time to get serious . . . time to involve the ICC . . .

[OneBlueSky]

the International Criminal Court . . . yes, I know we're not a party to the Rome Statute and that the court therefore has no official jurisdiction . . . but there's more than one way to skin the proverbial cat (apologies to cat lovers), and I think it's time to explore them . . . and fast! . . .

http://www.icc-cpi.int/home.html&l=en

Purpose of the ICC

The International Criminal Court (ICC) is the first ever permanent, treaty based, international criminal court established to promote the rule of law and ensure that the gravest international crimes do not go unpunished.

The Court shall be complementary to national criminal jurisdictions. The jurisdiction and functioning of the Court shall be governed by the provisions of the Rome Statute.

The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court was established on 17 July 1998, when 120 States participating in the "United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court" adopted the Statute. The Statute entered into force on 1 July 2002. Anyone who commits any of the crimes under the Statute after this date will be liable for prosecution by the Court.

Preconditions to the exercise of jurisdiction
http://www.icc-cpi.int/about/ataglance/jurisdiction.html

The Court may exercise its jurisdiction with respect to the crime of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes either when the situation is referred to the Prosecutor by a State Party or by the Security Council, or when the Prosecutor decides to initiate an investigation his or her own decision and on the basis of information received. However, in this last case, the Prosecutor must seek the authorization of the Pre-Trial Chamber before proceeding with the investigation.

When the situation is referred to the Prosecutor by the Security Council, the Court may exercise its jurisdiction in all cases and no preconditions are applicable.

However, in the two other cases, when the Prosecutor decides to initiate an investigation on his or her own decision with the authorization of the Pre-Trial Chamber, or when the situation is referred to the Prosecutor by a State Party, strict preconditions shall be met before the Court can exercise its jurisdiction.

Indeed, in those two cases, the Court may exercise its jurisdiction only if either the State on the territory of which the suspected crime occurred (State of territoriality), or the State of which the person suspected of having committed the crime is a national (State of nationality of the suspected person), is a State Party to the Statute.

If neither of these two States is a State Party to the Statute, the Court will not be in a position to investigate the suspected crimes, except if either the State of territoriality or the State of nationality of the suspected person accepts the exercise of jurisdiction of the Court by declaration lodged with the Registrar. Such a declaration may be made for all suspected crimes committed after 1 July 2002 (taking into consideration that crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court are not subject to any statute of limitations).

Thus, if nationals of States Parties to the Statute are victims of suspected crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court in the territory of a State which is not a Party to the Statute committed by persons who are not nationals of a State Party, the Court wouldn't be in a position to investigate except if either the State of territoriality or the State of nationality of the suspected person accepts the jurisdiction of the Court, or if the situation is referred to the Court by the Security Council.

s-o-o-o-o-o-o . . . what kinds of possibilities can we imagine vis-a-vis the illegal actions of the US in Iraq? . . .

- since the United Kingdom IS a "State Party," the Court could bring charges against their leaders . . . and mention the US role very prominently in their indictment . . .

- the Court could file a case against US leaders while acknowledging that the US is NOT a "State Party" and therefore not subject to it's jurisdiction . . . however, the Court considers the crimes so egregious and the situation so crucial that they are filing the case to lay the evidence out for the public -- particularly the US public . . .

- the Security Council could refer the case, which means no preconditions are applicable . . . are there enough countries in the Security Council willing to stand up to the US and Britain? . . .

- ??????

[tritsofme]

1. It doesn't matter how many UNSC members stood up to the US and UK

they both have veto powers.

Being that we have not ratified the Rome Treaty, I see no way our leaders could fall under its jurisdiction.

[oblivious]

2. But according to the summary above, Iraq could get it started...

... if Iraq was a 'state party to the statute'. But skimming quickly through the site, I was not able to find a list of countries that had ratified the treaty. Do you know if Iraq had ratified it under the previous government?

Indeed, in those two cases, the Court may exercise its jurisdiction only if either the State on the territory of which the suspected crime occurred (State of territoriality), or the State of which the person suspected of having committed the crime is a national (State of nationality of the suspected person), is a State Party to the Statute.

[tritsofme]

3. Iraq is not a party to the Rome Statue either...

Do you think Saddam would sign on to an internation criminal court anymore than Bush would?

[oblivious]

4. There may be a problem then.

[oblivious]

5. But Afghanistan is on the list. Here's the list.

http://www.iccnow.org/countryinfo/worldsigsandratifications.html

[tritsofme]

10. But IIRC the war in Afghanistan was cleared by the Security Council. nt

[DrDebug]

6. You can't use the ICC for the US. But it can be used for Blair

And there have already been several groups who put a pressure on the ICC to look into the UK's involvement in Iraq.

One of the latest reports:

British soldiers face war crimes charges
Father tells of grief that followed death of Iraqi while in custody
Rory Carroll in Basra
Monday May 30, 2005
The Guardian

After Baha Mousa died, his mother broke down every time she entered his room. So the family moved all his belongings out of sight and turned it into a sitting room reserved for special occasions.

Yesterday, beneath a whirring fan his father, brothers, cousins and two young sons gathered there to hear the reports from London that up to 11 British soldiers could be prosecuted under international war crimes legislation for his death.

It would be the first time British forces were charged under the International Criminal Court Act, a legal landmark with potentially far-reaching ramifications for future military engagements.

"If this brings justice, it's a good thing," said his father, Daoud, 59. "They hurt him so much, they ignored his cries.

(...)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1495241,00.html

[oblivious]

7. How about using it for abuses in Afghanistan then?

Since Afghanistan is listed as a state party to the statute.

[DrDebug]

8. I don't know, but I doubt whether you can make it stick

The best approach will be to go after Blair first, because he is the most vulnerable one. The big case is still pending even though there are teams working on it, but the idea of going after individual (British) soldiers who have committed war crimes can have a huge demoralizing effect on the Iraq War efforts and probably will not require a lengthy time schedule like the other attempts.

[bicentennial_baby]

9. It won't work

for a variety of reasons...do the research.

[PATRICK]

11. Bush's premeditated crime

Bush withdrew from so many treaties and conventions in advance of declared war obviously not save his soldiers whom he threw to the wolves when needed, but to protect Bushco. That is ONLY how they operate as it is painfully obvious now.

For some reason in the early years even this hardened cynic thought they might have the welfare of America or others under their golden umbrella, but such has b=never been the case. Only the actual shooters and voters for Bush matter when they matter. Otherwise they are just the ranks of the suckers screwed.

As a result the ruling elite CAN become extremely isolated and identified and accused despite all their pomp and lies. Because they left everyone else in the world to rot, something unheard of even by the most crazed dictators. The slightest bit of real alliance or benefit to the common good and they could have cemented most of their agenda. But is was always to be theft by a few against everyone, no reliance on trust, chance or allegiance.

And certainly not on a piddling thing like legal barriers.