Illegitimate Transfer of Inalienable European Rights via Convention(s) & Supranational Bodies Establishment of Sovereignty-Usurping Supranational Body Dictatorships Enduring Program of DEMOGRAPHICS WAR on Europeans Enduring Program of PSYCHOLOGICAL WAR on Europeans Enduring Program of European Displacement, Dismemberment, Dispossession, & Dissolution
No wars or conditions abroad (& no domestic or global economic pretexts) justify government policy facilitating the invasion of ancestral European homelands, the rape of European women, the destruction of European societies, & the genocide of Europeans.
U.S. RULING OLIGARCHY WAGES HYBRID WAR TO SALVAGE HEGEMONY [LINK | Article]
Who's preaching world democracy, democracy, democracy? —Who wants to make free people free?
November 08, 2012 Who Will Watch the Watchmen?
Amnesty International and the Human Rights Industry
by DANIEL KOVALICK
When I studied law at Columbia in the early 1990s, I had the fortune of studying underLouis Henkin, probably the world’s most famous human rights theoretician. Upon his passing in 2010, Elisa Massimino at Human Rights First stated in Professor Henkin’s New York Times obituary that he “literally and figuratively wrote the book on human rights” and that “[i]t is no exaggeration to say that no American was more instrumental in the development of human rights law than Lou.”
Professor Henkin, rest his soul, while a human rights legend, was not always good on the question of war and peace. I know this from my own experience when I had a vigorous debate with him during and continuing after class about the jailing of anti-war protestors, including Eugene V. Debs, during World War I. In short, Professor Henkin, agreeing with Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, believed that these protestors were properly jailed because their activities, though peaceful, constituted a “clear and present danger” to the security of the nation during war time. I strongly disagreed.
That Professor Henkin would side with the state against these war protestors is indicative of the entire problem with the field of human rights which is at best neutral or indifferent to war, if not supportive of it as an instrument of defending human rights. This, of course, is a huge blind spot. In the case of World War I, for example, had the protestors been successful in stopping the war, untold millions would have been saved from the murderous cruelty of a conflict for which, to this day, few can adequately even explain the reasons. And yet, this does not seem to present a moral dilemma for today’s human rights advocates. (I will note, on the plus side, that Professor Henkin did become increasingly uneasy with the Vietnam War as that conflict unfolded, and specifically with the President’s increasing usurpation of Congress’s war authority).
In the end, it was not from Professor Henkin, but from other, dissident intellectuals who I learned the most about human rights and international law. The list of these intellectuals, none of whom actually practice human rights in their day job, includes Noam Chomsky, Edward S. Herman, Jean Bricmont and Diana Johnstone. And of course, I have read a lot of what they have to say on this subject on these very pages of CounterPunch.
And, what all of these individuals have emphasized time and time again is that international law, as first codified in the aftermath of World War II in such instruments as the UN Charter and the Nuremberg Charter, was created for the primary purpose of preserving and maintaining peace by outlawing aggressive war. And, why is this so? Because the nations which had just gone through the most destructive war in human history, with its attendant crimes of genocide and the holocaust, realized full well that those crimes were made possible by the paramount crime of war itself. As Jean Bricmont, then, in his wonderful book Humanitarian Imperialism, explains, the first crime for which the Nazis “were condemned at Nuremberg was initiating a war of aggression, which, according to the 1945 Nuremberg Charter, ‘is the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes is that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.’”
In other words, the logic of the very founders of international law,including international human rights law, was that, to preserve human rights, the primary task of nations is to ensure peace and to prevent war which inevitably leads to the massive violation of human rights. As Noam Chomsky has noted for years, quite notably in his 1971 Yale Law Review article entitled, “The Rule of Force in International Affairs,” 80 Yale L.J. 1456, one of the very first substantive norms established by the UN Charter is prohibition against aggressive war. Such a norm is contained, as Chomsky relates, in Article 2(4) which provides that all UN members “shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force . . . .” And, contrary to the position of the new humanitarian interventionists, Article 2(7) of the Charter specifically states that “[nothing in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state . . . .”
Sadly, as Chomsky noted even back in 1971, these norms, the paramount ones of the entire UN system, have sadly been read out of international law. And, they have been read out by, among others, such chief human rights groups as Amnesty International (AI) and Human Rights Watch (HRW). As Jean Bricmont, citing international law scholar Michael Mandel, explains in Humanitarian Imperialism, while AI and HRW urged all “’beligerents’” (without distinguishing between the attackers and the attacked) at the outset of the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq to respect the rules of war, neither group said a word about the illegality of the war itself. As Bricmont quite correctly stated, “[t]hese organizations are in the position of those who recommend that rapists use condoms,” ignoring the fact that once the intervention they failed to oppose “takes place on a large scale, human rights and the Geneva Conventions are massively violated.”
This brings us to the present time. Just last week, Amnesty International issued a long statement in opposition to an article I penned for Counterpunch on “Libya and the West’s Human Rights Hypocricy.” AI, in its counter-blog, entitled, “A Critic Gets it Wrong on Amnesty International and Libya” (see, owl.li/eYmTb), AI claims that I was wrong in stating that it had supported the NATO intervention in Libya. AI, affirming the critiques of Bricmont and Mandel, claims in this blog, that “Amnesty International generally takes no position on the use of armed force or on military interventions in armed conflict, other than to demand that all parties respect international human rights and humanitarian law.” AI then goes on to try to clarify that, in advance of the NATO intervention in Libya, AI, in a February 23, 2011, release, merely called on the Security Council to take immediate measures against Libya and Gaddafi, including [but not limited to] freezing the assets of Gaddafi and his senior military advisers, and investigating the possibility of a referral to the International Criminal Court.
In its blog contra my article, AI claims that it called for such action based upon Gaddafi’s verbal “threat to ‘cleanse Libya house by house’” to end the resistance. While this is true, this is not the whole truth. Thus, in AI’s Feburary 23, 2011 release, it also based this call upon “persistent reports of mercenaries being brought in from African countries by the Libyan leader to violently suppress the protests against him.” And, as we learned from our own Patrick Cockburn in an Independent article from June 24, 2011, entitled, “Amnesty questions claim that Gaddafi ordered rape as a weapon of war,” Amnesty ended up debunking the reports (though well after NATO’s attack against Libya had begun) that Gaddafi was bringing in foreign mercenaries to fight.
As Cockburn, citing Donatella Rovera, senior crisis response adviser for Amnesty International, explains:
“Rebels have repeatedly charged that mercenary troops from Central and West Africa have been used against them. The Amnesty investigation found there was no evidence for this. “Those shown to journalists as foreign mercenaries were later quietly released,” says Ms Rovera. “Most were sub-Saharan migrants working in Libya without documents.”
In other words, AI, on Feburary 23, 2011, was calling for Security Council action against Libya based upon reports about foreign mercenaries which it would later conclude were false, and upon verbal threats Gaddafi had made — very weak bases indeed for Security Council action.
And what about the calls for such action themselves? As we all know, the Security Council did act, authorizing a NATO attack upon Libya which began on March 19, 2011. The ordering of such an attack was a possible and indeed likely action which the Security Council would take, especially given that countries like the U.S. and France were aggressively pushing for such action at the time. And, AI full well knew this, and its calls for Security Council action worked in tandem with the efforts of the U.S. and France to obtain authorization for such an intervention.
In other words, AI, based at least in part on false reports, was pushing for Security Council action which it knew could, and most likely would, result in the authorization of force against Libya. And indeed, AI’s other call for possible referral of sitting Libyan officials to the International Criminal Court was tantamount to a call for armed intervention, including regime change, because only such intervention could bring about the hauling of sitting government officials to The Hague. AI’s current professions of neutrality on the issue of intervention notwithstanding, it can truly be stated that AI supported the intervention that took place in March of 2011 as an objective matter.
And sadly, this objective support was based in part on false reports of foreign, black mercenaries being brought into Libya. These false reports of mercenaries, in addition to feeding the calls for intervention, had another terrible effect – they helped lead to the massive reprisals against black Libyans and foreign guest workers during the conflict in Libya and continuing after the time that Gaddafi was toppled. The most notable of such reprisals was theutter destruction of the town of Tawarga, a town largely populated by black Libyans, by anti-Gaddafi rebels. To its great discredit, AI, in its rush to push for Security Council intervention, spread the very false reports which fueled such acts of vengeance.
And, what about AI’s response to crimes committed by NATO’s intervention in and bombing of Libya? AI, in its response to my article, cites to its criticism of NATO as evidence of its even-handedness in responding to the conduct of all sides of the Libyan conflict. Specifically, AI cites to the following criticism it made as such evidence:
Although NATO appears to have made significant efforts to minimize the risk of causing civilian casualties, scores of Libyan civilians were killed and many more injured. Amnesty International is concerned that no information has been made available to the families of civilians killed and those injured in NATO strikes about any investigations which may have been carried out into the incidents which resulted in death and injury.
Of course, this mere criticism demonstrates AI’s utter lack of even-handedness. First of all, in order to please its NATO patron, AI obviously felt compelled to lead its criticism with a compliment – patting NATO on the back for allegedly trying to “minimize the risk of causing civilian casualties,” as if aerial bombardment of major cities can ever constitute the minimization of such risks.
Then, AI complains that “no information has been made available” to the families of civilians killed or injured “about any investigations which may have been carried out into the incidents which resulted in death and injury.” What “investigations” is AI referring to here? Clearly, AI is complaining that NATO, left to police itself, has not shared the results of its own investigations into its own crimes.
The truth is that AI, which called for Security Council and possible ICC action against Libya as NATO was sharpening its knives to invade, has not called for a body outside NATO (e.g., the ICC) to investigate and possibly prosecute NATO officials for their crimes.What is good for the goose then, is not good for the gander in AI’s view. Of course, the ICC does not exist to prosecute those from the paler, Western countries. No, the ICC (which the U.S. is not even a signatory to and is therefore exempt from) is, in practice, for the darker races of the poorer countries; for those from Africa, Asia, and from time to time, the lesser Slavic nations. And, therein lies the problem inherent in the entire international human rights system of which AI is an integral part.
As we learn from Diana Johnstone in a CounterPunch article entitled, “How Amnesty International Became the Servant of U.S. Warmongering Foreign Policy,” AI’s journey to becoming an appendage of the U.S. and NATO recently became complete with its appointment of Suzanne Nossel as the new Director of Amnesty International USA. Diana Johnstone explains that Suzanne Nossel openly advocated, and indeed coined the term, “soft power” projection by the U.S. when she served in her last job as Assistant Secretary for International Organizations at none other than the U.S. State Department. And, as Jean Bricmont notes in Humanitarian Intervention, and as Ms. Nossel herself and AI fully understand, “soft power” only works because it has the very real threat of “hard power” (including economic sanctions and military intervention) behind it. AI has sadly forgotten that the wielding of such power by the rich countries to bully the weak is forbidden by the UN Charter which prohibits both the actual use and threat of force. It is those prohibitions which must be enforced first and foremost to truly protect human rights.
What’s more, as Diana Johnstone further explained in her CounterPunch article, Suzanne Nossel, just before being hired by AI, played a direct role while at the U.S. State Department in ginning up the pretexts for the NATO intervention in Libya. Ms. Johnstone explains that, “As Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for International Organizations, Ms. Nossel played a role in drafting the United Nations Human Rights Council resolution on Libya. That resolution, based on exaggeratedly alarmist reports, served to justify the UN resolution which led to the NATO bombing campaign that overthrew the Gaddafi regime. “ In other words, Ms. Nossel’s role in pushing the NATO intervention was similar to that of AI’s at the time, with both pushing exaggerated, and indeed false, claims to justify stepped up action against Libya.
AI’s current attempts to distance itself from the very NATO intervention which AI and Ms. Nossel worked together to help bring about simply do not ring true. I would submit that it is time for AI to do some real soul-searching on the issue of whether it wants to serve the interests of human rights or to serve the interests of NATO and Western military intervention, for it truly cannot serve both masters.
Daniel Kovalik is a labor and human rights lawyer living in Pittsburgh. He currently teaches International Human Rights at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law.
HILLARY CLINTON WE CAME, WE SAW, HE DIED .... HAHAHHAHHAAAA
*****
International law and humanitarian organisations are a bad joke.
How many acts of aggression has the US committed since the post WWII UN charter?
The US 'defender' of the world's humanity, freedom, democracy, and all that manipulative pretext baloney, isn't even a signatory to the ICC and is exempt from being tried for war crimes, while the human rights brigade work in tandem with Western warmongers (serving corporate interests) to push the US-NATO imperialist war agenda.
Note also, backing intervention based on false reports & massive reprisals against black Libyans as a result.
Given that UN charter prohibits intervention, why are these people even backing intervention in the first place, and why aren't they all being tried somewhere?
Gaddafi - Zenga Zenga Song (Noy Alooshe Extended Version)
U.S.: 'Hague Invasion Act' Becomes Law White House August 4, 2002
(New York) - 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. 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.
Well, here's Human Rights Watch on the Hague Invasion Act 2002:
"the new law authorizes the use of military force to liberate any American or citizen of a US-allied country being held by the court, which is located in The Hague."
That's just mind-blowing.
The law was passed during the time of George W Bush, President 2001-2009.
............................................
Bush also happens have been convicted, in absentia, as a war criminal:
Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal. Bush Convicted in Absentia: IT’S OFFICIAL – George W Bush is a war criminal.
By Yvonne Ridley Global Research, May 14, 2012 Foreign Policy Journal 14 May 2012 In what is the first ever conviction of its kind anywhere in the world, the former US President and seven key members of his administration were today (Friday) found guilty of war crimes. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and their legal advisers Alberto Gonzales, David Addington, William Haynes, Jay Bybee and John Yoo were tried in absentia in Malaysia. The trial held in Kuala Lumpur heard harrowing witness accounts from victims of torture who suffered at the hands of US soldiers and contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan. They included testimony from British man Moazzam Begg, an ex-Guantanamo detainee and Iraqi woman Jameelah Abbas Hameedi who was tortured in the notorious Abu Ghraib prison. At the end of the week-long hearing, the five-panel tribunal unanimously delivered guilty verdicts against Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and their key legal advisors who were all convicted as war criminals for torture and cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment. Full transcripts of the charges, witness statements and other relevant material will now be sent to the Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, as well as the United Nations and the Security Council. The Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission is also asking that the names of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Gonzales, Yoo, Bybee, Addington and Haynes be entered and included in the Commission’s Register of War Criminals for public record. The tribunal is the initiative of Malaysia’s retired Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad, who staunchly opposed the American-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. EXTRACT ONLY - FULL @ SOURCE http://www.globalresearch.ca/kuala-lumpur-war-crimes-tribunal-bush-convicted-in-absentia-it-s-official-george-w-bush-is-a-war-criminal/30839
Israel voted against the adoption of the Rome Statute but later signed it for a short period. In 2002, the United States and Israel "unsigned" the Rome Statute, indicating that they no longer intend to become states parties and, as such, they have no legal obligations arising from their signature of the statute.
Israel states that it has "deep sympathy" with the goals of the Court. However, it has concerns that political pressure on the Court would lead it to reinterpret international law or to "invent new crimes". It cites the inclusion of "the transfer of parts of the civilian population of an occupying power into occupied territory" as a war crime as an example of this ...
United States
There is presently bipartisan consensus that the United States does not intend to ratify the Rome Statute. Some US Senators have suggested that the treaty could not be ratified without a constitutional amendment. Therefore, US opponents of the ICC argue that the US Constitution in its present form does not allow a cession of judicial authority to any body other than the Supreme Court. In the view of proponents of the ICC there is no inconsistency with the US Constitution, arguing that the role of the US Supreme Court as final arbiter of US law would not be disturbed. Before the Rome Statute, opposition to the ICC was largely headed by Republican Senator Jesse Helms. Other objections to ratification have included that it violates international law, is a political court without appeal, denies fundamental American human rights, denies the authority of the United Nations, and would violate US national sovereignty.
Israel understandably objects, as Israel is transferring civilian population as an occupying power into occupied territory (which is presumably what the illegal settlements drama is all about).
USA hides behind the Constitution and a host of other arguments, for good measure. Best one is 'violates US national sovereignty.'
Israel launches campaign to discredit International Criminal Court inquiry
Posted on January 19, 2015 by JNS.org
By Shlomo Cesana/Israel Hayom/JNS.org
The Israeli government has launched a public diplomacy campaign to discredit the legitimacy of the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) recent decision to start an inquiry into what the Palestinians call Israeli “war crimes” in the disputed territories. According to ICC prosecutor Fatou Bensouda, the inquiry—which was initiated after a request by the Palestinian Authority (PA)—is not a formal investigation, but rather “a process of examining the information available in order to reach a fully informed determination on whether there is a reasonable basis to proceed with an investigation pursuant to the criteria established by the [ICC’s] Rome Statute.” [So this isn't even a proper inquiry; it is merely an inquiry to see if there is BASIS to commence an ICC inquiry.] Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas recently signed the Rome Statute in order to join the ICC after failing to get a U.N. Security Council resolution passed that called for Israel’s withdrawal from the disputed territories by 2017. Israel’s campaign against the ICC inquiry will focus on the fact that the because the charges were filed by the PA, which is not a state, the court has no authority to act. In addition, the campaign will point out the court’s bias against Israel—a country on the frontline of the war against global terrorism that makes sure to abide by international law by way of an independent legal system. [Anybody that's ever broken international laws has had an 'independent legal system'. As for 'court's bias against Israel', isn't it a bit too early for that?] The Israeli government decided to launch the public diplomacy campaign at an emergency meeting in response to the ICC decision that was convened by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The meeting, which took place at Netanyahu’s office, was attended by Israeli security, legal, and diplomatic officials. The ICC’s decision to launch the inquiry into Israeli actions is “the height of hypocrisy and the opposite of justice,” Netanyahu said Sunday at the start of his weekly cabinet meeting, two days after the court announced the inquiry. “During my years of public service, both as U.N. ambassador and as prime minister, I encountered these kinds of events, but this decision by the [ICC] prosecutor is in a league of its own,” Netanyahu said. “It gives international legitimacy to international terrorism.” [It's a war crimes inquiry.] The prime minister said Israel would fight the ICC’s decision with every means it has available, including the enlistment of its allies. Along those lines, Israel is lobbying member states of the ICC to cut funding for the tribunal, Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman said on Sunday. Israel, which like the United States does not belong to the ICC, hopes to dent funding for the court that is drawn from its 122 member states in accordance with the size of member states’ economies, said Lieberman. [USA & Israel are not members of ICC.] “We will demand of our friends in Canada, in Australia, and in Germany simply to stop funding it,” Lieberman told Israel Radio. “This body (the ICC) represents no one. It is a political body,” he added. A loss of funding would exacerbate the ICC’s already serious financing problems. Last week, Reuters reported that the unexpected arrival of an indicted defector from Joseph Kony’s Lord’s Resistance Army in Uganda would put prosecutors under severe financial strain. The overwhelming bulk of the court’s funding comes from advanced economies of Europe and North Asia. Japan is the largest contributor, giving $23.7 million in 2014, followed by Germany, which gave $15.7 million. France, Britain, and Italy are also major contributors to the ICC’s budget, which will rise 7 percent to $164 million in 2015. Canada contributed $6.5 million. Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and Canadian Foreign Minister John Baird visited Israel this week, and the Israeli government planned to raise the ICC funding issue with both foreign leaders. “Israel is adamant that it will have the right to defend itself against all those who wish to propagate terror and other attacks against its citizens, against its territory,” Netanyahu said at the start of a meeting with Abe. “We will not have our hands ties by anyone, including the ICC. We will do what is necessary to defend ourselves wherever we need to do so.” Despite Israel’s lobbying efforts, even countries that are traditionally close to the Jewish state are unlikely to renege on their treaty commitments to fund the ICC, said Kevin Jon Heller, a professor of law at London’s School of Oriental and African Studies. “Germany is probably the least likely country in the world to go against the ICC no matter how supportive of Israel it has traditionally been,” Heller said. “It was one of the very leading states in the creation of the ICC.” ICC prosecutors said Friday that they would examine “in full independence and impartiality” crimes that may have occurred in the disputed Palestinian territories since June 13, 2014. This allows the court to delve into alleged war crimes during Operation Protective Edge, which took place in July and August, but not into Hamas terrorists’ June 12 kidnapping and murder of three Israeli teens in Gush Etzion. Hamas on Saturday welcomed the ICC inquiry and said it was prepared to provide material for complaints against Israel. [The kidnapping is a separate event, in the lead up to OPE - here.] http://www.jns.org/latest-articles/2015/1/19/israel-launches-campaign-to-discredit-international-criminal-court-inquiry#.VL5zrSyGOIQ=
COMMENT
It's hard to see why Israel is kicking up such a fuss when this isn't even a formal investigation. It's just a preliminary inquiry and if Israel considers they've acted within the law, then what is the problem with such an inquiry?
As Israel is not a member of ICC, the ability to conduct an inquiry into Israel's actions would, I assume, come from the fact that the Palestinian Authority recently signed up as a member of ICC.
The 'frontline of global terrorism' and 'right to defend' are phrases repeated elsewhere, to create an impression of justification and common interest (with 'global terrorism' reference).
It is interesting that USA and Israel are not members of the International Criminal Court.
The ICC is a permanent court established by the Rome Statute
to prosecute persons for the most serious international crimes:
genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. The Rome Statute is
an international treaty that has been ratified by 122 countries, and has
been signed by an additional 31 countries that have not yet ratified
it, with the United States being one of the few countries not to ratify
or sign the statute. Unlike other international courts, the ICC can only
prosecute individuals and not organizations or governments, which
allows the court to focus on high-level government officials that are
typically exempted from international prosecution for their government’s
illegal actions.
Should be interesting to see who is on the list of 31 that have opted out.
The ICC being able to prosecute only individuals is strange, I would think. Why not also organisations and governments?
Anyway, the article indicates that the ICC can therefore focus on high-level government officials which typically slip out of the reach of "prosecution for their government's illegal actions."
USA's excuse for not being on-board the ICC sounds like a load of garbage. The likelihood is that the USA is protecting its higher-ups from prosecution by not signing up, so it is in effect leaving the door wide open to Rome Statute abuses by its government and officials.
Did the Senate just open the U.S. up to ICC prosecution?
By Mark Kersten December 10, 2014
Dec. 9 saw the much anticipated release of the U.S. Senate’s “torture report,” outlining in harrowing and tragic detail the CIA’s program of “enhanced interrogation techniques” in its “global war on terror.” On Dec. 2, the Office of the Prosecutor at the International Criminal Court also released a report in which it made clear that it was inching closer to opening an official investigation into crimes in Afghanistan – including U.S. interrogation techniques. These developments could very well expose U.S. officials to formal investigation – and potentially prosecution – by the ICC. But is the court truly prepared to confront Washington head-on?
The international justice and human rights world is abuzz with the possibility that accountability for U.S.-sponsored and perpetrated torture and so-called “enhanced interrogation techniques” may finally be at hand. In the span of just a few days, the once naive aspiration that U.S. officials would come under the judicial microscope of the ICC has been resuscitated. However, any move to investigate and prosecute alleged crimes by U.S. citizens in Afghanistan needs to be set within the context of the ICC’s interest in maintaining positive relations with the United States while pushing for accountability for crimes committed by even the most powerful of states.
Despite the United States being a non-member state, no relationship has dominated the court’s first decade as much as that with Washington. The popular narrative, one that the court and its advocates regularly reiterate, is one of consistent struggle and resilient progress. The storyline goes something like this: Despite the United States voting against the creation of the ICC in 1998, in one of his last acts while in office, President Bill Clinton signed the Rome Statute. However, not long after the court became a functioning entity, then-U.S. Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security John Bolton was dispatched to “unsign” the statute, an unprecedented political move. What followed was a series of hostile measures by the United States, including the passage of the American Service-Members Protection Act (or “The Hague Invasion Act”) which prohibited the United States from providing funds to the court and bestowed upon the president the right to use “all necessary measures” to repatriate any U.S. citizen detained by the court. At the same time, the administration successfully employed coercive diplomacy against over a hundred states to ensure that they signed “Bilateral Immunity Agreements,” guaranteeing that they would never surrender a U.S. official or soldier to the ICC.
During President George W. Bush’s second term, relations began to thaw. In 2005, the United States allowed the passage of a U.N. Security Council resolution referring Darfur to the ICC. When President Obama arrived on the scene, relations continued to warm. The United States began actively participating in ICC conferences, identified areas in which it could cooperate with the court and spoke of its “positive engagement”with the ICC. In addition, the State Department expanded its Rewards for Justice Program to include ICC indictees and played an important role in the surrender of Bosco Ntaganda, charged with committing war crimes in the Democratic Republic of Congo, to The Hague.
As David Bosco cogently argues in his book, “Rough Justice,” the ICC has generally sought to accommodate U.S. interests. Seeking to improve its relationship with the world’s most powerful country – and the country with the best surveillance techniques and thus access to the kind of evidence the court needs – prosecutors avoided stepping on Washington’s toes, neither investigating alleged abuses by U.S. officials nor intervening in states where the United States had preexisting political interests. This avoidance of confrontation, however, may be about to change in dramatic fashion.
That allegations of torture by U.S. officials in Afghanistan were mentioned in the ICC prosecutor’s report may seem, at first glance, to be window dressing to assuage the concerns of many that the court is toothless when it comes to confronting powerful states. But behind this unprecedented and explicit mention of potential U.S. culpability is a court that appears more willing than ever to finally push the United States over accountability for international crimes in Afghanistan. However, in the wake of some serious setbacks including the collapse of the case against Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta, is the ICC in a position to do so?
There are two lines of thought on whether the ICC should pursue a formal investigation of U.S. officials for their use of torture in Afghanistan. First, there is the argument that thecourt is in too weak of a position to pursue the prosecution of citizens from great powers. The fear here is that the positive relationship the court worked so hard to earn shouldn’t be sacrificed for a fight that the ICC can’t win. The second viewpoint is that the court is in too weak of a position and thus it must confront abuses from great powers. The weakness of the ICC, in this view, stems from its unwillingness to challenge powerful states and its propensity to focus on weaker states in Africa. Strength will only come when the ICC fulfills its promise to transcend, rather than accommodate, global powers.
Unsurprisingly, U.S. officials aren’t thrilled with the prospect of an ICC investigation. Stephen Rapp, U.S. ambassador-at-large for war crimes issues, responded to the ICC’s report by insisting that, because the United States isn’t a member-state, the court has no right to investigate alleged war crimes committed by its citizens. But this is unlikely to resonate with human rights and international justice advocates, many of whom view it as another reiteration of U.S. exceptionalism.
With the release of the torture report, it will become increasingly difficult for the ICC not to press forward. Expectations that the court confront allegations of international crimes by Western states have never been higher and, as Eugene Kontorovich observes, the torture report “gives significant impetus and ammunition to the ICC’s investigation.” With the CIA’s dirty laundry now airing in the political winds, it will be nearly impossible for the court to reverse course and avoid confronting U.S. abuses in Afghanistan.[Eugene Kontorovich is a professor at Northwestern University School of Law, and an expert on constitutional and international law.]
Still, advocates of accountability should not get too far ahead of themselves. The gears of justice at the ICC grind notoriously slowly. Moreover, the court’s endgame is not to prosecute U.S. officials. Instead, it is to galvanize domestic accountability for any alleged crimes committed by Western officials. Indeed, it is not within the ICC’s institutional interests to pick a fight it can’t win with the United States or incur the wrath of Washington’s resultant hostility. The prosecutor’s report on Afghanistan is thus not so much a threat to the United States as a signal to take justice for alleged torture seriously. Doing so would require going high up the political food chain, to those in the Bush administration “most responsible” for deploying torture as a means of war. The question is: Will the United States take the opportunity to finally pursue accountability for alleged international crimes committed by its citizens in Afghanistan or not? The world – and the ICC – is watching. [As if USA ever plans on being held accountable.]
Mark Kersten is a researcher based at the London School of Economics and the creator of the blog, Justice in Conflict.
I can't even believe what I've read here. USA did everything it could to avoid being liable to ICC investigations, and it even went that step further by passing some 'Hague Invasion Act' and bullying over a hundred sovereign nations into signing a guarantee that they will not hand over US citizens -- who happen to be accused war criminals.
Compare what you've just read in the Washington Post article above to this AHA spin published in 2013:
The main speaker at the event was Stephen Rapp, who currently serves
as the U.S. Ambassador-at-Large for Global Criminal Justice. Rapp
started his address by expounding on some of the reasons why the U.S.
hasn’t been a more active participant in the ICC, while also taking time
to describe some of the many ways that the U.S. currently works to
protect the human rights of people across the world. [Hahaahahah]
One of Rapp’s key points was that long-standing political and
philosophical traditions in our country have prevented us from joining
the ICC. The most important of these traditions, according to Rapp, is
the belief by Americans that we can better help suffering people than
the international community, and that our ability to help others without
changing our national identity or culture will be threatened by joining
an international institution that has its own laws and regulations
which come from non-American societies. Additionally, Rapp felt that a
certain degree of misinformation, such as the common but mistaken belief
that the ICC is a part of the much-maligned UN, has prevented American
policy makers from advancing the relationship between the U.S. and the
ICC. [Long-standing traditions? Ummm, like bombing the f*ck out of other nations? 'Help suffering people' ... with another round of water-boarding, coups, invasions, massacres, and arming dictators or extremists?]
That guy's title should be Embassador-at-Large-for-Cr*p.
Both USA and Israel are adept at getting their own way on the international stage and they work in tandem, so I highly doubt that anything will come of the preliminary ICC inquiry into Israel's Operation Protective Edge actions.
As for an inquiry into USA activities, I'm certain that any ICC mention etc, is 100% window-dressing and that the ICC is yet another organisation that serves USA's agenda.
All of this ICC potential USA and Israel 'inquiry' stuff is probably a bit of entertainment cooked up for the sake of appearances.
Rome, 17 July 1998
Entry into force:
1 July 2002, in accordance with article 126.
Registration : 1 July 2002, No. 38544
Status : Signatories : 139. Parties : 123
The Statute was adopted on 17 July 1998 by the United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court.
In accordance with its article 125, the Statute was opened for signature by all States in Rome at the Headquarters of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations on 17 July 1998.
Thereafter, it was opened for signature in Rome at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Italy until 17 October 1998.
After that date, the Statute was opened for signature in New York, at United Nations Headquarters, where it will be until 31 December 2000.
plenipotentiary
A person, especially a diplomat, invested with the full power of independent action on behalf of their government, typically in a foreign country. [source]
Netanyahu Urges US Lawmakers to Defend Israel Against ICC "War Crimes" Prosecution
As calls grow for additional investigation and possible prosecution, nation's prime minister looks to allies in US Congress for support
by Jon Queally, staff writer
According to U.S. Congressman Steve Israel (D-NY), the Israeli government hopes that he and his colleagues in Washington, DC will do everything in their power to prevent the International Criminal Court from pushing forward with possible war crimes charges against his nation over its recent attack on the Gaza Strip which resulted in the killing over nearly 1,900 Palestinians, including a large proportion of civilians and hundreds of children.
Speaking to the New York Post from Israel, where he was travelling at the invitation of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (or AIPAC), Rep. Israel described the meeting between U.S. lawmakers in the delegation, AIPAC officials, and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
“The prime minister asked us to work together to ensure that this strategy of going to the ICC does not succeed,” the congressman told the Post. “[Netanyahu] wants the US to use all the tools that we have at our disposal to, number one, make sure the world knows that war crimes were not committed by Israel, they were committed by Hamas. And that Israel should not be held to a double standard.”
During a meeting at The Hague on Tuesday of this week, Palestinian Foreign Minister Riad al-Malki told prosecutors at the International Criminal Court that "clear evidence" of war crimes by Israel against the people of Gaza exists.
"Everything that has happened in the last 28 days is clear evidence of war crimes committed by Israel, amounting to crimes against humanity," Malki said. "There is no difficulty for us to show or build the case. Evidence is there for people to see and collect. Israel is in clear violation of international law."
Prior to his trip, Rep. Israel released a statement announcing, "I have always been one of Israel’s strongest supporters in the U.S. Congress, and I will always stand up for its needs.” Recently, during the height of the conflict the congressman was among lawmakers who signed a letter to the United Nations calling on it to "condemn Hamas’ use of civilians as human shields, which is a direct violation of international law." That the Hamas government "uses human shields" in Gaza is a familiar Israeli government talking point, but no independent evidence exists to support the accusation and the claim is widely dismissed as straight propagandaby agencies and experts on the ground in Gaza.
Despite Congressman Israel's characterization of the conflict in Gaza—and the consistent defense by Netanyahu and other Israeli officials that its military's behavior in the Strip was and is justified—global indignation and condemnation has resulted from the fact that while three civilians and just over 60 soldiers were killed on the Israeli side during the fighting, official estimates on the Palestinian side put the death toll at 1,865 people killed, including 429 children under the age of 18; 79 people over the age of 60; and 243 women.
The Israeli government continues to repeat that it killed "900+ terrorists" during what it called Operation Protective Edge, but it offers no convincing argument on how it distinguishes an adult Palestinian male sleeping in his bed, seeking shelter, or fleeing hostilities from someone acting in a military or offensive capacity.
Meanwhile, Amnesty International on Thursday announced that is has seen mounting and "alarming" evidence that the IDF launched what it called "apparently deliberate attacks" against hospitals and health professionals in Gaza during Israel's incursion.
“Such attacks are absolutely prohibited by international law and would amount to war crimes," aid Philip Luther, Middle East and North Africa Director at Amnesty International. "They only add to the already compelling argument that the situation should be referred to the International Criminal Court.”
Earlier this week, Human Rights Watch said it has now documented cases in which Israel fired on civilians who were fleeing the violence and stated that "deliberate attacks on civilians who are not participating in the fighting are war crimes."
“The horrors of war are bad enough for civilians even when all sides abide by the law,” said Sarah Leah Whitson, HRW's regional director for the Middle East and North Africa. “But it’s abhorrent that Israeli forces are making matters even worse by so blatantly violating the laws of war designed to spare civilians.”
In addition to the death toll, there are thousands injured (burns; rehab; lifelong support etc)
30% displaced in Gaza
$5b estimated damage
10,000 lost homes
134 factories damaged
EU-NATO IMPERIALISM ❌ 