Concerning the International Criminal Court (ICC)...

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

...How does one go about getting a case before this body? Anyone familiar with the workings of the ICC? We all know that a very compelling case can now be constructed for Bush being a war criminal. How might we expect an indictment naming Chimpy for war crimes handed down by this body to effect the remainder of his illegitimate reign? I don't see how MSM could possibly ignore it, although they would surely try to spin it. Who has some international law expertise (particularly pertaining to war crimes) to share? A worthy endeavor? Yes/no? Any comments?

[rumpel]

1. I intend to check it out in detail, but I know the US is not signatory

so, technically these people can not be dragged to The Hague.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

3. Does not being a...

...signatory mean a nation does not fall under the purview of the ICC, or simply that the nation in question does not recognize their authority as applied to itself? I would think such an indictment would have great symbolic value even if Chimpy could not actually be dragged before the ICC, and it doesn't seem reasonable that they would refuse to hear a case because those who stand accused are from a non-signatory nation.

[Spurt]

2. Only a State or...

...the UN security Council can instigate proceedings.

http://www.icc-cpi.int/

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

4. Good link. Thank you. nt.

[rumpel]

5. Yes, thanks. I downloaded the statute. Oh, how I wish to see the whole

bush & Co. there....

[ohio_graduate]

6. Not a chance....

My first post, but something I know about. I have written a decent amount about the ICC for my PhD program, no expert, but I know a good amount and my dissertation might have some ICC in it. Under the current rules there is a 0% chance of Bush being dragged in front of the court. I could go into detail, but that would take up way to much space. Simmple put the ICC was watered down from how it was first envisioned. Right now it only has jurisdiction over member states. Also,the only cases it hears is when a member state is unable take care of a complaint againist someone. Many of the current guidlines were put in so the US would join... So right now not a chance... honestly right now I think the ICC is way to weak to be effective at all, because it can't hear the majority of the cases it needs to.

[rumpel]

8. Welcome to DU. Well you must be more informed than most of us. This

topic would be a good one to continue for the future of the ICC as it was envisioned.

On edit

also in future discussions, I am almost ready to hit the hay...

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

9. Thanks for the insights...

...and welcome to DU. I wonder then if an issue could be made by Dems over our not being a member state. And who gets to decide whether the U.S. is a member state? Chimpy? Could it be introduced as a Bill where Dems could force Repugs to vote on it and explain why it's so important that the U.S. be above international law? We're presumably spreading democracy across the globe while we formally refuse to submit to international law. Dare we ask why they hate America?

[ohio_graduate]

11. Actually...

I am/was working on a study to see if the the issue of the ICC does affect various countries opinions of the USA. The problem is I do not have the best of data, but I have some decent data and it seems like it might, but I have reached no firm conclusions yet. I do agree it does send a bad message, but one problem seems to be atleast in America I am not sure how much the public will care about it.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

12. It would have...

...to be introduced to the public within the framework of a war crimes trial and why there is a need for one. They may not be receptive, I'm not sure.

I am sure that your expertise is appreciated. Thank you, and please feel free to post anything you feel is relevant to this thread.

[newyawker99]

13. Hi ohio_graduate!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[rumpel]

7. Remember? Bush requested immunity for the US from several States and

they gave it to them. I think he needed a certain number. Then he wanted it extended some balked at it, but he still got it. Wonder when that is up for renewal...

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

10. I think Dems should...

...make an issue of it and talk about what specifically constitutes war crimes. Of course, they won't even talk about our two stolen presidential elections, I suppose it's unlikely they would dare speak of Chimpy's crimes against humanity.

[Monkey see Monkey Do]

14. You forget the 'Invade the Netherlands' law that Bush passsed

from HRW:

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.

http://www.hrw.org/press/2002/08/aspa080302.htm

You may be interested in this site - USA for ICC:

http://www.usaforicc.org/

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

15. We're a rogue...

...nation out of control.