On 8 Aug 2002 at 23:09, Hermit wrote:
>
> [Joe Dees 3] We recently placed our military under the prosecutorial
> discretion of a permanent international war crimes tribunal, despite
> fears that politically motivated prosecutions might be instigated
> against them.
>
> [Hermit 4] Rubbish - "The disagreement comes less than a fortnight
> after the security council struck a compromise on US demands that its
> peacekeepers be granted immunity from prosecution by the new
> international criminal court, which came into force on July 1 with the
> power to prosecute war crimes and crimes against humanity. "
>
> [hr]
> U.S.: 'Hague Invasion Act' Becomes Law
>
> White House "Stops at Nothing" in Campaign Against War Crimes Court
>
> Source: Human Rights Watch
> (http://www.hrw.org/press/2002/08/aspa080302.htm) Authors: 5taff
> Dated: 2002=08-03
>
> A new law supposedly protecting U.S. servicemembers from the
> International Criminal Court shows that the Bush administration will
> stop at nothing in its campaign against the court, Human Rights Watch
> warned today.
>
> U.S. President George Bush today signed into law the American
> Servicemembers Protection Act of 2002, which is intended to intimidate
> countries that ratify the treaty for the International Criminal Court
> (ICC). The new law authorizes the use of military force to liberate
> any American or citizen of a U.S.-allied country being held by the
> court, which is located in The Hague. This provision, dubbed the
> "Hague invasion clause," has caused a strong reaction from U.S. allies
> around the world, particularly in the Netherlands.
>
> In addition, the law provides for the withdrawal of U.S. military
> assistance from countries ratifying the ICC treaty, and restricts U.S.
> participation in United Nations peacekeeping unless the United States
> obtains immunity from prosecution. At the same time, these provisions
> can be waived by the president on "national interest" grounds.
>
> "The states that have ratified this treaty are trying to strengthen
> the rule of law," said Richard Dicker, director of the International
> Justice Program at Human Rights Watch. "The Bush administration is
> trying to punish them for that."
>
> Dicker pointed out that many of the ICC's biggest supporters are
> fragile democracies and countries emerging from human rights crises,
> such as Sierra Leone, Argentina and Fiji.
>
> The law is part of a multi-pronged U.S. effort against the
> International Criminal Court. On May 6, in an unprecedented move, the
> Bush administration announced it was "renouncing" U.S. signature on
> the treaty. In June, the administration vetoed continuation of the
> U.N. peacekeeping force in Bosnia in an effort to obtain permanent
> immunity for U.N. peacekeepers. In July, U.S. officials launched a
> campaign around the world to obtain bilateral agreements that would
> grant immunity for Americans from the court's authority. Yesterday,
> Washington announced that it obtained such an agreement from Romania.
>
> However, another provision of the bill allows the United States to
> assist international efforts to bring to justice those accused of
> genocide, war crimes or crimes against humanity - including efforts by
> the ICC.
>
> "The administration never misses an opportunity to gratuitously
> antagonize its allies on the ICC," said Dicker. "But it's also true
> that the new law has more loopholes than a block of Swiss cheese."
>
> Dicker said the law gives the administration discretion to override
> ASPA's noxious effects on a case-by-case basis. Washington may try to
> use this to strong-arm additional concessions from the states that
> support the court, but Dicker urged states supporting the ICC "not to
> fall into the U.S. trap: the law does not require any punitive
> measures."
>
> Human Rights Watch believes the International Criminal Court has the
> potential to be the most important human rights institution created in
> 50 years, and urged regional groups of states, such as the European
> Union, to condemn the new law and resist Washington's attempts to
> obtain bilateral exemption arrangements.
>
> The law formed part of the 2002 Supplemental Appropriations Act for
> Further Recovery from and Response to Terrorist Attacks on the United
> States.
>
The US fears that politically motivated prosecutions of its citizens by
that court might result from an agreement to the law. This is not to say
that the US believes that the court's present composition is politically
biased against the US; it is to say that there is no guarantee that this
will not happen in the future as its composition changes.
>
> ----
> This message was posted by Hermit to the Virus 2002 board on Church of
> Virus BBS.
> <http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=51;action=display;thread
> id=25812>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Sep 22 2002 - 05:06:18 MDT