US supports war crimes tribunal for first time

[Judi Lynn]

Source: Associated Press

Published: Wednesday, Mar. 02, 2011 / Updated: Wednesday, Mar. 02, 2011 12:47 AM
US supports war crimes tribunal for first time
By EDITH M. LEDERER - Associated Press UNITED NATIONS --

The U.N. resolution imposing tough sanctions against Libya marked the first time that the United States has given its support to the International Criminal Court and signified a remarkable turnaround, though it includes a key exemption demanded by the Obama administration.

The resolution adopted unanimously by the Security Council on Saturday refers the actions of Moammar Gadhafi's regime since Feb. 15 to the court's prosecutor who must decide whether there is enough evidence of alleged crimes against humanity to warrant a full investigation. Prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo is required to deliver an initial report to the council in two months.

"It's a historic vote by the United States government because it's the first time in a Security Council resolution the United States has voted affirmatively on the side of the International Criminal Court," said Richard Dicker, head of the International Justice Program at Human Rights Watch. "That's a positive step."

But the United States insisted on including a provision in the resolution to protect Americans from investigation or prosecution by the International Criminal Court, known as the ICC. It requires that any citizen of a country that hasn't joined the ICC be investigated or prosecuted in his home country - not by the ICC - for any alleged actions stemming from operations in Libya authorized by the Security Council.


Read more: http://www.heraldonline.com/2011/03/02/2875962/us-supports-war-crimes-tribunal.html

[pacalo]

1. That "do as we say, not as we do" provision is unbelievable!

It certainly *implies* that there's reason to believe the U.S. would be prosecuted (if we would "allow" it :eyes: ).

[gateley]

5. It makes me ashamed for our country - I haven't felt that way since Bushco was

in office. :grr:

[bluesbassman]

2. You know they put those weasel words in there to protect Cheney and Bush. n/t

[gateley]

4. Exactly my thought. WHY are they protecting them? It's because of them that

our citizens' sons, daughters, siblings and spouses have been killed needlessly, why our country is in this financial nightmare.

They've GOT to have made some deal - I just don't understand it otherwise. But what could the Obama administration gain from this stance?

[hack89]

7. They also protect Obama

don't forget that many consider him guilty of war crimes because of civilian deaths due to drone attacks in Pakistan.

There was no way any American President, Democrat or Republican, would agree to any treaty that allowed a foreign country to prosecute high ranking US officials. We have enough enemies in the world willing to use such a treaty for political or ideological attacks against America.

[walldude]

10. Well if he didn't do anything illegal he should have nothing to fear

and if he did... well.. karma is a bitch.

[hack89]

12. Just pointing out it is not all about Bush.

It is hard to imagine any President in my lifetime that wouldn't be in jeopardy of prosecution for war crimes real or imagined. That's why it is not reasonable to think that any US president would agree to such a treaty. A harsh reality I know, but reality nonetheless.

[upi402]

3. US moral authority is gone

like a fart in the wind. We had enormous honor and the Republican war racketeers crapped all over it and flushed it.

[Scuba]

6. I'd be happy to nominate some defendents...

Bush
Cheney
Rumsfeld
Gonzalez
Rice
etc

[hack89]

8. Obama?

for continuing the wars?

[mmonk]

9. The United States of hypocrisy.

[dipsydoodle]

15. Couldn't have expressed that better.

so ditto.

[TheKentuckian]

11. As usual, more than a dime but not worth a quarter.

[nc4bo]

13. I think that provision tells the entire story.

This should tell any one paying attention, all they need to know.

But the United States insisted on including a provision in the resolution to protect Americans from investigation or prosecution by the International Criminal Court, known as the ICC. It requires that any citizen of a country that hasn't joined the ICC be investigated or prosecuted in his home country - not by the ICC - for any alleged actions stemming from operations in Libya authorized by the Security Council.

I guess the best defense is a good offense, eh.

[classysassy]

14. Once, again justice takes a holiday

It's so damn clear we do awful things but we protect our criminals,shame,shame on us.We wonder why we are hated around the world.