MaxedOutMama
Thursday, June 09, 2005
Newsy Tidbits
Trans Watch nails it in this misleadingly titled post. Scroll down to where he covers the story about a Spanish judge wanting to question US servicemen about a Spanish cameraman who was killed in Iraq. As TS writes:
Carl at No Oil For Pacifists takes a serious look at the EU political infighting in a post hopefully titled "Europe's Resurrection". This is an excellent look at the political in-fighting and possible developments.
Bill Gertz in The Washington Times: the CIA wasn't looking while China armed. Gertz seems to think the report is in itself a spackle:
Anyone that can’t understand why the US should not join the International Criminal Court should be able to figure it out now.Update: Dingo makes the argument that signing on to the ICC wouldn't make our soldiers vulnerable here and links to the statute; Boomr adds a link to www.ilsa.org, saying that examples of briefs on the question of ICC jurisdiction are still up there from 2004.
Carl at No Oil For Pacifists takes a serious look at the EU political infighting in a post hopefully titled "Europe's Resurrection". This is an excellent look at the political in-fighting and possible developments.
Bill Gertz in The Washington Times: the CIA wasn't looking while China armed. Gertz seems to think the report is in itself a spackle:
The report was created by several current and former intelligence officials and concludes that U.S. agencies missed more than a dozen Chinese military developments, according to officials familiar with the report.Timothy Shortell has decided not to accept the chair of Brooklyn College's sociology department according to Inside Higher Education:
The report blames excessive secrecy on China's part for the failures, but critics say intelligence specialists are to blame for playing down or dismissing evidence of growing Chinese military capabilities.
Brooklyn released a two-sentence statement saying that “Professor Timothy Shortell declined the election” as chair and that the college’s president “will be consulting with the department and appropriate members of the administration regarding the future leadership of the department.”There are some good links regarding the issues at The Torch, which is the FIRE blog. I agree that holding controversial views shouldn't disqualify him. The question is whether, as a department chair, he would act on those views and attempt to suppress those who oppose his views. That is not necessarily so.
Shortell could not be reached for comment Tuesday. A college spokesman and a faculty leader who supported Shortell both said Tuesday that Shortell himself decided to resign as chair and was not forced to do so. But faculty union officials at the college said that they viewed the furor over Shortell as an attack on important principles.
Steve London, an associate professor of political science at Brooklyn, said that Shortell “was subjected to a witch hunt and intimidation” and that the attacks on him were “an attack on academic freedom.”
Comments:
<< Home
"Anyone that can’t understand why the US should not join the International Criminal Court should be able to figure it out now."
I think you have been misled on this one.
First, that is a Spanish judge, not ICC. Completely different.
Second, foreign military people have been not only sought for questioning, but indicted and convicted in abstentia in US courts (The Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA)).
Third, the ICC has no jurisdiction as long as the host country is willing and able to have a court competent court and/or investigation. As long as the US military is willing to be just, the ICC would never have jurisdiction.
I think you have been misled on this one.
First, that is a Spanish judge, not ICC. Completely different.
Second, foreign military people have been not only sought for questioning, but indicted and convicted in abstentia in US courts (The Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA)).
Third, the ICC has no jurisdiction as long as the host country is willing and able to have a court competent court and/or investigation. As long as the US military is willing to be just, the ICC would never have jurisdiction.
Article 17 of the Rome Statute:
Issues of admissibility
1. Having regard to paragraph 10 of the Preamble and article 1, the Court shall determine that a case is inadmissible where:
(a) The case is being investigated or prosecuted by a State which has jurisdiction over it, unless the State is unwilling or unable genuinely to carry out the investigation or prosecution;
(b) The case has been investigated by a State which has jurisdiction over it and the State has decided not to prosecute the person concerned, unless the decision resulted from the unwillingness or inability of the State genuinely to prosecute;
(c) The person concerned has already been tried for conduct which is the subject of the complaint, and a trial by the Court is not permitted under article 20, paragraph 3;
(d) The case is not of sufficient gravity to justify further action by the Court.
Issues of admissibility
1. Having regard to paragraph 10 of the Preamble and article 1, the Court shall determine that a case is inadmissible where:
(a) The case is being investigated or prosecuted by a State which has jurisdiction over it, unless the State is unwilling or unable genuinely to carry out the investigation or prosecution;
(b) The case has been investigated by a State which has jurisdiction over it and the State has decided not to prosecute the person concerned, unless the decision resulted from the unwillingness or inability of the State genuinely to prosecute;
(c) The person concerned has already been tried for conduct which is the subject of the complaint, and a trial by the Court is not permitted under article 20, paragraph 3;
(d) The case is not of sufficient gravity to justify further action by the Court.
No - TS' underlying point was that such matters will inevitably be political in nature. If a soldier were in Spain and did something on his own hook, that's one thing. And the US military does sometimes surrender jurisdiction to a foreign power in such a case.
But for a soldier or soldiers in a combat zone to face such a claim is another. Your cites are the theory, and the US military should qualify as an arm of the US and thus a state authority.
But the ICC would be the one to decide whether, for instance, the US military should have prosecuted but was "unwilling". And perhaps the claim would be that Iraq was the "host country".
Do I believe our military people would get a fair hearing at the ICC? Not always, no. That is not to say that US soldiers have never committed crimes. In theory I am highly sympathetic to the ICC, but in practice at this time I don't think it would work fairly.
Some of these people are the same ones who have announced that Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinians. I don't trust Europe's officials at this time, and Europe's people would have no say in the matter.
But for a soldier or soldiers in a combat zone to face such a claim is another. Your cites are the theory, and the US military should qualify as an arm of the US and thus a state authority.
But the ICC would be the one to decide whether, for instance, the US military should have prosecuted but was "unwilling". And perhaps the claim would be that Iraq was the "host country".
Do I believe our military people would get a fair hearing at the ICC? Not always, no. That is not to say that US soldiers have never committed crimes. In theory I am highly sympathetic to the ICC, but in practice at this time I don't think it would work fairly.
Some of these people are the same ones who have announced that Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinians. I don't trust Europe's officials at this time, and Europe's people would have no say in the matter.
"But the ICC would be the one to decide whether, for instance, the US military should have prosecuted but was "unwilling". And perhaps the claim would be that Iraq was the "host country"."
If the US did not voluntary cede jurisdiction over its own citizens then there would have to be a UN security council resolution where we have veto power.
If the US did not voluntary cede jurisdiction over its own citizens then there would have to be a UN security council resolution where we have veto power.
I posted on it and Boomr left a good comment
http://barkingdingo.blogspot.com/2005/06/us-and-icc.html#comments
Post a Comment
http://barkingdingo.blogspot.com/2005/06/us-and-icc.html#comments
<< Home
