Still No ICC For U.S. -- MUCH TO THE RELIEF OF BUSH, CHENEY, RICE, WOLFOWITZ, And America's Other WAR CRIMINALS!
Suppurating Tool
before the International Criminal Court anytime soon.
Pity.
Miscarriage of justice.
But Bush and company knew they were on shaky legal ground when they
decided to invade and destroy a sovereign nation. That's why they
opted out of the ICC.
"ICC member nations are considering adding the crime of aggression --
unprovoked military action by one state against another -- to the
court's jurisdiction. The United States prefers that the U.N. Security
Council have that authority."
----------------------
"U.S. to attend conference held by war crimes court"
"Administration will engage with ICC but not join it, official says"
By Colum Lynch
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
FOR THE FIRST TIME in nearly eight years, the United States will
participate in a conference with members of the International Criminal
Court, a decision that signals growing U.S. support for a war crimes
tribunal the Bush administration once shunned.
Stephen J. Rapp, the U.S. ambassador at large for war crimes, told
reporters in Nairobi on Monday that the "United States will return to
engagement with the ICC." But he said that the United States has no
intention of joining the court in the forseeable future and that it
will not allow an international prosecutor to try American personnel.
Still, the decision marked a significant step by the Obama
administration in showing its willingness to engage with the rest of
the world on difficult negotiations, according to court supporters.
Rapp and the State Department's top legal adviser, Harold Koh, will
lead a U.S. delegation of observers to the Assembly of States Parties
meeting in The Hague starting Wednesday and running through Nov. 26.
The United States will also attend a major treaty review conference in
Kampala, Uganda, in late May and early June.
The world's first international criminal court was established in 2001
to prosecute war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. Its
chief prosecutor is pursuing war crimes cases in Congo, Uganda, the
Central African Republic and the Darfur region of Sudan.
Member nations are considering adding the crime of aggression --
unprovoked military action by one state against another -- to the
court's jurisdiction. The United States prefers that the U.N. Security
Council have that authority.
Human rights advocates welcomed the U.S. decision to reengage the
court but said a push for greater authority by the Security Council
would dilute the power of the court. "That's a chokehold that would
undercut the court's legitimacy," said Richard Dicker, a court
advocate at Human Rights Watch.
Although U.S. officials have come to support prosecutions of specific
cases, such as in Darfur, they have long worried that an international
criminal court might seek to constrain U.S. military action around the
globe by carrying out politically motivated prosecutions of American
soldiers. "There remain concerns about the possibility that the United
States . . . and its service members might be subject to politically
inspired prosecutions," Rapp told reporters in Nairobi.
Despite such concerns, the Clinton administration signed the treaty
establishing the court in Dec. 31, 2000, about two weeks before
President Bill Clinton left office. The Bush administration actively
sought to derail the court during its first term. In 2002, it sent a
letter to the United Nations stating that the United States had no
intention of joining the court and had no legal obligations to it.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/16/AR2009111603662.html
John Fartlington Poopnagel
surely the Bushies would be indicted for numerous criminal acts, many
of which we are just now learning about.