U.S. drops war crimes immunity bid

Eww. BH vomit, all over my inbox.


Congress passed a law last year called the American Servicemember and Citizen 
Protection Act of 2003.  It stated that the International Criminal Court had 
no authority over U.S. citizens, and if one was detained or made to stand 
trial these actions would constitute an act of aggression against the United 
States.

You can find the bill, dubbed 'The Hague Invasion Act,' at
http://www.cs.uvm.edu/~cpratt/ICC.html

-x

BBC:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3834089.stm

US war crimes immunity bid fails
 
 
The US has given up trying to win its soldiers immunity from prosecution at 
the new International Criminal Court. 
United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan had warned the Security Council 
not to renew the measure, partly because of the prisoner abuse scandal. 

Washington withdrew its resolution after it became clear it would not get the 
required support. 

For the last two years it had secured special status for US troops, arguing 
they could face malicious prosecutions. 

The BBC's Susannah Price at the United Nations says the latest move is a major 
climb-down for the Americans, who rarely face such united opposition on the 
Council. 

The UK was one of the few countries that planned to back the US. 

"The United States has decided not to proceed further with consideration and 
action on the draft at this time in order to avoid a prolonged and divisive 
debate," said the US deputy ambassador to the UN James Cunningham. 

  
 Blanket exemption is wrong. It is of dubious judicial value and I don't think 
it should be encouraged by the council. 

UN Secretary General Kofi Annan  
"We are dropping action on this resolution." 

The US has previously threatened to veto UN peacekeeping operations if its 
demands for exemption from prosecution by the International Criminal Court 
(ICC) in The Hague were not met. 

Mr Cunningham did not repeat the warning, but said the US would in 
future "need to take into account the risk of ICC review when determining 
contributions to UN authorised or established operations". 

The US offered a compromise to the Security Council on Tuesday, asking it to 
renew the existing immunity for just one more year. 

But it was not enough to gain the necessary support of nine out of the 15 
council members. 

Earlier this month Mr Annan said if the exemption - which expires on 30 June - 
were extended, it would discredit the UN's claim to represent the rule of law. 

"For the past two years, I have spoken quite strongly against the exemption 
and I think it would be unfortunate for one to press for such an exemption, 
given the prisoner abuse in Iraq," he said. 

"Blanket exemption is wrong. It is of dubious judicial value and I don't think 
it should be encouraged by the council." 

Last resort 

It is unlikely that American troops would end up at the ICC when the exemption 
runs out next week, our correspondent says. 

Ninety-four countries, including Iraq, have not signed up so it would not 
apply to US troops on their territory. 

Washington also has bilateral agreements with 89 others to protect US troops 
from prosecution. 

Our correspondent says the countries signed up to the ICC point out that the 
court is only meant to be a measure of last resort, to be used if US courts 
failed to take action themselves. 

 
_______________________________________________
heads mailing list
[email protected]
http://ballistichelmet.org/mailman/listinfo/heads/
http://ballistichelmet.org/donate/