bush, Blair, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowittz, et al., and yes, Obummer.
False hope. Who is it here who keeps repeating: without justice, there can be no peace?
Nice headline: US Supports War Crimes Tribunal for First Time....
It should be: US Supports War Crimes unless the war criminals are not friends of the US War Crimes for Profit Effort (otherwise known as the CFR -Council of Foreign Relations).
"But the United States insisted on including a provision in the resolution to protect Americans from investigation or prosecution by the International Criminal Court, known as the ICC."
Ah yes, Elliott Ness and the Untouchables rides again!
another example of how american politicians (d's and r's) refuse to listen to the will of the american people.
http://www.amicc.org/usinfo/opinion_polls.html
"According to a September 2008 poll by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, 68% of Americans believe that the United States should participate in the Rome Statute treaty agreement on the International Criminal Court to try individuals for war crimes, genocide, or crimes against humanity if their own country won't try them."
also... another government, that seldom receives international attention, the US does have power over that is committing major human rights violations.
Grave Human Rights Violations Continue in Honduras
by Red Morazánica de Información
Tegucigalpa, 19 January 2011
{According to Berta Oliva, Coordinator of the Committee of Families of the Detained and Disappeared in Honduras (COFADEH), her organization documented 1,071 human rights violations in just the first three months of the Lobo Sosa administration.
For example, early this year, José Ricardo Rodríguez Hernández and Edy Gabriel Betancourt were murdered, and their families are afraid to even talk about the issue because they may get assaulted.
According to COFADEH, there have been 64 documented cases of political assassinations under the government of Lobo Sosa.
"Those officials who say that there is no policy of state-sponsored crime are lying, for the numbers say otherwise," Oliva said firmly.
Oliva participated in a press conference convened by the FNRP, to clarify its position on the constitutional reforms and disseminate information about the human rights situation in Honduras.
She reported that one of the murder victims this year, Rodríguez Hernández, was granted precautionary measures by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR), which COFADEH was helping implement.
Oliva stated that, from 28 June 2009 to December 2009, COFADEH documented 4,234 violations of human rights, to which the government has made no response.}
...peace...
And because the US controls the OAS and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights the same as it controls the UN (even in the face of the OAS membership refusal to recognize the US-puppet Honduran government), the golpista government is never going to come under scrutiny.
Thanks for posting this reminder of an ongoing and seemingly endless travesty of justice. The US must be held accountable for its actions, and that can only happen if people are continually reminded of events there.
Face it people, the US will kiss only as much ass as necessary to not look completely imperialistic, but god forbid we prosecute the real criminals along with the other real criminals. what a freakin mess.
iowablackbird,
If we had a genuine democracy in the United States with free, fair, and democratic elections maybe the president would respect the will of the people, sign the Rome Treaty which established the International Criminal Court, and actually work for ratification of the treaty in the U.S. Senate.
And who knows maybe the U.S. President would actually support democracy and the right of the people to free, fair, and democratic elections and self-determination in Honduras and elsewhere around the world.
Well, maybe.
PuffinThrush,
that's a great sentiment (free and fair elections) but a generation away at least. out of 535 members of congress (house and senate) only 2 independents (lieberman/sanders), one of whom is stark raving mad. it would be great if a third or fourth or fifth party could emerge and challenge the prevailing parties (i guess it's possible although the duopoly of american politics is ingrained in our political psyches). at the moment, the conservatives (neo-feudalists) have a stronger base and are more likely to gain more seats in 2012 - perhaps a few under the guise of a 3rd party. this actually pushes us closer to fascism (zero public services/everything privatized).
i'm guessing the only free and fair elections progressives will see in our lifetimes are post revolution (just an opinion, if we are lucky to see such events unravel in our lifetime). the mass demonstrations in the arab world may be a perfect tutorial for the american masses (as many have drawn the lines from cairo to madison).
democracy (or the striving for democratic ideals) allways demands more of us then just marching to the polls every 2 years. the first amendment is sacred. when rights and liberties are abridged it's incumbent upon the people to go into the streets en mass.
as jefferson said...
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure."
and franklin...
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
"Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power."
i don't necessarily believe the founding fathers had a 'pure' sense of revolution, but they do provide an american template for revolution. however, the new technology and awareness that we live on the same spaceship - demands that social change occur on a global level.
i believe that is what the base yearning of the activists is in north africa - the yearning for political participation (whether real or imagined). twitter and the social media embodying the western ideal, our vogue notion of participatory democracy (at least the ideal of democracy as forged in the official oven of propaganda over 200 years).
the funny thing is that over time america has ceased to be a jeffersonian/jacksonian rustic model of chivalrous values and participatory democracy ( with slaves/women/indentured servants denied the right to participate and the blood of the indigenous inhabitants on our hands). we've become an empire that spends trillions of dollars on war and conquest. our democracy withered and died, 2 corporate parties control 533 seats of congress.
the american people can learn from the egyptians by pouring into the streets in solidarity and shutting down targeted cities in the name of the duopoly and its stranglehold on the people. when the economy stops for an extended period of time the elites will begin to make concessions.
if the corporations in the heart of the beast would 'maybe' be transformed the implications for the earth could be phenomenal, moving us all closer to a humane world government that recognizes universal standards of conduct (like the ICC) and refuses to punish people who live on certain parts of the planet so that others can live unsustainable wasteful materialistic lifestyles.
well, maybe...
w/ the folly of my own inquisitive mind and...
...peace...
as easily as junior "unsigned" the Rome Treaty, 0 could re-sign it.
vdb,
If Obama did re-sign the Rome Treaty then he might find himself charged with war crimes. Maybe then we could expose what a farce the Nobel Peace Prize is.
Maybe bush, chainey, rummy, rice, wolfie...are next!
It's good to have a dream of justice.
"The staggering hypocrisy of the US government is summed up by the fact that it supports bringing Gaddafi before the International Criminal Court, but refuses to sign on to the court and rejects its authority over Americans. It asserts the right of US officials to commit war crimes with impunity."--Barry Grey
http://wsws.org/articles/2011/feb2011/liby-f28.shtml
If I was president I would sign it in a second.
george r,
Let me guess. You haven't committed any war crimes.
Are you running for president in 2012?
Most genuine progressives are looking for a candidate who isn't either a Republican or a Democrat and who can serve as a complement to non-violent protests and civil disobedience around the country.
Personally, I also prefer a candidate who will fully advocate for the establishment of genuine democracy in the United States.
That includes among other things using the bully pulpit to get the states to pass legislation to replace Plurality Voting in single-member district elections (which include presidential elections) with a voting procedure based upon the consent of the self-governed. That means either Yes No 'Maybe So' Voting or Category Scale Power Voting, but not Instant Runoff Voting or Borda Count.
What is wrong with Plurality Voting, Instant Runoff Voting and Borda Count?
Well for starters none of these three voting procedures pass the "We Hate Them Test".
I know this is off-topic but understanding how voting actually works is important to establishing genuine democracy in the United States.
The simplest demonstration of the "We Hate Them Test" (but an example which is also not completely obvious and which therefore might be a little more interesting to the reader and just possibly also not insulting to the reader's intelligence) employs an example consisting of just three people.
Please consider the following description of the opinion of three people:
Person 1 prefers Candidate A to Candidate B, likes and supports Candidate A, but dislikes and opposes Candidate B.
Person 2 prefers Candidate B to Candidate A, likes and supports Candidate B, but dislikes and opposes Candidate A.
Person 3 also prefers Candidate B to Candidate A, but dislikes and opposes both Candidate B and Candidate A. Person 3 is suffering from the "lesser of two evils" dilemma so often posed by Plurality Voting for so many people who just might want to participate in our supposedly free and fair election in a meaningful way.
Instead Plurality Voting's undue restrictions on each and every voter's freedom of speech and freedom of political association essentially disenfranchises Person 3. Each and every voter should be able to express a preference between two candidates while opposing both of these two candidates and supporting any other candidates on the ballot as they so desire.
If you look more closely at this three person example you will see that Candidate B is preferred to Candidate A by a 2 to 1 majority consisting of Person 2 and Person 3 versus Person 1.
But Candidate B is also disliked and opposed by a 2 to 1 majority consisting of Person 1 and Person 3.
And Candidate A is also disliked and opposed by a 2 to 1 majority, this time consisting of Person 2 and Person 3 which is in this rather simple case the same majority that prefers Candidate B to Candidate A.
Plurality Voting, Instant Runoff Voting and Borda Count will all elect Candidate B.
Therefore, Plurality Voting, Instant Runoff Voting, and Borda Count produce elections results that violate the fundamental principle of the consent of the governed or as it might more properly be expressed the consent of the self-governed.
Please note that adding a "None of the Above" option to Plurality Voting or a "None of the Other" option to Instant Runoff Voting or Borda Count will not enable voters to reject both Candidate A and Candidate B. In this example Plurality Voting with a "None of the Above" option and Instant Runoff Voting or Borda Count with a "None of the Other" option will all result in a tie.
The only election result in circumstances like this which is consistent with the consent of the self-governed and which empowers "We the People" in a manner which is consistent with our status as the "boss" or "hiring manager" and sovereign of the nation is the rejection of both Candidate A and Candidate B.
I leave it to the reader to construct a 7 person example where Plurality Voting with a "None of the Above" option and Instant Runoff Voting or Borda Count with a "None of the Other" option do not result in a tie but elect Candidate B despite the fact that both Candidate A and Candidate B are disliked and opposed by a majority of the voters.
Either Yes No 'Maybe So' Voting or Category Scale Power Voting will solve this problem.
Peter K. Harrell
What a fat fucking slap in the face of the rest of the world.
Pardon me while I vomit.
'We'll support your prosecution of someone we want prosecuted if you agree not to prosecute one of us.'
Hmm.
What's that smell?
My country is so full of shit it doesn't even believe its own lies anymore.
M