Canada and ICJ

[myata]

There was a report in this morning's "The House" on CBC Radio 1 that Canada may be asked to sign on to the US's agreement to prevent US nationals from being extradited to ICJ on war and crime against humanity warrants, and the Conservative government may be considering it. This link is the only reference I could find in a quick search.

Whilst its quite unusual for the US administration, which likes to blow and honk all over the place about justice and democracy to stall the very institution that is supposed to promote both by bringing to justice masterminds and instigators of wars and such, rather than henchmen of rank and file, this country has been involved in creation of the ICJ from the start (I believe it was a Canadian who has come up with the original idea). To sign this agreement now would be a huge aboutface in Canada's position, which will, without doubt affect its standing internationally. Is there a subtle and well planned out plot by the CPC to bring about a full turn in the Canada's international policy? So far, there have been already a few signs, can we say that they make a pattern: blowing the "war on terror" out of all imaginable proportions; unconditional support of Israel's "measured response" in Lebanon; abandoning Kyoto; this report.

[geoffrey]

I can see where the yanks are coming from, but I think we should extradite all those that break international laws. I don't think we'll have any US nationals being extradited anyways, so it's best we just not sign onto such an arrangement.

[bradco]

just for clarity you mean the ICC not the ICJ? correct?

[watching&waiting]

I would not want Canada to sign onto this as I do believe we did the right thing before in supporting the world court. I do know the USA would like to see others sign as it has really bad optics etc with the invasion of Iraq etc., and the abuses of prisoners and also the hidden CIA prisons. That is the sort of thing that the world court can and will address sooner or later. But the USA would like others to jion them in denying recognition so it will seems less one sided.

[geoffrey]

w&w,

It's bad business to go after your highest funder. Won't happen.

[Argus]

I can see where the yanks are coming from, but I think we should extradite all those that break international laws. I don't think we'll have any US nationals being extradited anyways, so it's best we just not sign onto such an arrangement.

There will be intense efforts from international leftists - including those in this country, to indict every major politician and military leader in the US, for "crimes against humanity". There are still plenty of them, feverishly clutching their Chomsky books in hand, who want to indict Kissinger.

Imagine George Bush senior being arrested in, I dunno, Greece, after some wacko Lefties succeed in getting him charged with "crimes against humanity" for funding the Contras in the eighties. Not that I'm a big fan of Bush, but you can see where the problem lies.

There will, of course, be no such efforts directed towards the Russians or Chinese or Cubans or anyone else. The determination of Leftists to protect the rights of the people only applies towards Capitalists.

[Higgly]

There will be intense efforts from international leftists - including those in this country, to indict every major politician and military leader in the US, for "crimes against humanity". There are still plenty of them, feverishly clutching their Chomsky books in hand, who want to indict Kissinger.

I seriously doubt there will be intense efforts to go after every major politician and military leader. I do agree that Kissinger might have something to worry about. Bush junior as well.

In any event, cases would have to be ratified by the World Court before any action were taken.

The US position on the World Court us just one of its many foreign policy "Do as I say and not as I do"-isms.

It's hard not to laugh when I see Bush talking about freedom and justice.

If Harper signs on to this, it's just another piece of Bush Brown on his nose; it's really starting to show.

[Argus]

There will be intense efforts from international leftists - including those in this country, to indict every major politician and military leader in the US, for "crimes against humanity". There are still plenty of them, feverishly clutching their Chomsky books in hand, who want to indict Kissinger.

I seriously doubt there will be intense efforts to go after every major politician and military leader. I do agree that Kissinger might have something to worry about. Bush junior as well.

In any event, cases would have to be ratified by the World Court before any action were taken.

The US position on the World Court us just one of its many foreign policy "Do as I say and not as I do"-isms.

It's hard not to laugh when I see Bush talking about freedom and justice.

If Harper signs on to this, it's just another piece of Bush Brown on his nose; it's really starting to show.

Sputtum. Just because someone agrees with Bush doesn't make them a Bush bootlicker. Tony Blair spoke passionately of the need to get rid of Sadaam Hussein years before Bush was even elected, but because he went along with Bush (quelle surprise!) people call him Bush's poodle.

I may not like Bush, but I can see the need not to have American politicians and miltary officers dating back to Korean war times dragged before some "international" court with a dubious set of judges to face a bunch of shrill leftist lawyers interested in theatrical condemnation of America and capitalism.

Will Cubans be able to charge American officials from the sixties because of the Bay of Pigs? Will Nicaraguans be able to summon George Bush Senior and his cabinet for the Contras? Will Argentinians be able to call them to task for Allende? What about North Koreans charging this or that transgression, or Iranians or that nut Chavez? It's not practical or workeable. People like Sadaam and Milosovic belong in the docks at such a court, not Americans. But the international left hates Americans more than any dictator on Earth.

[myata]

That of course can be said about any court or justice which is possible on this Earth. In plain words it means "we americans should be above justice, no matter what we do".

Instead, worthy individuals like maybe, G.Bush / T.Blair / or maybe even your self ? should be consulted as to who exactly belongs in these courts.

[jbg]

There will be intense efforts from international leftists - including those in this country, to indict every major politician and military leader in the US, for "crimes against humanity". There are still plenty of them, feverishly clutching their Chomsky books in hand, who want to indict Kissinger.

I seriously doubt there will be intense efforts to go after every major politician and military leader. I do agree that Kissinger might have something to worry about. Bush junior as well.

*snip*

Though I doubt you personally have much international influence, the fact that any rational person (I assume you're rational) assumes that the elected leader of the greatest democracy in the world, and a former Secretary of State (even if a traitor to the US) could be subject to international arrest illustrates both why the US should never sign on, and why Canada should assist that non-joinder.

[bradco]

I am almost certain that the ICC's jurisdiction can NOT be retroactive..therefore anything that happened before the signing of the Rome statute (2002 I think) would be off limits.

The US objects to the ICC because it erodes national soveriegnty (for a good cause but hey that doesnt bother the Bush administration. However, the ICC can only prosecute if the country of the offender is unable or unwilling. The US, obviously, would be more then capable with their current court system to prosecute so they can not be seen as unable. The fact that the country of the offender has first crack to prosecute safeguards against erosion of national soveriegnty. It is more likely that the US government just doesnt want to limit the tools that they give to their servicemen when they send them off to war.

The other argument the US government puts forth is that there may be politically motivated prosecutions. Any member state that has ratified the Rome Statute would be able to refer a case to the ICC. However, the judges of the ICC are all well educated and experienced lawyers. There may be politically motivated referrals but the prosecutions would be based on law. Now, obviously different opinions on how laws should be interpreteted will always exist but the ICC isn't going to throw anyone in jail without clear guilt of a crime.

The US refusal to support a court that attempts to hold individuals responsible for their crimes against humanity is just another example of their unilateral foreign policy. The US, as the main superpower with overwhelming hard power has no reason to subject itself to any international law. Building a world based on multilateralism has no benefit to a country that is interested in maintaining itself and furthering its empire.

[bradco]

There will be intense efforts from international leftists - including those in this country, to indict every major politician and military leader in the US, for "crimes against humanity". There are still plenty of them, feverishly clutching their Chomsky books in hand, who want to indict Kissinger.

I seriously doubt there will be intense efforts to go after every major politician and military leader. I do agree that Kissinger might have something to worry about. Bush junior as well.

*snip*

Though I doubt you personally have much international influence, the fact that any rational person (I assume you're rational) assumes that the elected leader of the greatest democracy in the world, and a former Secretary of State (even if a traitor to the US) could be subject to international arrest illustrates both why the US should never sign on, and why Canada should assist that non-joinder.

Are you saying that a democratically elected leader is not capable of committing crimes against humanity? Or is it because he is leader of "the greatest democracy in the world" he should not have to be held accountable if he commits such crimes? Why should Canada assist in trying to protect anyone who may commit crimes against humanity? As a small to medium sized power would not setting international laws be in the best national interest of a small to medium sized power?

[geoffrey]

Though I doubt you personally have much international influence, the fact that any rational person (I assume you're rational) assumes that the elected leader of the greatest democracy in the world, and a former Secretary of State (even if a traitor to the US) could be subject to international arrest illustrates both why the US should never sign on, and why Canada should assist that non-joinder.

As many of the Republicans in the states cite in defense of the Patriot Act, if they haven't done anything wrong, what do they have to fear?

[jbg]

Are you saying that a democratically elected leader is not capable of committing crimes against humanity? Or is it because he is leader of "the greatest democracy in the world" he should not have to be held accountable if he commits such crimes? Why should Canada assist in trying to protect anyone who may commit crimes against humanity? As a small to medium sized power would not setting international laws be in the best national interest of a small to medium sized power?

What I'm saying is that there isn't a snowball's chance that even a Democrat would sign this loony treaty. We have a functioning prosecutorial and court system and people are court-martialed regularly for such minor offenses as Abu Ghraib. We do not need our officials to be subject to the wims of the likes of Chirac, Chavez or Pol Pot.

[geoffrey]

What I'm saying is that there isn't a snowball's chance that even a Democrat would sign this loony treaty. We have a functioning prosecutorial and court system and people are court-martialed regularly for such minor offenses as Abu Ghraib. We do not need our officials to be subject to the wims of the likes of Chirac, Chavez or Pol Pot.

I don't see the ICC as really whimiscal. I honestly don't regard it as any more politically influenced than the US or Canadian Supreme Courts. Like I said, do nothing wrong, have nothing to fear? Right? The premise of the Patriot Act.

What I'm trying to showcase here isn't my support of the ICC, in fact, quite the opposite. Why should the American administration expect their citizens to submit to something like the Patriot act and then not submit themselves to far less reaching measures? It's hypocritical.

[bradco]

Are you saying that a democratically elected leader is not capable of committing crimes against humanity? Or is it because he is leader of "the greatest democracy in the world" he should not have to be held accountable if he commits such crimes? Why should Canada assist in trying to protect anyone who may commit crimes against humanity? As a small to medium sized power would not setting international laws be in the best national interest of a small to medium sized power?

What I'm saying is that there isn't a snowball's chance that even a Democrat would sign this loony treaty. We have a functioning prosecutorial and court system and people are court-martialed regularly for such minor offenses as Abu Ghraib. We do not need our officials to be subject to the wims of the likes of Chirac, Chavez or Pol Pot.

ICC must always allow domestic courts to prosecute if they are willing and able

[Charles Anthony]

Personally, I think Canada should bend over and side with the Americans only for practical and strategic reasons. Whatever Canadians do will not likely make much of a difference to the average Canadian outside of North America. Canadians need American friends more than any other friends. Not siding with the Americans will make an American enemy faster than a foreign friend.

Now, if anybody is worried about being immoral with such a stance, ask yourself: What is the worst that can happen? and ask: What is the best you can get?

The worst that can happen is that a North American international criminal goes unpunished. Big deal. The international criminal is confined to North America. He gets nabbed once he visits a foreign country.

There is no deterrent to future international crime. Big deal. Like as if future politicians will think twice.

If he never leaves North America, he continues to live unpunished and we, the North Americans, are victims. Yes, he gets away scott-free. If we are hell-bent on punishment and revenge, the world will never get it. Too bad. The "world" rarely gets it anyway.

Justice is a bizarre thing to demand. It is similar to peace, joy and happiness in its practicality.

Here is an extreme (albeit not original) idea:

- the International Criminal Court invites the alleged North American criminal to stand trial

- upon refusal, the Court holds a trial in absencia

- after the trial, the Court offers rewards for the live capture of international criminals

- bounty hunters will clear the market

Problem solved -- at least within the same level of morality. Now, you guys fight it out or get back to your regularly scheduled statism.

[Argus]

That of course can be said about any court or justice which is possible on this Earth. In plain words it means "we americans should be above justice, no matter what we do".

Instead, worthy individuals like maybe, G.Bush / T.Blair / or maybe even your self ? should be consulted as to who exactly belongs in these courts.

The Americans HAVE a capable, independant judicial system - which is more than most of the world has, as well as a democracy. I see no particular need for Americans - or Canadians, for that matter, to have to be charged in an international court.

[Argus]

Are you saying that a democratically elected leader is not capable of committing crimes against humanity?

What is a "crime against humanity". This is a term which has been flung about quite a lot of late, in particular with regard to Israel's action in Lebanon. And I have to say that if that is considered a "Crime against humanity" then the term has been so bastardized that it can no longer be used with any practicality to punish anyone for anything.

So yes, if what Israel did constituted, in your eyes, a "Crime against Humanity" then democratic leaders can be "guilty" of it, but I would not want them prosecuted under that interpretation.

[myata]

But you agree with Saddam and the like being prosecuted for such? Difficult situation.

Not to worry, the help is at hand: we should invoke the knowledge of truth (and the bearers thereof) to make the decision who should be prosecuted. Some could say, that was the work of shamans in prehistoric times, but what to they know?

[Remiel]

If Canada supports the Internation Criminal Court, then it should not support any countries attempts to immunize themselves against it. And if the US gets ticked off, then just tell them not to send their criminals here. That way, they have nothing to worry about. They can have their (criminal) position, and we can have ours.

[jbg]

What I'm trying to showcase here isn't my support of the ICC, in fact, quite the opposite. Why should the American administration expect their citizens to submit to something like the Patriot act and then not submit themselves to far less reaching measures? It's hypocritical.

Aside from the chattering classes, most Americans bloody well want the Patriot Act.

[M.Dancer]

What I'm trying to showcase here isn't my support of the ICC, in fact, quite the opposite. Why should the American administration expect their citizens to submit to something like the Patriot act and then not submit themselves to far less reaching measures? It's hypocritical.

Aside from the chattering classes, most Americans bloody well want the Patriot Act.

Most americans haven't a clue what's in the act. That's why I like Americans. They are trusting.

[M.Dancer]

Fewer than half of Americans know the purpose of the Patriot Act, and the more they know about it the less they like it, according to a poll released Monday.

Fewer than half of those polled, 42 percent, are able to correctly identify the law's main purpose of enhancing surveillance procedures for federal law enforcement agencies, according to the poll conducted by the Center for Survey Research and Analysis at the University of Connecticut.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?.../w151949D27.DTL

The support varies from measure to measure

_To use information collected in foreign intelligence investigations for domestic crime investigations was supported by 81 percent.

_To monitor names and addresses of Internet communications in criminal investigations was supported by 69 percent.

_To tap any telephone line a terrorist suspect might use rather than specifying particular phone lines was supported by 62 percent.

_To require libraries to turn over records in terrorism investigations unbeknownst to the patrons was supported by 53 percent.

_To require banks to turn over records to the government without judicial approval was supported by 43 percent.

_To conduct secret searches of Americans' homes without informing the occupants for an unspecified period of time was supported by 23 percent.

[geoffrey]

What I'm trying to showcase here isn't my support of the ICC, in fact, quite the opposite. Why should the American administration expect their citizens to submit to something like the Patriot act and then not submit themselves to far less reaching measures? It's hypocritical.

Aside from the chattering classes, most Americans bloody well want the Patriot Act.

Most americans haven't a clue what's in the act. That's why I like Americans. They are trusting.

I argue the results have been limited and mostly negative, but whatever.

It's still hypocritical to subject your citizens to excess incursions on personal freedom then refuse to be accountable for your actions to the ICC.

I don't think Bush and company are guilty of any war crimes. Being said, I don't think that gives them the right to claim permenant immunity. I would feel better if my government leaders were subjected to oversight in the case they commited crimes against their own people (us).

If they've never done anything wrong, what do they fear?