Showing posts with label ICC. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ICC. Show all posts

Thursday, March 29, 2007

The International Law of Genocide: The case of Palestine

Mar 28, 2007

By James Risser
james.risser@gmail.com

In response to a comment that queried the existence of an active genocidal project on-going in Palestine, I have decided to write this brief diary on the subject, listing the relevant statutory language from the International Criminal Court and their definitions of the terms.

This is what the international crime of genocide is, as defined by the International Criminal Court. I shall leave it up to reader to render an opinion on whether the Palestinians are suffering from it or not. Of course, this same set can also be applied to the Iraqis under American occupation as well. So, it is directly relevant to any prosecution of the Bush Crime Family for their activities in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Iran (forthcoming).

Of course, America is not a signatory to the ICC.

Needless to say, there is no requirement that a signatory be charged with all five articles; a standard indictment may only have, say, Article 6(e) should children be transferred from one canton to another, or from one village to another, for example.

Note: the ICC begins footnoting this section with 2 and not 1; i have retained their numbering scheme.

Article 6

Genocide

Introduction

With respect to the last element listed for each crime:

–The term "in the context of" would include the initial acts in an emerging pattern;– The term "manifest" is an objective qualification;

– Notwithstanding the normal requirement for a mental element provided for in article 30, and recognizing that knowledge of the circumstances will usually be addressed in proving genocidal intent, the appropriate requirement, if any, for a mental element regarding this circumstance will need to be decided by the Court on a case-by-case basis.


Article 6 (a)
Genocide by killing

Elements

  1. The perpetrator killed[fn 2] one or more persons.
  1. Such person or persons belonged to a particular national, ethnical, racial or religious group.
  1. The perpetrator intended to destroy, in whole or in part, that national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such.
  1. The conduct took place in the context of a manifest pattern of similar conduct directed against that group or was conduct that could itself effect such destruction.

Article 6 (b)
Genocide by causing serious bodily or mental harm

Elements

  1. The perpetrator caused serious bodily or mental harm to one or more persons.[fn 3]
  1. Such person or persons belonged to a particular national, ethnical, racial or religious group.
  1. The perpetrator intended to destroy, in whole or in part, that national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such.
  1. The conduct took place in the context of a manifest pattern of similar conduct directed against that group or was conduct that could itself effect such destruction.


Article 6 (c)
Genocide by deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about physical destruction

Elements

  1. The perpetrator inflicted certain conditions of life upon one or more persons.
  1. Such person or persons belonged to a particular national, ethnical, racial or religious group.
  1. The perpetrator intended to destroy, in whole or in part, that national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such.
  1. The conditions of life were calculated to bring about the physical destruction of that group, in whole or in part.[fn 4]
  1. The conduct took place in the context of a manifest pattern of similar conduct directed against that group or was conduct that could itself effect such destruction.

Article 6 (d)
Genocide by imposing measures intended to prevent births

Elements

  1. The perpetrator imposed certain measures upon one or more persons.
  1. Such person or persons belonged to a particular national, ethnical, racial or religious group.
  1. The perpetrator intended to destroy, in whole or in part, that national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such.
  1. The measures imposed were intended to prevent births within that group.
  1. The conduct took place in the context of a manifest pattern of similar conduct directed against that group or was conduct that could itself effect such destruction.

Article 6 (e)
Genocide by forcibly transferring children

Elements

  1. The perpetrator forcibly transferred one or more persons.[fn 5]
  1. Such person or persons belonged to a particular national, ethnical, racial or religious group.
  1. The perpetrator intended to destroy, in whole or in part, that national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such.
  1. The transfer was from that group to another group.
  1. The person or persons were under the age of 18 years.
  1. The perpetrator knew, or should have known, that the person or persons were under the age of 18 years.
  1. The conduct took place in the context of a manifest pattern of similar conduct directed against that group or was conduct that could itself effect such destruction.

________________
[fn 2] The term "killed" is interchangeable with the term "caused death".

[fn 3] This conduct may include, but is not necessarily restricted to, acts of torture, rape, sexual violence or inhuman or degrading treatment.

[fn 4] The term "conditions of life" may include, but is not necessarily restricted to, deliberate deprivation of resources indispensable for survival, such as food or medical services, or systematic expulsion from homes.

[fn 5] The term "forcibly" is not restricted to physical force, but may include threat of force or coercion, such as that caused by fear of violence, duress, detention, psychological oppression or abuse of power, against such person or persons or another person, or by taking advantage of a coercive environment.

Monday, March 19, 2007

Blair, Bush could face probe at The Hague

Gethin Chamberlain, London
March 19, 2007

TONY Blair could face the prospect of an International Criminal Court investigation for alleged coalition war crimes in Iraq.

The court's chief prosecutor said at the weekend that he would be willing to launch an inquiry and could envisage a scenario in which the British Prime Minister and US President George Bush could one day face charges at The Hague.

Luis Moreno-Ocampo urged Arab countries, particularly Iraq, to sign up to the court to enable allegations against the West to be pursued. Iraq's ambassador to the United Nations said that his country was actively considering signing up.

The US has refused to accept the court's jurisdiction and is unlikely to hand over any of its citizens to face trial. However, Britain has signed up and the Government has indicated its willingness to tackle accusations of war crimes against a number of British soldiers.

Mr Moreno-Ocampo said it was frustrating that the court was viewed in the Arab world as biased in favour of the West.

Asked whether he could envisage a situation in which Mr Blair and Mr Bush found themselves in the dock answering charges of war crimes in Iraq, he replied: "Of course, that could be a possibility … whatever country joins the court can know that whoever commits a crime in their country could be prosecuted by me."

Human rights lawyers remain sceptical about whether charges will ever be brought.

Some Muslim countries have criticised what they claim is the court's reluctance to deal with offences committed by Western governments. Sudan has called for the court to investigate coalition actions in Iraq.

TELEGRAPH

Blair, Bush could face probe at The Hague

Gethin Chamberlain, London
March 19, 2007

TONY Blair could face the prospect of an International Criminal Court investigation for alleged coalition war crimes in Iraq.

The court's chief prosecutor said at the weekend that he would be willing to launch an inquiry and could envisage a scenario in which the British Prime Minister and US President George Bush could one day face charges at The Hague.

Luis Moreno-Ocampo urged Arab countries, particularly Iraq, to sign up to the court to enable allegations against the West to be pursued. Iraq's ambassador to the United Nations said that his country was actively considering signing up.

The US has refused to accept the court's jurisdiction and is unlikely to hand over any of its citizens to face trial. However, Britain has signed up and the Government has indicated its willingness to tackle accusations of war crimes against a number of British soldiers.

Mr Moreno-Ocampo said it was frustrating that the court was viewed in the Arab world as biased in favour of the West.

Asked whether he could envisage a situation in which Mr Blair and Mr Bush found themselves in the dock answering charges of war crimes in Iraq, he replied: "Of course, that could be a possibility … whatever country joins the court can know that whoever commits a crime in their country could be prosecuted by me."

Human rights lawyers remain sceptical about whether charges will ever be brought.

Some Muslim countries have criticised what they claim is the court's reluctance to deal with offences committed by Western governments. Sudan has called for the court to investigate coalition actions in Iraq.

TELEGRAPH

Monday, November 27, 2006

Impeachment Hearings for Bush & Co.? How about War Crimes Tribunals

Nov 27, 2996

By Heather Wokusch


While Bush administration members have made a sport of breaking the law, both domestically and internationally, their intransigence will come back to haunt - one way or another.

The Bush Doctrine of taking "the battle to the enemy," for example, is a direct repudiation of the United Nations Charter, which prohibits the use of international force unless in self-defense (after an armed attack across an international border) or related to a UN Security Council decision. And that explains why Bush's 2002 National Security Strategy makes a point to "protect Americans" from "the potential for investigations, inquiry, or prosecution" by the International Criminal Court "whose jurisdiction does not extend to Americans and which we do not accept."

The whole idea of the US being able to preemptively attack other nations was penned by White House lawyers two weeks after 9/11; former justice department lawyer John Yoo wrote memos for then-White House counsel Alberto Gonzales arguing that "no limits" stood in the way of Bush's ability to take military action and that "the president's decisions are for him alone and are unreviewable."

But giving someone like Bush "unreviewable" and unlimited military powers is reckless; the man can barely construct a sentence, let alone articulate a humane and effective foreign policy.
Besides, a "no limits" approach to foreign policy can't coexist with rule of law, which explains why just last week, US Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff accused the United Nations and other world bodies of using international law "as a rhetorical weapon against us." Chertoff co-authored the infamous Patriot Act but is best known for his stunning incompetence regarding Katrina. If only he had been as eager to protect Americans from hurricanes as he is to protect them from global treaties...

Chertoff's view of international law as a threat to the US is supported by Rumsfeld's 2005 National Defense Strategy, which notes: "Our strength as a nation state will continue to be challenged by those who employ a strategy of the weak using international fora, judicial processes and terrorism.

In other words, the Pentagon links "judicial processes" with "terrorism," and sees "judicial processes" as weakening the US "nation state." What kind of nonsense is that?
Now that Rumsfeld has "resigned" and Bush and Co. face their lame-duck years watching the war on terror implode, it's worth considering the aftermath of World War II, when the International Military Tribunal indicted and tried over 20 Nazi leaders for war crimes ranging from waging a war of aggression, killing civilians, mistreating prisoners and plundering property. How eerily familiar those charges seem today.

And how ominous that only weeks ago, German prosecutors began pursuing a criminal investigation into the alleged role of Rumsfeld, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, former CIA director George Tenet and numerous other administration members regarding prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo.

Rumsfeld will lose his legal immunity when he ceases to be Defense Secretary, a fact which must weigh heavily on Bush and others. Unsurprisingly, the administration has taken pre-emptive action against future war crimes charges, including pushing through the scandalous Military Commissions Act, which provides them retroactive domestic protection from prosecution regarding prisoner abuse cases.

On the world stage, the administration's primary battleground for immunity has been the International Criminal Court (ICC), set up in 2002 to investigate and prosecute war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. Roughly 100 countries have ratified the ICC Statute, and over 40 others have signed it, but the Bush administration renounced the treaty on grounds it could lead to "frivolous or politically motivated prosecutions."

The administration has done everything in its power to enervate the ICC, including setting up bilateral "Article 98" agreements which arm-twist other countries into not prosecuting US nationals or foreign nationals working for the US. Over 100 nations, mainly poor and dependent on foreign aid, have signed the agreements, but many others have stood firm and lost US aid as a result, including Brazil, Peru and South Africa.

But such bribery will only go so far. The administration's "no limits" approach to foreign policy has alienated global allies, and in many parts of the world, Bush is regarded as a greater danger to world peace than North Korea's Kim Jong-il or Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Continuing revelations of US war atrocities, such as the recent bombing of a Pakistani religious school in which 82 students died, only serve to fuel global outrage. It's hard to imagine administration members getting much sympathy in an international trial.

Bottom line, as calls for impeachment build at home, Bush might heed advice he once gave to Osama bin Laden: "you can run but you cannot hide."

Action Ideas:

1. A number of web sites provide information about human rights abuses linked to the so-called war on terror:

War Crimes Watch

Human Rights First

School of the Americas Watch

Cage Prisoners

2. As After Downing Street notes, this year a national coalition of organizations is making December 10 ''Human Rights and Impeachment Day.'' For related information on everything from Petitions to Dramatic Play Scripts and Yard Signs, check out the site's event resources.Note: Originally published: November 27, 2006

http://heatherwokusch.com/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=96