London Times: 60 years on from Nuremberg, US balks at international court

Sixty years on from Nuremberg, US balks at international court
From Roger Boyes in Berlin


CONTROVERSY over the United States’s role in bringing dictators to book has dogged the 60th anniversary of the groundbreaking Nuremberg trial of Nazi leaders.

The US was the main force behind the war crimes trial that put 21 top Nazis before the International Military Tribunal. It now finds itself under heavy criticism for not supporting the International Criminal Court. “The system of international criminal justice that was put in place with the clout of the United States is now coming back to haunt it,” said Philippe Sands, Professor of Law at University College London.

The International Criminal Court (ICC) was set up in 2002 to try genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. A hundred countries have ratified it, but not the US.

Ulrich Maly, the Mayor of Nuremberg, said: “We want to emphasise the significance of the Nuremberg trials for a global form of justice and draw the connection to current times. That means including the problem that the US does not recognise the ICC.”

William Timkin, the US Ambassador to Germany, declined to participate in a discussion in Nuremberg on Saturday with Philippe Kirsch, the Canadian President of the ICC, and Brigitte Zypries, the German Justice Minister....


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-1881692,00.html

the Country....

I want the entire world to try them for War Crimes.

I just don't want a little go no where Senate "investigation."

At the end of October 1947 11 Nazis were swinging from the end of a rope for violations of:

1) Conspiracy to wage aggressive war
2) Waging an aggressive war (or "crimes against peace")
3) War crimes (the killing or mistreatment of prisoners of war)
4) Crimes against humanity (including crimes committed against civilians in occupied countries)


Sound...familiar?

Shouldn't there be some safeguards to ensure the ICC fulfils it's intended role and does not get used as a political weapon?

It's like having dictatorships on the UN human rights comitee.

And yeah, Bush & Co. on trial on an international stage would be quite a show. Nero on trial...

i think having a collective democratic body and the rule that the ONLY way the ICC gets jurisdiction is if the incident is not investigated by the originating country, are much better alternatives to what the neoCONs want.



peace

you will see that bush is blowing smoke out his ass, as usual. Take some time to read the Rome Statute of the Criminal Court and I think you will see the concern bush is espousing is a smokescreen.

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

HUMANITY.

(as named by Human Rights Watch)

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

I point this out in all seriousness to highlight the gulf in thinking on the ICC.