![The Mohican Board! [Bumppo's Redux!]](images/wwwboard.gif "The Mohican Board! [Bumppo's Redux!]") |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Ilse
The Dutch Trader
Netherlands
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 17 2002
Status: offline
Donating Member |
 Posted - June 08 2002 : 1:39:45 PM
|
In my newspaper today:
"The American Senate has agreed to a bill that under conditions authorizes military intervention in The Netherlands. Violence could be used to free American prisoners of the International Criminal Court (ICC) that will be located in The Hague.
ICC will try those responsible of crimes against humanity, regardless of the nationality of victims or culprits, if the country where the crimes were committed fails to do so. The US do not participate in ICC."
Now, is that any way of treating your old buddies????? 
|
|
report to moderator
|
|
|
Lainey
TGAT
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 18 2002
Status: offline
Administrator |
Posted - June 09 2002 : 5:52:05 PM
|
Ilse, this is actually a very good topic for debate. There are some interesting concepts, issues, laws to ponder ....
I will add some of my own thoughts later, but, for now ... here's some ICC facts followed by a link to a forum where this Act & the ICC are passionately debated.
Lainey
GET THE FACTS: The American Servicemembers Protection Act (AKA The Hague Invasion Act)
May 9 2002 - Republican Tom DeLay yet again attached the American Servicemembers Protection Act (ASPA) to a bill, this time he attached it to the Supplemental Appropriations Bill. ASPA is nicknamed the Hague Invasion Act because it gives Congress and the President the right to invade the Hague to pull ICC prisoners out of the Court. ASPA's changes form as it is rejected time and time again. The most recent version of ASPA calls for many things, including:
* Prohibiting any funding, response to request of assistance, legal assistance, sharing of evidence, transferal of documents, extradition of persons, or any other form of cooperation with the Court or parties acting on behalf of the Court.
* Authorizing the use of force to free accused criminals held by the court, even against NATO allies
* Creation of waiver policy which cannot be implemented.
* Restrictions on simple military assistance.
* Penalizing countries that ratify the International Criminal Court Treaty
* Restricting United States involvement in peacekeeping
Effects of passing anti-ICC legislation:
The passing of ASPA as well as other anti-ICC legislation serves to further insult United States allies in Europe and estrange alliances forged during the War on Terrorism. It also threatens the United States' ability to act in conflict areas.
Further anti-ICC action within the United States is both unwarranted and unnecessary. The United States made its point clear with the Bush Administrations unsigning of the treaty. Anything further is simply rubbing salt in the wounds of those countries already hurt by the United States' decision.
Future of the bill:
ASPA was attached to the Supplemental Appropriations Bill which will most likely pass inact through the House. However, in order for the bill to become law it must be adopted in the Senate as well, where it will be heavily debated.
***********
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2001/10/15/14542/384
Check this out ....
|
report to moderator  |
|
|
Ilse
The Dutch Trader
Netherlands
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 17 2002
Status: offline
Donating Member |
Posted - June 09 2002 : 7:41:22 PM
|
Frankly, I've been a bit puzzled by the lack of response on this. Am I to believe that a large majority of this forum finds it entirely rational and logical and understandable that the US reserves the right to a military attack on a very loyal ally, allied to the US for some 60 years now? And don't bother me with arguments that in all likelyhood this will never happen. I know that. It's the thought that counts.
It's funny, actually. I had never thought of American forces ever being capable of war crimes, before.
Lainey, thanks for the link! I'm very interested to learn what your thoughts are. Or anybody's thoughts for that matter.
|
| report to moderator |
|
|
Gadget Girl
Gatherer of Gathering Gadgets
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 17 2002
Status: offline
Donating Member |
Posted - June 09 2002 : 8:28:08 PM
|
quote:
Am I to believe that a large majority of this forum finds it entirely rational and logical and understandable that the US reserves the right to a military attack on a very loyal ally, allied to the US for some 60 years now?
Oh Ilse, your mentioning of this is the first I had heard of this, and I guess I find myself saying "Huh????" So much of the media wash that we are bathed in daily is so hard for me to decipher. So much hidden agenda, self-serving pet projects, and talking out of both sides of one's mouth...not necessarily pertaining to this news. It is just that there doesn't appear to be ANYTHING rational or logical about that at all, yet I am sure that Mr. DeLay would have all sorts of his own rationalizations that this would be OK. The thing that makes one take notice is the fact that this bill is attached on the coat-tails of a much more popular project, which is "the American politician way" of getting unpopular agendas passed through their legislative branch. Hopefully there WILL BE much more debate in the Senate, where many of these "post-it note" additions get quickly deleted without a champion of their own in that branch, and you can be sure he will have solicited one.
I am a bit (read: A GREAT DEAL) disenchanted with my own state government, at this time in a historic budget crisis, and remain often confused and without adequate knowledge to understand the why's of some things that pass through the legislature. Our Governor just cut 30% of the prenatal care in this state to help fund his "legacy" project for 4-year-olds. I would ask him "where then, in four more years, are the funds going to come from to take care of all the children with cerebral palsy that can't take advantage of his program?". I know, I know...off the subject at hand, but just another example of pet project law-making that MAKES NO SENSE! 
It is so hard to keep up with all the trappings of international news that it boggles my mind. SO MANY smokescreens and mirrors (was that right?) from the media and their sources that one doesn't know what to think sometimes. I really struggle with that!
So I will have to read more about this and follow what happens in the Senate, but to answer your question...NO, I DO NOT think it understandable that laws are being sought to sanctify the invasion of allies. It is one thing to respecfully abstain from such an agreement, but to include provisions for invasion are quite another - LUDICROUS! Perhaps some of the other guys here are, like me, just a bit overwhelmed with international policy and I feel bad for that, but will just have to learn more!
Diana S.
Edited by - Gadget Girl on June 09 2002 8:55:13 PM |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Adele
The Huggy Merchant
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 17 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - June 10 2002 : 10:51:02 AM
|
quote:
In my newspaper today:
"The American Senate has agreed to a bill that under conditions authorizes military intervention in The Netherlands. Violence could be used to free American prisoners of the International Criminal Court (ICC) that will be located in The Hague.
ICC will try those responsible of crimes against humanity, regardless of the nationality of victims or culprits, if the country where the crimes were committed fails to do so. The US do not participate in ICC."
Now, is that any way of treating your old buddies?????
Now I feel completely ignorant....this is news to me. But I am absolutely amazed by it. Particularly at a time like this, when the US has been begging support for its war on terrorism from its allies...talk about biting the hand that feeds you. Surely, the ICC is the perfect example of showing a united front against universally unacceptable acts? I just cannot fully understand what argument the US could have against it.
BTW..thanks for the link Lainey...made for interesting reading.
HM
|
| report to moderator |
|
|
Lainey
TGAT
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 18 2002
Status: offline
Administrator |
Posted - June 10 2002 : 3:24:09 PM
|
I'm rolling up my sleeves for this one ...
Diana said:
quote:
It is one thing to respecfully abstain from such an agreement, but to include provisions for invasion are quite another - LUDICROUS!
Right. There are separate issues here, primarily the legitimacy of the ICC, the United State's reasons for not ratifying the treaty, & The Hague Invasion Act (ASPA).
Ilse, taking the Invasion Act first; not only was this unnecessary as the US position is clearly opposed to the ICC, it seems to be somewhat antagonistic. The Act has no practical purpose or implementation policy, nor does it offer any real guaranteed protection for Americans beyond expected US response should any US citizen, including servicemen, be detained or charged by the ICC body. To specifically include a provision within a bill that states the right to invade an ally country is legally, diplomatically reckless. It should be noted that Pres. Bush is opposed to this Act & had made clear it should NOT be introduced or ratified. The provision also entangled funds the US has promised to the UN.
This move reminds me of the recent debacle in Congress where our (???) elected officials, once again, despite Bush's urgings to not move forward, incredulously voted on a position that stated the US' unequivocal support for Israel (or was this a vote for Zionism - another day's topic) during the HEIGHT of the Israeli invasion of occupied Palestine, and in the middle of intensely sensitive diplomatic efforts by the US to find a resolution. Our congress has become rather arrogant indeed.
No, Ilse, I do not find it acceptable to state a reserved right to invade an ally. Irregardless of US position on the ICC, it is an offensive declaration that is as imprudent as it is ill-timed. And, yes, it is not the improbability of the action, but the principle.
Now the ICC .... new post!
|
| report to moderator |
|
|
Ilse
The Dutch Trader
Netherlands
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 17 2002
Status: offline
Donating Member |
Posted - June 10 2002 : 4:06:59 PM
|
I've been waiting around a bit for the Dutch media to pick up on this story, because it also was absolutely new to me when I read the tidbit in the newspaper on Saturday. Have I been richly rewarded, haha. On the ridiculous side, I saw one senator melodramatically saying to the press: "Who do they think we are? Panama???" Some were imagining D-Day in Scheveningen. 
Like Elaine and Diana, I was also under the impression the US were merely against participating in the ICC, which of course they are perfectly entitled to. Now, that I'm digging somewhat deeper, it looks somewhat more troubling. More like an active sabotage campaign.
Lainey, thanks for pointing out to me that Bush is against. Is he against the whole or specifically against these particular amendments? Over here, the common view is that Bush will sign this law with lightning speed. Perhaps a premature conclusion, then.
The tone of most editorials in the Dutch media: not exactly the proper way to improve the already somewhat strained transatlantic relations.
|
| report to moderator |
|
|
Lainey
TGAT
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 18 2002
Status: offline
Administrator |
Posted - June 10 2002 : 4:49:18 PM
|
The International Criminal Court .....
The United States is a democratic republic governed by a constitution that not only defines the role, powers, & limitations of our governing bodies, it provides for the basic protection of every US citizen & guarantees minimum due process standards.
It upholds the principle of self-government, states the right to sovereignty, rejects the concept of a supranational body that would overrule or nullify the fundamental rights of US citizens, & is in complete accordance with international law.
The International Criminal Court, despite its face value appeal as a protection against war crimes, genocide, & inhumane atrocities, is a political body that has the potential to undermine these rights. The Rome Statute remains vague & allows room for enormous political abuse. The Court is not a war-time judiciary body that is specifically defined in its purpose or powers (as was The Nuremberg Court). It is a standing Court - permanent & with no safeguards against abuse nor recourse to appeal. The Court itself has the power to act as an international police force, ultimate judge, & theoretically biased jury.
It appears to be the ultimate expression of all that is wrong with a One World Government. The potential for political vendettas & suspension of basic freedoms is too great to embrace this Court as a legitimate institution.
It makes NO sense for the US to ratify the ICC Treaty. Even members who have signed on are uncomfortable with its vague powers & several have not ratified.
I believe it would be antithetical to the constitutional rights of US citizens for the US government to participate or legitimize this Court.
A bit of clarification; Pres. Clinton was also opposed to this Treaty as his advisors saw the glaring flaws. His negotiators could not get even one assurance from the UN of protection of basic rights for US citizens. He did, in his eleventh hour, sign the Treaty but NEVER presented it to Congress for ratification. Obviously a political appeasement with no significance. Therefore, Bush has not "unsigned" or "reneged" on the US' Treaty obligations, as is often stated, rather he has ""made the decision not to aggressively attack or undermine the ICC. This was a better way to go." (Compare to the Hague Invasion Act.) He has not even formally renounced the signature, but has informed the UN that the US has no legal, binding obligation.
This Court will not be a united front against atrocities, nor will it effectively halt genocide or stem the tide of human rights abuses. They go on every day in this world & no court, including the present World Court already present in the Hague (a far better judicial institution), or the International Court of Human Rights can stop it. This is akin to seeking peace without justice - it is impossible.
The International Criminal Court, as its present statutes outline, will prove to be a mistake that other nations, I believe, will regret.
As for criminal actions on the part of US citizens, servicemen, etc., committed on foreign soil, nations already have the power to indict & prosecute according to their national laws. The ICC, in my opinion, offers nothing good, nothing sound. If anyone can argue otherwise, please do so!
The charge of hypocrisy does not stand. Because the US is engaged in a global war on terror, & because she has sought the alliance of other nations, it does not follow that the US is obliged to sign on with an institution that conflicts with the US rule of law.
So .... the Hague Invasion Act is pompous & imprudent ... & so is the ICC.
Round Two, anyone??????
|
| report to moderator |
|
|
Lainey
TGAT
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 18 2002
Status: offline
Administrator |
Posted - June 10 2002 : 5:06:25 PM
|
Hi Ilse!
Just crossed your post ...
quote:
I've been waiting around a bit for the Dutch media to pick up on this story, because it also was absolutely new to me when I read the tidbit in the newspaper on Saturday. Have I been richly rewarded, haha. On the ridiculous side, I saw one senator melodramatically saying to the press: "Who do they think we are? Panama???" Some were imagining D-Day in Scheveningen.
Like Elaine and Diana, I was also under the impression the US were merely against participating in the ICC, which of course they are perfectly entitled to. Now, that I'm digging somewhat deeper, it looks somewhat more troubling. More like an active sabotage campaign.
Lainey, thanks for pointing out to me that Bush is against. Is he against the whole or specifically against these particular amendments? Over here, the common view is that Bush will sign this law with lightning speed. Perhaps a premature conclusion, then.
The tone of most editorials in the Dutch media: not exactly the proper way to improve the already somewhat strained transatlantic relations.
I'd say you were richly rewarded, of course!!!!! D-Day in Scheveningen??? My, my ... :)
I'd say this; from what Bush has said, he has opted for the policy of not attacking or undermining the ICC despite obvious US concerns of its actions. The ASPA was more aggressive & is intended to undermine the ratification by other nations.
I don't know whether Bush will sign or veto. He has been losing a bit of clarity lately, mainly from the incessant bombardment from many corners ... his opposition to this Act was clear & adamant. We shall see. Sign with lightning speed, I don't think so ...
We'll have to see what develops here, I suppose.
But, the issue of strained transatlantic relations is rather important. Perceptions are not kind these days, on either side.
There is the issue of 'Pax Americana' & how that plays out throughout the world. Also, a need to sort out who are allies, who are temporary partners, & who are enemies. It's all a bit confused right now.
|
| report to moderator |
|
|
Ilse
The Dutch Trader
Netherlands
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 17 2002
Status: offline
Donating Member |
Posted - June 10 2002 : 7:02:58 PM
|
While preparing for Round Two
It seems I have to adapt some views. My media have been telling me so far, that this is what the US government wants. If I understand you correctly, though, the US government is in some way pressured by the Senate into this? Or is that an oversimplified view? Anyway, tough discussions ahead, I think?
quote:
The United States is a democratic republic governed by a constitution that not only defines the role, powers, & limitations of our governing bodies, it provides for the basic protection of every US citizen & guarantees minimum due process standards.
It upholds the principle of self-government, states the right to sovereignty, rejects the concept of a supranational body that would overrule or nullify the fundamental rights of US citizens, & is in complete accordance with international law.
Most of this is true for The Netherlands too. However, if this law would come into effect, it tells me that the US' right for sovereignty will just like that trample our right to sovereignty. Now, I'm aware that this is not really directed against the Dutch, but against the ICC that happens to be located here, but still, we're talking about a place that's located probably no more than about 25-30 miles from my house.
I know, dragging an issue here, that we are already in agreement on. Just needed my "last words" in on this. Will move on to Round Two, after my good night's sleep. 
|
| report to moderator |
|
|
Lainey
TGAT
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 18 2002
Status: offline
Administrator |
Posted - June 10 2002 : 8:42:30 PM
|
Okay ... ready! 
quote:
While preparing for Round Two
It seems I have to adapt some views. My media have been telling me so far, that this is what the US government wants. If I understand you correctly, though, the US government is in some way pressured by the Senate into this? Or is that an oversimplified view? Anyway, tough discussions ahead, I think?
quote: The United States is a democratic republic governed by a constitution that not only defines the role, powers, & limitations of our governing bodies, it provides for the basic protection of every US citizen & guarantees minimum due process standards.
It upholds the principle of self-government, states the right to sovereignty, rejects the concept of a supranational body that would overrule or nullify the fundamental rights of US citizens, & is in complete accordance with international law.
Most of this is true for The Netherlands too. However, if this law would come into effect, it tells me that the US' right for sovereignty will just like that trample our right to sovereignty. Now, I'm aware that this is not really directed against the Dutch, but against the ICC that happens to be located here, but still, we're talking about a place that's located probably no more than about 25-30 miles from my house.
I know, dragging an issue here, that we are already in agreement on. Just needed my "last words" in on this. Will move on to Round Two, after my good night's sleep.
Not dragging an issue at all! Sometimes those one percents are what need a real hashing out.
If you are referring to the Hague Invasion (for which I still seek a good seat), yes, it was a Senate vote, attached to an appropriations bill that was important & carried general favor. It was not a unified government objective & was opposed by Bush.
I think there are VERY tough discussions ahead on this.
Yes, Ilse, should the US invade The Hague in pursuit of American citizens, it would violate your rights & your freedom.
That's not the intention, of course, but would it matter? It's not a nice scenario. I don't like the Act at all & though I know its intention is to declare US jurisdiction over US citizens, these are the sorts of quagmires that create international crises.
In times as these, it'd be a good idea for a step back before rashly declaring such 'potential' moves.
Why do you have to go to sleep??? Let's talk!
|
| report to moderator |
|
|
Lainey
TGAT
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 18 2002
Status: offline
Administrator |
Posted - June 10 2002 : 9:57:01 PM
|
Is this Round Three or Two???
Amendment ...
Okay, Ilse. It seems Bush was opposed to specific language in this bill, plus the insertion of monetary conditions regarding the UN. I don't think he is opposed to the spirit of the bill.
It might help us all to see what this bill actually says. After reading it, it seems less "pompous" than before. What do you think?
Long ... might have to break it up.
********
On September 26, 2001 Senator Helms submitted Amendment No. 1724 (for himself, Mr. MILLER, Mr. ALLEN, Mr. BOND, Mr. HATCH, and Mr. MURKOWSKI) to be proposed the bill H.R. 1438, which authorizes 2002 appropriations for Department of Defense activities. The amendment introduces new restrictions in the American Servicemembers Protection Act. The text of the Amendment can also be found on page S9934 of the Congressional Record through http://thomas.loc.gov .
At the end of division A, add the following new title:
TITLE XIV--AMERICAN SERVICEMEMBERS' PROTECTION ACT OF 2001
SEC. 1401. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``American Servicemembers' Protection Act of 2001''.
SEC. 1402. FINDINGS.
Congress makes the following findings:
(1) On July 17, 1998, the United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, meeting in Rome, Italy, adopted the ``Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court''. The vote on whether to proceed with the statute was 120 in favor to 7 against, with 21 countries abstaining. The United States voted against final adoption of the Rome Statute.
(2) As of April 30, 2001, 139 countries had signed the Rome Statute and 30 had ratified it. Pursuant to Article 126 of the Rome Statute, the statute will enter into force on the first day of the month after the 60th day following the date on which the 60th country deposits an instrument ratifying the statute.
(3) Since adoption of the Rome Statute, a Preparatory Commission for the International Criminal Court has met regularly to draft documents to implement the Rome Statute, including Rules of Procedure and Evidence, Elements of Crimes, and a definition of the Crime of Aggression.
(4) During testimony before the Congress following the adoption of the Rome Statute, the lead United States negotiator, Ambassador David Scheffer stated that the United States could not sign the Rome Statute because certain critical negotiating objectives of the United States had not been achieved. As a result, he stated: ``We are left with consequences that do not serve the cause of international justice.''
(5) Ambassador Scheffer went on to tell the Congress that: ``Multinational peacekeeping forces operating in a country that has joined the treaty can be exposed to the Court's jurisdiction even if the country of the individual peacekeeper has not joined the treaty. Thus, the treaty purports to establish an arrangement whereby United States armed forces operating overseas could be conceivably prosecuted by the international court even if the United States has not agreed to be bound by the treaty. Not only is this contrary to the most fundamental principles of treaty law, it could inhibit the ability of the United States to use its military to meet alliance obligations and participate in multinational operations, including humanitarian interventions to save civilian lives. Other contributors to peacekeeping operations will be similarly exposed.''.
|
| report to moderator |
|
|
Lainey
TGAT
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 18 2002
Status: offline
Administrator |
Posted - June 10 2002 : 10:02:56 PM
|
(6) Notwithstanding these concerns, President Clinton directed that the United States sign the Rome Statute on December 31, 2000. In a statement issued that day, he stated that in view of the unremedied deficiencies of the Rome Statute, ``I will not, and do not recommend that my successor submit the Treaty to the Senate for advice and consent until our fundamental concerns are satisfied''.
(7) Any American prosecuted by the International Criminal Court will, under the Rome Statute, be denied procedural protections to which all Americans are entitled under the Bill of Rights to the United States Constitution, such as the right to trial by jury.
(8) Members of the Armed Forces of the United States should be free from the risk of prosecution by the International Criminal Court, especially when they are stationed or deployed around the world to protect the vital national interests of the United States. The United States Government has an obligation to protect the members of its Armed Forces, to the maximum extent possible, against criminal prosecutions carried out by the International Criminal Court.
(9) In addition to exposing members of the Armed Forces of the United States to the risk of international criminal prosecution, the Rome Statute creates a risk that the President and other senior elected and appointed officials of the United States Government may be prosecuted by the International Criminal Court. Particularly if the Preparatory Commission agrees on a definition of the Crime of Aggression over United States objections, senior United States officials may be at risk of criminal prosecution for national security decisions involving such matters as responding to acts of terrorism, preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and deterring aggression. No less than members of the Armed Forces of the United States, senior officials of the United States Government should be free from the risk of prosecution by the International Criminal Court, especially with respect to official actions taken by them to protect the national interests of the United States.
(10) Any agreement within the Preparatory Commission on a definition of the Crime of Aggression that usurps the prerogative of the United Nations Security Council under Article 39 of the charter of the United Nations to ``determine the existence of any . . . . act of aggression'' would contravene the charter of the United Nations and undermine deterrence.
(11) It is a fundamental principle of international law that a treaty is binding upon its parties only and that it does not create obligations for nonparties without their consent to be bound. The United States is not a party to the Rome Statute and will not be bound by any of its terms. The United States will not recognize the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court over United States nationals.
|
| report to moderator |
|
|
Lainey
TGAT
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 18 2002
Status: offline
Administrator |
Posted - June 10 2002 : 10:07:50 PM
|
SEC. 1403. WAIVER AND TERMINATION OF PROHIBITIONS OF THIS TITLE.
(a) AUTHORITY TO INITIALLY WAIVE SECTIONS 1405 AND 1407.--The President is authorized to waive the prohibitions and requirements of sections 1405 and 1407 for a single period of one year. A waiver under this subsection may be issued only if the President at least 15 days in advance of exercising such authority--
(1) notifies the appropriate congressional committees of the intention to exercise such authority; and
(2) determines and reports to the appropriate congressional committees that the International Criminal Court has entered into a binding agreement that--
(A) prohibits the International Criminal Court from seeking to exercise jurisdiction over the following persons with respect to actions undertaken by them in an official capacity:
(i) covered United States persons;
(ii) covered allied persons; and
(iii) individuals who were covered United States persons or covered allied persons; and
(B) ensures that no person described in subparagraph (A) will be arrested, detained, prosecuted, or imprisoned by or on behalf of the International Criminal Court.
(b) AUTHORITY TO EXTEND WAIVER OF SECTIONS 1405 AND 1407.--The President is authorized to waive the prohibitions and requirements of sections 1405 and 1407 for successive periods of one year each upon the expiration of a previous waiver pursuant to subsection (a) or this subsection. A waiver under this subsection may be issued only if the President at least fifteen days in advance of exercising such authority--
(1) notifies the appropriate congressional committees of the intention to exercise such authority; and
(2) determines and reports to the appropriate congressional committees that the International Criminal Court--
(A) remains party to, and has continued to abide by, a binding agreement that--
(i) prohibits the International Criminal Court from seeking to exercise jurisdiction over the following persons with respect to actions undertaken by them in an official capacity:
(I) covered United States persons;
(II) covered allied persons; and
(III) individuals who were covered United States persons or covered allied persons; and
(ii) ensures that no person described in clause (i) will be arrested, detained, prosecuted, or imprisoned by or on behalf of the International Criminal Court; and
(B) has taken no steps to arrest, detain, prosecute, or imprison any person described in clause (i) of subparagraph (A).
(c) AUTHORITY TO WAIVE SECTIONS 1404 AND 1406 WITH RESPECT TO AN INVESTIGATION OR PROSECUTION OF A NAMED INDIVIDUAL.--The President is authorized to waive the prohibitions and requirements of sections 1404 and 1406 to the degree such prohibitions and requirements would prevent United States cooperation with an investigation or prosecution of a named individual by the International Criminal Court. A waiver under this subsection may be issued only if the President at least 15 days in advance of exercising such authority--
(1) notifies the appropriate congressional committees of the intention to exercise such authority; and
(2) determines and reports to the appropriate congressional committees that--
(A) a waiver pursuant to subsection (a) or (b) of the prohibitions and requirements of sections 1405 and 1407 is in effect;
(B) there is reason to believe that the named individual committed the crime or crimes that are the subject of the International Criminal Court's investigation or prosecution;
|
| report to moderator |
|
|
Lainey
TGAT
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 18 2002
Status: offline
Administrator |
Posted - June 10 2002 : 10:12:13 PM
|
(C) it is in the national interest of the United States for the International Criminal Court's investigation or prosecution of the named individual to proceed; and
(D) in investigating events related to actions by the named individual, none of the following persons will be investigated, arrested, detained, prosecuted, or imprisoned by or on behalf of the International Criminal Court with respect to actions undertaken by them in an official capacity:
(i) Covered United States persons.
(ii) Covered allied persons.
(iii) Individuals who were covered United States persons or covered allied persons.
(d) TERMINATION OF WAIVER PURSUANT TO SUBSECTION (c).--Any waiver or waivers exercised pursuant to subsection (c) of the prohibitions and requirements of sections 1404 and 1406 shall terminate at any time that a waiver pursuant to subsection (a) or (b) of the prohibitions and requirements of sections 1405 and 1407 expires and is not extended pursuant to subsection (b).
(e) TERMINATION OF PROHIBITIONS OF THIS TITLE.--The prohibitions and requirements of sections 1404, 1405, 1406, and 1407 shall cease to apply, and the authority of section 1408 shall terminate, if the United States becomes a party to the International Criminal Court pursuant to a treaty made under article II, section 2, clause 2 of the Constitution of the United States.
SEC. 1404. PROHIBITION ON COOPERATION WITH THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT.
(a) APPLICATION.--The provisions of this section--
(1) apply only to cooperation with the International Criminal Court and shall not apply to cooperation with an ad hoc international criminal tribunal established by the United Nations Security Council before or after the date of the enactment of this Act to investigate and prosecute war crimes committed in a specific country or during a specific conflict; and
(2) shall not prohibit--
(A) any action permitted under section 1408; or
(B) communication by the United States of its policy with respect to a matter.
(b) PROHIBITION ON RESPONDING TO REQUESTS FOR COOPERATION.--Notwithstanding section 1782 of title 28, United States Code, or any other provision of law, no United States Court, and no agency or entity of any State or local government, including any court, may cooperate with the International Criminal Court in response to a request for cooperation submitted by the International Criminal Court pursuant to the Rome Statute.
(c) PROHIBITION ON TRANSMITTAL OF LETTERS ROGATORY FROM THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT.--Notwithstanding section 1781 of title 28, United States Code, or any other provision of law, no agency of the United States Government may transmit for execution any letter rogatory issued, or other request for cooperation made, by the International Criminal Court to the tribunal, officer, or agency in the United States to whom it is addressed.
(d) PROHIBITION ON EXTRADITION TO THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no agency or entity of the United States Government or of any State or local government may extradite any person from the United States to the International Criminal Court, nor support the transfer of any United States citizen or permanent resident alien to the International Criminal Court.
(e) PROHIBITION ON PROVISION OF SUPPORT TO THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no agency or entity of the United States Government or of any State or local government, including any court, may provide support to the International Criminal Court.
|
| report to moderator |
|
|
Lainey
TGAT
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 18 2002
Status: offline
Administrator |
Posted - June 10 2002 : 10:17:00 PM
|
(f) PROHIBITION ON USE OF APPROPRIATED FUNDS TO ASSIST THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no funds appropriated under any provision of law may be used for the purpose of assisting the investigation, arrest, detention, extradition, or prosecution of any United States citizen or permanent resident alien by the International Criminal Court.
(g) RESTRICTION ON ASSISTANCE PURSUANT TO MUTUAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE TREATIES.--The United States shall exercise its rights to limit the use of assistance provided under all treaties and executive agreements for mutual legal assistance in criminal matters, multilateral conventions with legal assistance provisions, and extradition treaties, to which the United States is a party, and in connection with the execution or issuance of any letter rogatory, to prevent the transfer to, or other use by, the International Criminal Court of any assistance provided by the United States under such treaties and letters rogatory.
(h) PROHIBITION ON INVESTIGATIVE ACTIVITIES OF AGENTS.--No agent of the International Criminal Court may conduct, in the United States or any territory subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, any investigative activity relating to a preliminary inquiry, investigation, prosecution, or other proceeding at the International Criminal Court.
SEC. 1405. RESTRICTION ON UNITED STATES PARTICIPATION IN CERTAIN UNITED NATIONS PEACEKEEPING OPERATIONS.
(a) POLICY.--Effective beginning on the date on which the Rome Statute enters into force pursuant to Article 126 of the Rome Statute, the President should use the voice and vote of the United States in the United Nations Security Council to ensure that each resolution of the Security Council authorizing any peacekeeping operation under chapter VI of the charter of the United Nations or peace enforcement operation under chapter VII of the charter of the United Nations permanently exempts, at a minimum, members of the Armed Forces of the United States participating in such operation from criminal prosecution or other assertion of jurisdiction by the International Criminal Court for actions undertaken by such personnel in connection with the operation.
(2) members of the Armed Forces of the United States are able to participate in the peacekeeping or peace enforcement operation without risk of criminal prosecution or other assertion of jurisdiction by the International Criminal Court because each country in which members of the Armed Forces of the United States participating in the operation will be present either is not a party to the International Criminal Court and has not invoked the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court pursuant to Article
12 of the Rome Statute, or has entered into an agreement in accordance with Article 98 of the Rome Statute preventing the International Criminal Court from proceeding against members of the Armed Forces of the United States present in that country; or
(3) the national interests of the United States justify participation by members of the Armed Forces of the United States in the peacekeeping or peace enforcement operation.
SEC. 1406. PROHIBITION ON DIRECT OR INDIRECT TRANSFER OF CLASSIFIED NATIONAL SECURITY INFORMATION AND LAW ENFORCEMENT INFORMATION TO THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT.
(a) IN GENERAL.--Not later than the date on which the Rome Statute enters into force, the President shall ensure that appropriate procedures are in place to prevent the transfer of classified national security information and law enforcement information to the International Criminal Court for the purpose of facilitating an investigation, apprehension, or prosecution.
|
| report to moderator |
|
|
Lainey
TGAT
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 18 2002
Status: offline
Administrator |
Posted - June 10 2002 : 10:21:11 PM
|
(b) INDIRECT TRANSFER.--The procedures adopted pursuant to subsection (a) shall be designed to prevent the transfer to the United Nations and to the government of any country that is party to the International Criminal Court of classified national security information and law enforcement information that specifically relates to matters known to be under investigation or prosecution by the International Criminal Court, except to the degree that satisfactory assurances are received from the United Nations or that government, as the case may be, that such information will not be made available to the International Criminal Court for the purpose of facilitating an investigation, apprehension, or prosecution.
(c) CONSTRUCTION.--The provisions of this section shall not be construed to prohibit any action permitted under section 1408.
SEC. 1407. PROHIBITION OF UNITED STATES MILITARY ASSISTANCE TO PARTIES TO THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT.
(a) PROHIBITION OF MILITARY ASSISTANCE.--Subject to subsections (b) and (c), and effective one year after the date on which the Rome Statute enters into force pursuant to Article 126 of the Rome Statute, no United States military assistance may be provided to the government of a country that is a party to the International Criminal Court.
(b) NATIONAL INTEREST WAIVER.--The President may, without prior notice to Congress, waive the prohibition of subsection (a) with respect to a particular country if he determines and reports to the appropriate congressional committees that it is important to the national interest of the United States to waive such prohibition.
(c) ARTICLE 98 WAIVER.--The President may, without prior notice to Congress, waive the prohibition of subsection (a) with respect to a particular country if he determines and reports to the appropriate congressional committees that such country has entered into an agreement with the United States pursuant to Article 98 of the Rome Statute preventing the International Criminal court from proceeding against United States personnel present in such country.
(d) EXEMPTION.--The prohibition of subsection (a) shall not apply to the government of--
(1) a NATO member country;
(2) a major non-NATO ally (including Australia, Egypt, Israel, Japan, Jordan, Argentina, the Republic of Korea, and New Zealand); or
(3) Taiwan.
SEC. 1408. AUTHORITY TO FREE MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES AND CERTAIN OTHER PERSONS DETAINED OR IMPRISONED BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT.
(a) AUTHORITY.--The President is authorized to use all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release of any person described in subsection (b) who is being detained or imprisoned by, on behalf of, or at the request of the International Criminal Court.
(b) PERSONS AUTHORIZED TO BE FREED.--The authority of subsection (a) shall extend to the following persons:
(1) Covered United States persons.
(2) Covered allied persons.
(3) Individuals detained or imprisoned for official actions taken while the individual was a covered United States person or a covered allied person, and in the case of a covered allied person, upon the request of such government.
|
| report to moderator |
|
|
Lainey
TGAT
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 18 2002
Status: offline
Administrator |
Posted - June 10 2002 : 10:28:30 PM
|
(c) AUTHORIZATION OF LEGAL ASSISTANCE.--When any person described in subsection (b) is arrested, detained, investigated, prosecuted, or imprisoned by, on behalf of, or at the request of the International Criminal Court, the President is authorized to direct any agency of the United States Government to provide--
(1) legal representation and other legal assistance to that person (including, in the case of a person entitled to assistance under section 1037 of title 10, United States Code, representation and other assistance in the manner provided in that section);
(2) exculpatory evidence on behalf of that person; and
(3) defense of the interests of the United States through appearance before the International Criminal Court pursuant to Article 18 or 19 of the Rome Statute, or before the courts or tribunals of any country.
(d) BRIBES AND OTHER INDUCEMENTS NOT AUTHORIZED.--This section does not authorize the payment of bribes or the provision of other such incentives to induce the release of a person described in subsection (b).
SEC. 1409. ALLIANCE COMMAND ARRANGEMENTS.
(a) REPORT ON ALLIANCE COMMAND ARRANGEMENTS.--Not later than 6 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President should transmit to the appropriate congressional committees a report with respect to each military alliance to which the United States is party--
(1) describing the degree to which members of the Armed Forces of the United States may, in the context of military operations undertaken by or pursuant to that alliance, be placed under the command or operational control of foreign military officers subject to the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court because they are nationals of a party to the International Criminal Court; and
(2) evaluating the degree to which members of the Armed Forces of the United States engaged in military operations undertaken by or pursuant to that alliance may be exposed to greater risks as a result of being placed under the command or operational control of foreign military officers subject to the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court.
(b) DESCRIPTION OF MEASURES TO ACHIEVE ENHANCED PROTECTION FOR MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES.--Not later than one year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President should transmit to the appropriate congressional committees a description of modifications to command and operational control arrangements within military alliances to which the United States is a party that could be made in order to reduce any risks to members of the Armed Forces of the United States identified pursuant to subsection (a)(2).
(c) SUBMISSION IN CLASSIFIED FORM.--The report under subsection (a), and the description of measures under subsection (b), or appropriate parts thereof, may be submitted in classified form.
SEC. 1410. WITHHOLDINGS.
Funds withheld from the United States share of assessments to the United Nations or any other international organization during any fiscal year pursuant to section 705 of the Admiral James W. Nance and Meg Donovan Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 2000 and 2001 (as enacted by section 1000(a)(7) of Public Law 106-113; 113 Stat. 1501A-460), are authorized to be transferred to the Embassy Security, Construction and Maintenance Account of the Department of State.
|
| report to moderator |
|
|
Lainey
TGAT
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 18 2002
Status: offline
Administrator |
Posted - June 10 2002 : 10:32:16 PM
|
SEC. 1411. APPLICATION OF SECTIONS 1404 AND 1406 TO EXERCISE OF CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITIES.
(a) IN GENERAL.--Sections 1404 and 1406 shall not apply to any action or actions with respect to a specific matter involving the International Criminal Court taken or directed by the President on a case-by-case basis in the exercise of the President's authority as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States under article II, section 2 of the United States Constitution or in the exercise of the executive power under article II, section 1 of the United States Constitution.
(b) NOTIFICATION TO CONGRESS.--
(1) IN GENERAL.--Subject to paragraph (2), not later than 15 days after the President takes or directs an action or actions described in subsection (a) that would otherwise be prohibited under section 1404 or 1406, the President shall submit a notification of such action to the appropriate congressional committees. A notification under this paragraph shall include a description of the action, a determination that the action is in the national interest of the United States, and a justification for the action.
(2) EXCEPTION.--If the President determines that a full notification under paragraph (1) could jeopardize the national security of the United States or compromise a United States law enforcement activity, not later than 15 days after the President takes or directs an action or actions referred to in paragraph (1) the President shall notify the appropriate congressional committees that an action has been taken and a determination has been made pursuant to this paragraph. The President shall provide a full notification under paragraph (1) not later than 15 days after the reasons for the determination under this paragraph no longer apply.
(c) CONSTRUCTION.--Nothing in this section shall be construed as a grant of statutory authority to the President to take any action.
SEC. 1412. NONDELEGATION.
The authorities vested in the President by sections 1403 and 1411(a) may not be delegated by the President pursuant to section 301 of title 3, United States Code, or any other provision of law. The authority vested in the President by section 1405(c)(3) may not be delegated by the President pursuant to section 301 of title 3, United States Code, or any other provision of law to any official other than the Secretary of Defense, and if so delegated may not be subdelegated.
SEC. 1413. DEFINITIONS.
As used in this title and in section 706 of the Admiral James W. Nance and Meg Donovan Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 2000 and 2001:
(1) APPROPRIATE CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES .--The term ``appropriate congressional committees'' means the Committee on International Relations of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate.
(2) CLASSIFIED NATIONAL SECURITY INFORMATION.--The term ``classified national security information'' means information that is classified or classifiable under Executive Order 12958 or a successor Executive order.
|
| report to moderator |
|
|
Lainey
TGAT
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 18 2002
Status: offline
Administrator |
Posted - June 10 2002 : 10:39:16 PM
|
(3) COVERED ALLIED PERSONS.--The term ``covered allied persons'' means military personnel, elected or appointed officials, and other persons employed by or working on behalf of the government of a NATO member country, a major non-NATO ally (including Australia, Egypt, Israel, Japan, Jordan, Argentina, the Republic of Korea, and New Zealand), or Taiwan, for so long as that government is not a party to the International Criminal Court and wishes its officials and other persons working on its behalf to be exempted from the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court.
(4) COVERED UNITED STATES PERSONS.--The term ``covered United States persons'' means members of the Armed Forces of the United States, elected or appointed officials of the United States Government, and other persons employed by or working on behalf of the United States Government, for so long as the United States is not a party to the International Criminal Court.
(5) EXTRADITION.--The terms ``extradition'' and ``extradite'' mean the extradition of a person in accordance with the provisions of chapter 209 of title 18, United States Code, (including section 3181(b) of such title) and such terms include both extradition and surrender as those terms are defined in Article 102 of the Rome Statute.
(6) INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT.--The term ``International Criminal Court'' means the court established by the Rome Statute.
(7) MAJOR NON-NATO ALLY.--The term ``major non-NATO ally'' means a country that has been so designated in accordance with section 517 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.
(8) PARTICIPATE IN ANY PEACEKEEPING OPERATION UNDER CHAPTER VI OF THE CHARTER OF THE UNITED NATIONS OR PEACE ENFORCEMENT OPERATION UNDER CHAPTER VII OF THE CHARTER OF THE UNITED NATIONS.--The term ``participate in any peacekeeping operation under chapter VI of the charter of the United Nations or peace enforcement operation under chapter VII of the charter of the United Nations'' means to assign members of the Armed Forces of the United States to a United Nations military command structure as part of a peacekeeping operation under chapter VI of the charter of the United Nations or peace enforcement operation under chapter VII of the charter of the United Nations in which those members of the Armed Forces of the United States are subject to the command or operational control of one or more foreign military officers not appointed in conformity with article II, section 2, clause 2 of the Constitution of the United States.
(9) PARTY TO THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT.--The term ``party to the International Criminal Court'' means a government that has deposited an instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval, or accession to the Rome Statute, and has not withdrawn from the Rome Statute pursuant to Article 127 thereof.
(10) PEACEKEEPING OPERATION UNDER CHAPTER VI OF THE CHARTER OF THE UNITED NATIONS OR PEACE ENFORCEMENT OPERATION UNDER CHAPTER VII OF THE CHARTER OF THE UNITED NATIONS.--The term ``peacekeeping operation under chapter VI of the charter of the United Nations or peace enforcement operation under chapter VII of the charter of the United Nations'' means any military operation to maintain or restore international peace and security that--
(A) is authorized by the United Nations Security Council under chapter VI or VII of the charter of the United Nations; and
(B) is paid for from assessed contributions of United Nations members that are made available for peacekeeping or peace enforcement activities.
|
| report to moderator |
|
|
Lainey
TGAT
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 18 2002
Status: offline
Administrator |
Posted - June 10 2002 : 10:41:35 PM
|
(11) ROME STATUTE.--The term ``Rome Statute'' means the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, adopted by the United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court on July 17, 1998.
(12) SUPPORT.--The term ``support'' means assistance of any kind, including financial support, transfer of property or other material support, services, intelligence sharing, law enforcement cooperation, the training or detail of personnel, and the arrest or detention of individuals.
(13) UNITED STATES MILITARY ASSISTANCE.--The term ``United States military assistance'' means--
(A) assistance provided under chapter 2 or 5 of part II of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2151 et seq.); or
(B) defense articles or defense services furnished with the financial assistance of the United States Government, including through loans and guarantees, under section 23 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2763).
|
| report to moderator |
|
|
Ilse
The Dutch Trader
Netherlands
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 17 2002
Status: offline
Donating Member |
Posted - June 11 2002 : 3:37:26 PM
|
Okay Round Two.
I will blatently disregard the fact that the TGAT Lainey has already tried to unload Round Three, Four, Five, Six AND Seven on the board and my then innocently sleeping head, and will continue serenely into....... RRRRRRRRRROUND TWO. The ICC
Thankfully, the Dutch media have by now overcome the urge to cry wolf, or more likely: US Marine on the beach! Run Awaaaaaaayyyyy! So I managed to get some real analysis under the headline of "Senate agreed to a hollowed out Act". The article talks about impopularity of international treaties and the UN with conservative America.
However some dissenting voices, there, for example in the form of Michael Scharf, professor of international public law in Boston. He says there are many garantees to prevent wild politically coloured justice. The Treaty has a very narrow definition of the term war crimes. Take the case of the Irianian Airbus hit in 1988 by the US cruiser Vincennes: it would not fall under that definition.
According to Scharf the ICC is only an addition: it will not try people who will already be tried in their own country according to internationally acceptable rules. The Security Council can keep cases away from the ICC, and the independent prosecutor must gain the approval of three judges to bring a case before the Court. "Chances of an irresponsible prosecution are minimal. That fear is unfounded."
Continued....
|
| report to moderator |
|
|
Ilse
The Dutch Trader
Netherlands
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 17 2002
Status: offline
Donating Member |
Posted - June 11 2002 : 4:00:49 PM
|
Since I am such a good girl, I dutifully read the homework given to me by the TGAT Lainey, looking for the terrible article in the law. After reading it about four times, I concluded the terrible threat must be in this one:
quote:
SEC. 1408. AUTHORITY TO FREE MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES AND CERTAIN OTHER PERSONS DETAINED OR IMPRISONED BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT.
(a) AUTHORITY.--The President is authorized to use all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release of any person described in subsection (b) who is being detained or imprisoned by, on behalf of, or at the request of the International Criminal Court.
(b) PERSONS AUTHORIZED TO BE FREED.--The authority of subsection (a) shall extend to the following persons:
(1) Covered United States persons.
(2) Covered allied persons.
(3) Individuals detained or imprisoned for official actions taken while the individual was a covered United States person or a covered allied person, and in the case of a covered allied person, upon the request of such government.
My newspaper confirmed that. This article, in fact this Act, gives the president the authority to prevent with any means the possibility that Americans would be put on trial before the ICC. However, no obligations, and he also has the right to declare each and every amendment as not applicable. Hence probably the headline "hollowed out". Also I read sources in Washington say: This act will not give the president any authority that he doesn't already have. Only now he can say that Congress wanted it that way.
It is an interesting article, though. Let me give you a hypothetical situation. I am Dutch, and therefore an allied person through our NATO alliance. If I were to be put on trial before the ICC in The Hague, would the US marines come to save my ass??
Continued....
Edited by - Ilse on June 11 2002 4:06:02 PM |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Lainey
TGAT
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 18 2002
Status: offline
Administrator |
Posted - June 11 2002 : 4:17:34 PM
|
quote:
My newspaper confirmed that. This article, in fact this Act, gives the president the authority to prevent with any means the possibility that Americans would be put on trial before the ICC. However, no obligations, and he also has the right to declare each and every amendment as not applicable. Hence probably the headline "hollowed out". Also I read sources in Washington say: This act will not give the president any authority that he doesn't already have. Only now he can say that Congress wanted it that way.
It is an interesting article, though. Let me give you a hypothetical situation. I am Dutch, and therefore an allied person through our NATO alliance. If I were to be put on trial before the ICC in The Hague, would the US marines come to save my ass?? <http://www.mohicanpress.com/messageboard/icon_smile_big.gif>
Bingo!!!!! Ilse, I'm trying to sit in my corner quietly but this is GREEEAT!!!!
I won't say much ... yet. <):) But I am VERY sorry for tripping over myself & trying to declare rouns seven whilst you slept! That was wrong of me ....
But, I'm glad you discovered the Terrible Threat. Hollowed Act ... (You are such a good girl! Homework assignment complete, handed in, & thoroughly analyzed!)
quote:
It is an interesting article, though. Let me give you a hypothetical situation. I am Dutch, and therefore an allied person through our NATO alliance. If I were to be put on trial before the ICC in The Hague, would the US marines come to save my ass??
Aha! Good question... I'd say, of course! In fact we have one marine here (Marc!!!) who would
hit your beaches ... uhmm ... lowlands in seconds flat should YOU, an ally, be accused before the ICC. I promise.
But don't do anything stupid, okay?
Okay ..... back to my corner awaiting Round Three.
|
| report to moderator |
|
|
Ilse
The Dutch Trader
Netherlands
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 17 2002
Status: offline
Donating Member |
Posted - June 11 2002 : 4:25:24 PM
|
Okay, a hollowed out Invasion Act so my newspaper says. This part was educational to me as far as US legislation works:
"The working of the legislative process of the American Congress is at times untransparent. Bills come from the members, and both houses of Congress can initiate the formulation of legislation. Eventually, a so called "conference" must define the definite text that the president either signs or veto's."
As far as this Act is concerned, my newspaper states it was almost silently agreed upon until Senator Dodd put in an amendment stating: "Nothing will keep the US from supporting international initiatives to bring to justice Saddam Hussein, Slobodan Milosevic, Osama Bin Laden, members of the Islamic Jihad, of Al-Qaeda and other suspects of genocide and crimes against humanity."
I read this as: There is nothing in the way of the US and ICC working together on cases that we are in absolute agreement on.
As I understand the legislative process in the US, this story is long from over. Apparently it still has to be made into one text, and has to be approved by both Houses of Congress, before it ends on the desk of the president. Looks like this topic will remain open for discussion for a while.
I'm done now, can anybody tell me what Round I am in??? 
Well, had to remove the typo, you know. Still this gives me the chance to add: I am a bit surprised at all the brouhaha, now I've looked into it. Furthermore, apparently the EU is aware of all this for over a year? Do I sense a bit of Johnny come lately hypocrisy in this?
All in all, as a sound Dutch saying goes: the soup is never eaten as hot as it is served....
Edited by - Ilse on June 11 2002 4:38:43 PM |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Lainey
TGAT
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 18 2002
Status: offline
Administrator |
Posted - June 11 2002 : 5:34:00 PM
|
quote:
(3) Individuals detained or imprisoned for official actions taken while the individual was a covered United States person or a covered allied person, and in the case of a covered allied person, upon the request of such government.
Seriously, Ilse ... this provision clearly states that should you, as an ally citizen, be indicted before the ICC for an action taken officially (as in a peacekeeping capacity?), and if your country requested assistance, the US would be obliged to rescue.
You are in Round Three.
Now, the truth is this; this Act has floated about for a long time with revision upon revision upon revision. Of course the EU knew about it. Why the hysteria now? Well, as you say, The soup is never eaten as hot as it is served.
Since there is anger over the US' rejection of the ICC Treaty, and since there were still countries needed to ratify, do you think this was a bit of a drama to show how 'aggressive & threatening' the US would be to ICC nations? Consider the name we've all been using ... The Hague Invasion Act. That was coined by Europeans angry over US resistance to the ICC. The bill is called The American Servicemen's Act. In many ways, the bill's primary intent is to protect individuals, who will now be at greater risk for indictment.
Another thing ... I have to reply to Michael Scharf's dissenting opinion in a bit, but need to check some facts first, but ...
the ICC defines certain military actions that are inevitable during battle (one improvises in the face of heated conflict, especially to protect one's comrades) as illegal &, therefore, indictable as War Crimes. With the current military action underway in Afghanistan, I think this might be one reason this bill has received support. It is possible US soldiers would be investigated and/or charged for War Crimes according to the ICC definitions, but not according to US definition. In this case, the US would NOT investigate or charge its own soldiers for acting "officially" & this would be the grounds for the ICC to indict.
Problematic, isn't it?
Yes, the bill must be debated, final drafting, & passed by both houses before going to the president for either signing or veto.
quote:
But I am VERY sorry for tripping over myself & trying to declare rouns seven whilst you slept!
Said Lainey with a lisp. I'm not even going to edit that! I rather like the impression of drunkeness it has.
|
| report to moderator |
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
| The Mohican Board! [Bumppo's Redux!] |
© 1997-2025 - Mohican Press |
|
|
| Current Mohicanland page raised in 0.56 seconds |
 |
|
Operation Low Lands?
