Slashdot Mirror

Yes, the US. A country that refuses to allow any of it's citizens to face war crimes. Very sweet.

http://www.iccnow.org/documents/8-3-02HRWBushSignsASPA.pdf

http://www.iccnow.org/?mod=usaicc
http://web.amnesty.org/pages/icc-US_threats-eng

Here's the quote from Amnesty International site:

The USA is currently approaching governments around the world and asking them to enter into illegal impunity agreements. These agreements provide that a government will not surrender or transfer US nationals accused of genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes to the ICC, if requested by the Court. The agreements do not require the USA or the other state concerned to investigate and, if there is sufficient evidence, to prosecute such a person in US Courts. Indeed in many cases it would be impossible for US courts to do so, as US law does not include many of the crimes under the Rome Statute.

US Threats to the International Criminal Court

The United States of America is the only state that is actively opposed to the new International Criminal Court. US opposition to the Court can be traced back to the adoption of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (Rome Statute) in 1998, where the USA was one of only 7 states to vote against adoption of the Statute. Reportedly a major reason for not supporting adoption of the Statute stems from the refusal of the international community to grant the United Nations Security Council (of which the USA is a veto holding permanent member) control over which cases the Court considered, instead favouring an independent Prosecutor who - subject to safeguards and fair trial guarantees - would make such decisions.

On 31 December 2000, however, President Clinton signed the Rome Statute, which was a positive step in favour of the Court. However, the US position has changed dramatically since the new administration under President Bush took office in 2001. On 6 May 2002, the US government took the unprecedented step of repudiating its signature of the Rome Statute and began a worldwide campaign to weaken the Court and to obtain impunity for all US nationals from the jurisdiction of the Court.

Amnesty International believes that the US concerns that the ICC will be used to bring politically motivated prosecutions against US nationals are wholly unfounded. The substantial safeguards and fair trial guarantees in the Rome Statute will ensure that such a situation would never arise.

This page provides information on two parts of the current US campaign against the ICC: impunity agreements and Security Council Resolution 1422. For further information on the USA and the ICC, please see the AI USA website, the AMICC website, the CICC website, or the Washington Working Group on the ICC website.

US Impunity Agreements

The USA is currently approaching governments around the world and asking them to enter into illegal impunity agreements. These agreements provide that a government will not surrender or transfer US nationals accused of genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes to the ICC, if requested by the Court. The agreements do not require the USA or the other state concerned to investigate and, if there is sufficient evidence, to prosecute such a person in US Courts. Indeed in many cases it would be impossible for US courts to do so, as US law does not include many of the crimes under the Rome Statute.

On 1 July 2003 the USA announced the withdrawal of military assistance to 35 states who are parties to the Rome Statute and have refused to sign an impunity agreement with the USA. On 8 December 2004, the USA went even further, withdrawing economic support from states that still refuse to sign impunity agreements. The withdrawal of this economic funding threatens to undermine counter-terrorism efforts, peace process programs, anti-drug trafficking initiatives, truth and reconciliation commissions and HIV/Aids education, and threatens states such as Jordan, Ireland, Cyprus, Peru, Ecuador, Venezuela and South Africa.

The USA claims that these agreements are legal and in conformity with Article 98 of the Statute. However, Amnesty International has conducted a legal analysis which demonstrates that US Impunity Agreements do not fall under Article 98, and states that enter into such agreements with the USA are in breach of their obligations under international law. This legal analysis (International Criminal Court: US efforts to obtain impunity for genocide, crimes against humanity and war

US Threats to the International Criminal Court

The United States of America is the only state that is actively opposed to the new International Criminal Court. US opposition to the Court can be traced back to the adoption of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (Rome Statute) in 1998, where the USA was one of only 7 states to vote against adoption of the Statute. Reportedly a major reason for not supporting adoption of the Statute stems from the refusal of the international community to grant the United Nations Security Council (of which the USA is a veto holding permanent member) control over which cases the Court considered, instead favouring an independent Prosecutor who - subject to safeguards and fair trial guarantees - would make such decisions.

On 31 December 2000, however, President Clinton signed the Rome Statute, which was a positive step in favour of the Court. However, the US position has changed dramatically since the new administration under President Bush took office in 2001. On 6 May 2002, the US government took the unprecedented step of repudiating its signature of the Rome Statute and began a worldwide campaign to weaken the Court and to obtain impunity for all US nationals from the jurisdiction of the Court.

Amnesty International believes that the US concerns that the ICC will be used to bring politically motivated prosecutions against US nationals are wholly unfounded. The substantial safeguards and fair trial guarantees in the Rome Statute will ensure that such a situation would never arise.

This page provides information on two parts of the current US campaign against the ICC: impunity agreements and Security Council Resolution 1422. For further information on the USA and the ICC, please see the AI USA website, the AMICC website, the CICC website, or the Washington Working Group on the ICC website.

US Impunity Agreements

The USA is currently approaching governments around the world and asking them to enter into illegal impunity agreements. These agreements provide that a government will not surrender or transfer US nationals accused of genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes to the ICC, if requested by the Court. The agreements do not require the USA or the other state concerned to investigate and, if there is sufficient evidence, to prosecute such a person in US Courts. Indeed in many cases it would be impossible for US courts to do so, as US law does not include many of the crimes under the Rome Statute.

On 1 July 2003 the USA announced the withdrawal of military assistance to 35 states who are parties to the Rome Statute and have refused to sign an impunity agreement with the USA. On 8 December 2004, the USA went even further, withdrawing economic support from states that still refuse to sign impunity agreements. The withdrawal of this economic funding threatens to undermine counter-terrorism efforts, peace process programs, anti-drug trafficking initiatives, truth and reconciliation commissions and HIV/Aids education, and threatens states such as Jordan, Ireland, Cyprus, Peru, Ecuador, Venezuela and South Africa.

The USA claims that these agreements are legal and in conformity with Article 98 of the Statute. However, Amnesty International has conducted a legal analysis which demonstrates that US Impunity Agreements do not fall under Article 98, and states that enter into such agreements with the USA are in breach of their obligations under international law. This legal analysis (International Criminal Court: US efforts to obtain impunity for genocide, crimes against humanity and war

The US wouldn't accept it.

In 1984, the World Court ordered the U.S. to respect Nicaragua's borders and to halt the mining of its harbors by the CIA. In 1986, the World Court found our country guilty of violations of international law through its support of the Contras and ordered the payment of reparation to Nicaragua. Needless to say, we ignored both of those rulings.

Now, we must affirm that the United States will not cede its sovereignty to an institution which claims to have the power to override the United States legal system and to pass judgment on our foreign policy actions. We must refuse to allow our soldiers and Government officials to be exposed to trial for promoting the national security interests of the United States and deny the international court's self-declared right to investigate, prosecute, convict, and punish U.S. citizens for supposed crimes committed on American soil which is arguably unconstitutional.

[Emphasis mine]

woof.

and that Saddam Hussein is an innocent victim in all of this.

I'm not saying that. He's a nasty piece of work. I don't support him in any way. However, this is not the reason that the U.S. is invading. The plans for invading Iraq were written up many years ago, by the people who are currently in power, and not once in those plans does it talk about 'regime change', how saddam is oppressing his people, and not a word about terrorism.

it's an exaggeration for you to claim that Bush is a fascist

I agree, it is an exaggeration, and I didnt mean it entirely seriously.

The fascist is the one whose armed forces hide weapons in elementary schools and hospitals and have them attack the enemy while wearing civilian clothing and while pretending to surrender.

Can I remind you that this is what the U.S. did during the Vietnam war? They deliberately set up their defensive positions in and around villages with the same intention.

Saddam Hussein is personally responsible than the deaths of more Iraqi civilians than will be killed in this war.

So how responsible is the U.S. in all of this, seeing that they sold them the Chemical weapons? Furthur, it was Rumsfeld himself who did the bidding. How responsible was he? It's not as though he sold them to Saddam on the condition that he wouldn't use them. Enough nerve gas to kill 1m people is enough nerve gas to kill 1m people.

When photographs of George Bush line every street

Where does the distinction come between actual photos of the leader and little obnoxious U.S. flags stapled to everything in sight?

it's also not an act of fascism

I agree. Here, fascism is a misnomer, I just started talking about it because it was in the original sig. Let's just drop the f-word.

The fascist is the one who refuses to cooperate with a 12 year UN inspection program despite the fact that his failure of cooperation results in continued UN sanctions that cause widespread malnutrition and a horrifying infant mortality rate.

I'm confused here. Whose fault are you saying this is? The U.N.'s? Or Iraq's? It is Iraq's fault for not immediately agreeing to do whatever some random countries tell him to do otherwise they'll beat him up? If someone said this to the U.S.(not that anyone would ever be in the position to), the U.S. would definitely not conform, using it as an act of solidarity and defiance.

I've been discussing (arguing about:) this with friends for months now, and we've basically agreed it comes down to this.

You believe it is more dangerous to allow people like Saddam to continue ruling unchallenged.

However, I believe that it is more dangerous to allow the U.S. to believe it can continue getting away with this kind of stuff. Running around thinking it has the right to invade any country it likes, not conform to international law, hold prisioners in a legal black hole indefinitely, be immune to war crimes charges and hold its companies and citizens goals above anyone else's is not the sign of an advanced society.
Meanwhile at home trying to silence dissenters from the academic community.

"Well it would leave us open to false accusations by rogue governments!" Well yeah, that's the justice system. Not perfect, but they wouldn't be able to do any harm without any evidence. Oh boy what I'd give to fly over to America, meet Dubya, and say "Hi! I don't recognise your legal system because someone might falsely accuse me of something!" And give him a quick bit of justice upside the head. [Well, the prezel obviously taught him nothing, if indeed it was a prezel. Wouldn't you go get help if you were choking? Hmmm... *strokes chin*]

I imagine I'd still have to be off the scene before you can say "Unocal" though.

Ali