US Gets One Year Exemption from War Crimes

[renata]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&e=3&u=/ap/20030612/ap_on_re_us/un_international_court


The U.N. Security Council on Thursday approved another one-year exemption for American peacekeepers from prosecution by the new international war crimes tribunal.

France, Germany and Syria abstained, apparently ignoring a U.S. appeal not to further strain the bitter trans-Atlantic division over the war against Iraq (news - web sites).

U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan (news - web sites) spoke out strongly against any attempt to try to make the exemption permanent — which the United States initially sought. He warned that this would not only undermine the International Criminal Court but the authority of the U.N. Security Council "and the legitimacy of United Nations (news - web sites) peacekeeping."

The resolution adopted by a vote of 12-0 with the three abstentions, authorizes a yearlong exemption from arrest or trial for peacekeepers from the United States and other countries that have not ratified the Rome treaty establishing the court.
.....

All 15 EU nations are among the 90 countries that are party to the court, which will prosecute cases of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity committed after July 1, 2002. The court will step in only when countries are unwilling or unable to dispense justice themselves.

.....

Then President Clinton (news - web sites)'s administration signed the 1988 Rome treaty setting up the court, but the Bush administration has rescinded the U.S. signature.

Bush contends that Americans could be subject to the court's jurisdiction even if it is not a party to the pact. Washington argues that the court could be used for frivolous or politically motivated prosecutions of American troops.
....

During last year's battle, the United States threatened to end far-flung peacekeeping operations established or authorized by the United Nations — from Afghanistan (news - web sites) and the Mideast to Bosnia and Sierra Leone — if it didn't get an exemption.

The final deal dented the court's underlying principle that no one should be exempt from punishment for war crimes, and it angered court supporters and human rights groups.





I do think this treaty, as I understand it may be misused for political gain. Recall that the UN Human Rights commission, is comprised of who is who of worst offenders- it is possible the court will go the same way. I also do not believe US Army deliberately conducts war crimes, although of course there have been horrible individual incidents in the past.

However- if the US gets an exception from war crimes- well, it just looks so bad. Perhaps I am reacting without sufficient information, but it is strange we are asking for the treatment we would not grant anyone else. Does anyone know more about this issue?

Here is a thread on the HRC, if anyone is interested http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=17956

[Frostbite]

Not good. Exemption from war crimes, control of space, control of Iraq's oil, etc. USA wants to become a NWO?

[aerocontrols]

Does France still have its 7 year exemption?

[renata]

Originally posted by aerocontrols
Does France still have its 7 year exemption?


I had not realized France had an exemption. If so, then its stance is quite hypocritical. Do you have any info on that? Thanks

[Beleth]

"Washington argues that the court could be used for frivolous or politically motivated prosecutions of American troops."

And having an exemption from the court could be used for committing all sorts of atrocities that could never be brought to justice.

Which is worse - a frivolous prosecution, or a "Get Out Of Jail Free" card?

This is just wrong in so may ways. I am embarrassed for the US simply because we asked for this exemption, let alone that we actually received it.

[DialecticMaterialist]

According to this reasoning, FDR, Churchill, McArthur and Truman would have all been hung for war crimes after world war 2.

I don't think that sort of thing was what the Geneva convention was made to enforce. (Seeing as they did not label any of them as war criminals).

This is clearly an abuse of law and if the UN pursues this matter things will get bitter. The UN if it finds anyone guilty will not be able to punish anybody, as the american people will not stand for their soldiers being cut off in this manner.


And I really hope the UN doesn't try to enforce any of this with force, because then it will be war. If not armed, then a Cold War.

And if war, cold or hot, maybe martial law and new McCarthyisms on both sides.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by renata



I had not realized France had an exemption. If so, then its stance is quite hypocritical. Do you have any info on that? Thanks

http://216.239.39.100/search?q=cache:M69iaXiCRn4J:www.washtimes.com/op-ed/bering.htm+%22seven+year+exemption%22&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

If France's exemption still stands, the ICC will have jurisdiction over French peacekeepers for any ill deeds performed after July, 2009.

MattJ

[ZeeGerman]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
According to this reasoning, FDR, Churchill, McArthur and Truman would have all been hung for war crimes after world war

This is utter nonsense, the ICC doesn't even provide death penalty.

And the ICC targets individuals who personally commit atrocities or give the direct order for them. None of this is true for the persons mentioned above. Or is it?

Zee

[Tony]

Originally posted by ZeeGerman



And the ICC targets individuals who personally commit atrocities or give the direct order for them. None of this is true for the persons mentioned above. Or is it?




It depends on you definition of "atrocity".


Some would say nuking Japan in WW2 was an atrocity, I don’t think it was.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by ZeeGerman
Or is it?


What do you think?

[Landis]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
According to this reasoning, FDR, Churchill, McArthur and Truman would have all been hung for war crimes after world war
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If Germany had won the war, the above mentioned people would have been hung.

[Earthborn]

According to this reasoning, FDR, Churchill, McArthur and Truman would have all been hung for war crimes after world war 2.Unless they can explain to the court that their actions were necessary to defend their national security or for the liberation of other nations.

I also doubt that they would have been convicted: they would probably be able to stall their convictions indefinately by pretending to be too sick to appear in court, making claims that they don't recognize its authority, etc etc... :)

I really would have preferred if some of these men had to justify their actions in a court of law. I really want to know how anyone could reasonably justify the atomic bombs on Japan for example...

And it is true: the ICC cannot issue the death penalty.Seeing as they did not label any of them as war criminals.I think the ICC is meant to make sure that even winners of a conflict are not above the law. It is created so might no longer makes right.The UN if it finds anyone guilty will not be able to punish anybody, as the american people will not stand for their soldiers being cut off in this manner.Will they even stand for those who have been proven war criminals? And if they stand by them so much, why would they even extradite them?

[DialecticMaterialist]

And the ICC targets individuals who personally commit atrocities or give the direct order for them. None of this is true for the persons mentioned above. Or is it?

A-bombs, firebombing of Dunburg, etc.
The allies did kill many civilians during ww2, some on purpose.

[DialecticMaterialist]

Will they even stand for those who have been proven war criminals? And if they stand by them so much, why would they even extradite them?


They will recognize the necessities and reality of war, and how ridiculous/unrealistic/extreme your idea of a "war crime" is.

I really would have preferred if some of these men had to justify their actions in a court of law. I really want to know how anyone could reasonably justify the atomic bombs on Japan for example...

So the people who worked their tail off to defeat fascist forces should be tried as criminals?

Welcome to the Soviet Union....comerade. ;)

[Earthborn]

They will recognize the necessities and reality of warSo why then would they extradite their leaders to the ICC? If you think they wouldn't, then what exactly would those leaders have to fear from the ICC?So the people who worked their tail off to defeat fascist forces should be tried as criminals?The people who dropped atomic bombs, on cities full of innocent civilians of a country already willing to surrender, should be able to justify their actions before a court of law, IMHO... If that such an extreme view? I do not claim to know whether such an action is impossible to justify, allowing these people to go free.

I can even imagine that they get exempted from all punishment as long as they explain their justification before a 'Commision for Truth and Reconciliation'. But some form of public explanation to the victims of such an action is absolutely necessary, IMHO.Welcome to the Soviet Union....comerade. ;)That makes no sense whatsoever, and you know it, towaritsj Dialeticov Asimoviwitsj...

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by aerocontrols
Does France still have its 7 year exemption?

It's not really an excemption: article 124 of the Rome Statute allows for a transitional provision, in which any signatory nation can excempt itself from jurisdiction of the court in war-crimes for that nation's citizens, or war-crimes commited in that nation's territory, for a period of seven years. It's not some kind of special excepmtion for France.

I don't know why France decided to declare the use of this provision, but I would assume that the provision itself is in place to allow nations a time of grace to adjust their own legal system before the transferral of jurisdiction takes effect.

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by Earthborn
So why then would they extradite their leaders to the ICC? If you think they wouldn't, then what exactly would those leaders have to fear from the ICC?The people who dropped atomic bombs, on cities full of innocent civilians of a country already willing to surrender, should be able to justify their actions before a court of law, IMHO... If that such an extreme view? I do not claim to know whether such an action is impossible to justify, allowing these people to go free.

I can even imagine that they get exempted from all punishment as long as they explain their justification before a 'Commision for Truth and Reconciliation'. But some form of public explanation to the victims of such an action is absolutely necessary, IMHO.That makes no sense whatsoever, and you know it, towaritsj Dialeticov Asimoviwitsj...

Earthborn,
That Japan was willing to surrender is a HIGHLY debateable point. They had plans drawn up to defend the 4 main islands of Japan to the death, and they refused to respond to the Potsdam Declaration demanding to surrender. In fact, they killed it "with silent contempt." in their own words.

That Japan was beaten is not questionable, but that doesn't neccesarily mean that they were to accept it at the time.

There were some Japanese diplomats behind the scenes trying to cut a deal, but the military vetoed their attempts. But even these diplomats were refusing to give up many of Japan's gains in territory like Manchuria.

[Giz]

Originally posted by Earthborn
I really want to know how anyone could reasonably justify the atomic bombs on Japan for example...


Ummm, well without wanting to dispell too much fuzzie feelgood ignorance, the following might be a start:

1 Japan was - emphatically - NOT willing to surrender pre hiroshima/nagasaki.

2 US assessment of probable casualties from a D-Day style "conventional" assualt were at least 10 million (2 million allied soldiers, 8 million japanese) but could top 30 million allowing for predicted famine and disease. Compare those figures with approx 100 thousand from the bombs.

3 It was thought that an Invasion would lead to Allied POWs being executed in reprisal.

4 The USSR would have invaded Japan from the North leading to a division of the country a la East/West Germany.

Those are just off the top of my head, there are more. Now you can (justifiably) say that the A-Bombing was horrific but you can also say that it was by far the lesser of two evils in this instance.

In fact I'll add a 5 while here (though it takes hindsight to fully appreciate it):

5 Demonstration of the destructive powers of these weapons deters NATO and Warsaw Pact from going nuclear on each other for 40 years.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Leif Roar


It's not really an excemption: article 124 of the Rome Statute allows for a transitional provision, in which any signatory nation can excempt itself from jurisdiction of the court in war-crimes for that nation's citizens, or war-crimes commited in that nation's territory, for a period of seven years. It's not some kind of special excepmtion for France.

I don't know why France decided to declare the use of this provision, but I would assume that the provision itself is in place to allow nations a time of grace to adjust their own legal system before the transferral of jurisdiction takes effect.

It's not an exemption, it just makes them exempt for 7 years. See the difference?

We're not talking about any signatory, we're talking about France, one of the countries that abstained in protest in the UNSC over our attempt to get a one-year exemption.

The other country that has taken the seven year exemption is Colombia.

Your last paragraph makes me chuckle.

MattJ

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by aerocontrols


It's not an exemption, it just makes them exempt for 7 years. See the difference?

We're not talking about any signatory, we're talking about France, one of the countries that abstained in protest in the UNSC over our attempt to get a one-year exemption.

The other country that has taken the seven year exemption is Colombia.


I merely wanted to point out that it is not a special exception granted to France, but a general provision in the statute that any signatory nation can take advantage off. I do consider that a significant difference.


Your last paragraph makes me chuckle.


I'm always happy when I can cause a chuckle, but would you perhaps want to explain why it made you chuckle?

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Leif Roar
I'm always happy when I can cause a chuckle, but would you perhaps want to explain why it made you chuckle?

You don't know why... do you care?

[ZeeGerman]

Originally posted by aerocontrols

We're not talking about any signatory, we're talking about France, one of the countries that abstained in protest in the UNSC over our attempt to get a one-year exemption.
MattJ

Actually, we are talking about the US... Anyway, why don't the US sign the treaty and get the 7 years exemption themselves, if they feel the need?

Germany also abstained in the UNSC and I fully agree with that.

Zee

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by ZeeGerman


Actually, we are talking about the US... Anyway, why don't the US sign the treaty and get the 7 years exemption themselves, if they feel the need?

'We' are Leif and I. And 'we' were talking about France's exemption. You'll notice that neither he nor I had said a single thing about the US.

Or Germany.

[Earthborn]

Ummm, well without wanting to dispell too much fuzzie feelgood ignorance, the following might be a start:

1 Japan was - emphatically - NOT willing to surrender pre hiroshima/nagasaki.

2 US assessment of probable casualties from a D-Day style "conventional" assualt were at least 10 million (2 million allied soldiers, 8 million japanese) but could top 30 million allowing for predicted famine and disease. Compare those figures with approx 100 thousand from the bombs.

3 It was thought that an Invasion would lead to Allied POWs being executed in reprisal.

4 The USSR would have invaded Japan from the North leading to a division of the country a la East/West Germany.

Those are just off the top of my head, there are more. Now you can (justifiably) say that the A-Bombing was horrific but you can also say that it was by far the lesser of two evils in this instance.

In fact I'll add a 5 while here (though it takes hindsight to fully appreciate it):

5 Demonstration of the destructive powers of these weapons deters NATO and Warsaw Pact from going nuclear on each other for 40 years.Yes, that's what Truman's lawyer would say. Of course a bunch of historians today seem to disagree:
http://wgordon.web.wesleyan.edu/papers/hiroshim.htm
After examining the evidence provided in the readings cited at the end of this essay, I now believe no justification exists for the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima. America had already destroyed almost all of the Japanese navy and air force, so Japan could not effectively wage war or even defend itself. After steady American air bombings of Japanese cities in the first half of 1945, Japan was already on the verge of collapse when the bomb hit Hiroshima. Top-level World War II military leaders such as MacArthur and Eisenhower believed the bomb to be totally unnecessary from a military point of view. Even if the Hiroshima bombing could be justified, the Nagasaki bombing has absolutely no justification, since America did not even give Japanese leaders enough time to evaluate the effects of the Hiroshima bombing and to reconsider their decision to not surrender.

http://www.libertyhaven.com/politicsandcurrentevents/warpeacediplomacyorforeignaid/ethicswar.shtml

Belatedly it has been discovered that seven months before it [the atomic bomb] was dropped, in January 1945, President Roosevelt received via General Mac Arthur's headquarters an offer by the Japanese Government to surrender on terms virtually identical to those accepted by the United States after the dropping of the bomb: In July 1945, as we know, Roosevelt's successor, President Truman, discussed with Stalin at Bebelsburg the Japanese offer to surrender.The Japanese offer to surrender came at a time when surrender made sense. Consider the strange apology for the bombing offered by the historian Robert R. Smith, the logic of which may escape even the most alert reader:
Allied air, surface, and submarine operations had cut the home islands from all sources of raw materials. The effective and close blockade of the Allies established around the home islands would ultimately have made it impossible for the Japanese to supply their military and civilian components with even the bare essentials of life. An early surrender was inevitable, probably even without the impetus supplied by the atomic blasts. It was better for both the Allies and the Japanese the end came when it did.http://www.peacewire.org/photoexhibits/Hiroshima/articles/silence.html
According to Admiral William D. Leahy, the highest ranking military official in the U.S. at the time as chief of staff to the president, "The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender.... The use of this barbarous weapon was of no material assistance in our war against Japan."

This was also the opinion of General Dwight D. Eisenhower, supreme commander of the allied forces in Europe: "I was against it on two counts. First, the Japanese were ready to surrender, and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing. Second, I hated to see our country be the first to use such a weapon."http://www.tompaine.com/feature.cfm/ID/3446"Unconditional surrender is the only obstacle to peace. ... It is his Majesty's heart's desire to see the swift termination of the war."It is a preposterous argument. If they were such fanatics, requiring twenty million Japanese deaths before they could surrender, why did they, in fact, surrender after hundreds of thousands of deaths in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

[Giz]

Well Earthborn, I've been paraphrasing modern scholars as well (unfortunately from books not the Net so I don't have any ready quotes of my own).

I think on an issue this emotionally loaded - and with relevance to present disarmarment/proliferation concerns etc - you'll also get people arguing from conviction rather than evidence, sometimes even "professional" historians!

If this thread (and this is perhaps a bit of an aside to the main point) is still up when I get back to my library I'll counterpoint your links (quibles regarding the japanese willingness to surrender and the Japanese leadership were able to differenciate between honourably fighting an invading army to the last man and futily waiting to have A-Bombs carpet their Isle of the Gods.

Until then thanks for the detailed reply!
(I take back that "fuzzie feelgood ignorance" btw)

[Skeptic]

Right now, the UN "Human Rights" commission is made of Libya, Sudan, Syria, and a few other nations of similar ethical calibre.

Gives you an idea what ethical and moral weight one should give to the UN condemnations of the USA, israel, etc. for "human rights abuses".

[renata]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Right now, the UN "Human Rights" commission is made of Libya, Sudan, Syria, and a few other nations of similar ethical calibre.

Gives you an idea what ethical and moral weight one should give to the UN condemnations of the USA, israel, etc. for "human rights abuses".


Human Rights Watch ( I linked to the info in my first post) called the Human Rights Commission "Who is Who" of the worst offenders of human rights. They try to get on it so they can absolve themselves of any condemnation.

[aggle_rithm]

Originally posted by aerocontrols
Does France still have its 7 year exemption?

A war crimes exemption is irrelevant if one never goes to war.

[aggle_rithm]

Originally posted by Giz



2 US assessment of probable casualties from a D-Day style "conventional" assualt were at least 10 million (2 million allied soldiers, 8 million japanese) but could top 30 million allowing for predicted famine and disease. Compare those figures with approx 100 thousand from the bombs.


The actual project figures were closer to 1 million US and 4 million Japanese casualties. These were considered to be inflated somewhat, since there were no immediate plans to send 1 million soldiers to Japan.

HOWEVER, the loss of life at Hiroshima and Nagasaki pales compared to what Japan did to civilians in China, Korea, and the Phillipines. I think Japan has blown the a-bomb attacks way out of proportion to draw attention away from its own guilt.

Sure, radiation poisoning is a terrible way to die. But so is being burned to death, starved to death, dissected while still conscious, etc.