Tuesday, August 26, 2014

U.S. Congress threatened the International Criminal Court: with invasion of Netherlands

U.S. Congress threatened the International Criminal Court:  with invasion of Netherlands

By Steven Geyer, Washington
Wednesday, 06/12/2002
 
Parliament and Government in the Netherlands are outraged: Both houses of Congress have approved a law that if American citizens are indicted by the International Criminal Court in The Hague, even providing for the invasion of NATO partner country.
 
Capitol Hill in Washington: Arena der Scharfmacher
Capitol Hill in Washington: Arena of agitators
"I have here a diagram under the stands 'proposal for an invasion of the Netherlands'" says David Obey, a Democrat member of the U.S. House of Representatives. "It shows that we may do it by sea, or from the air, perhaps with paratroopers. To ensure that the gentleman from Texas this time also knows where The Hague is, it is marked on the map." Deputies grin, amused.
The letter, which introduced Obey in the debate in Congress, was the sarcastic response of a Dutch diplomat on a Republican bill that has a good chance to actually be adopted. It prohibits U.S. authorities to cooperate with the International Criminal Court and authorized the President specifically, in case of emergency "to use all necessary and appropriate means" to free American citizens and citizens of its allies from the custody of the Court, its work from July to accommodate Dutch The Hague. Because of the design includes military operations explicitly, is already spoken in Holland from "the Hague Invasion Act".
AP
Republican,
Thomas DeLay: "The rogue court do not  support"      
Earlier this week, is the Dutch politicians joking but finally passed the law. Not only the members of the American House of Representatives have adopted him. Since Thursday night is a modified version of the "Law for the Protection of American soldiers" was also adopted by the Senate - the first chamber of the U.S. Congress, which is responsible for the ratification of international agreements. Now, the two chambers have to agree only on different details to make the two designs a valid law.
  The Dutch parliament has therefore concluded Foreign Minister Jozias van Aartsen asked on Monday to protest against the American action. The law, the Board, undermining the authority of the International Criminal Court.
Exactly what it should. "We like the International Criminal Court does not, and we do not want American soldiers or other citizens fall into his fangs," said Lester Munson, spokesman for the Republicans in Congress, told SPIEGEL ONLINE. "The formulations, which upset the Europeans have won the approval of 75 senators of both parties. So this is the widespread opinion in the country."
 
"Do not support this rogue court"
In the 29 pages of the "American Servicemembers' Protection Act" of the American government is therefore prohibited almost any kind of cooperation with the International Criminal Court: No extradition of indictees to The Hague, no assistance in investigations, neither financial nor military support to countries that the Court recognize.
 
The Act of Congress wanted to give the Tribunal clearly rejected, because there is no control of his power, says Munson. The Invasion clause he keeps doing more for a marginal detail. He had, for example, also read today that Germany in the fall of '20. Abductor 'not working together with U.S. prosecutors, because there was objection to the death penalty. "This encourages me to" outraged Munson, who wants to meet like most American politicians dissent abroad only with superiority.
 
UN war crimes tribunal in The Hague: "threat to millions of Americans"
So the threat against the Netherlands corresponds quite the ongoing rejection of the US-government by international law and the fundamental principles of the rule of law. Even with the detention of terrorist suspects without trial and sentenced by military courts fundamental rights apply in American politics is not much. In dealing with partner countries, even from NATO, are contracts for non-binding agreements. The law try the Republican Senators Jesse Helms (North Carolina) and John Warner (Virginia) and Thomas DeLay (Texas), the majority leader in the House of Representatives to bring in different versions already since last year. "President Bush has sent the clear message that we do not support this rogue court" DeLay drowned after the adoption of the House of Representatives. Since it "our willingness to fight against international terrorism" pity the court bring alleged "millions of Americans at risk."
The approval in the Senate on Thursday but there was - not least because of concerns on the part of Democrats angered allies in Europe - only for a toned-down version of the law. So the president a free hand was given by a number of additional clauses, but just work in the worst case with the Europeans.
 
"This exception clauses make the law a pure act of rhetoric," says Heather Hamilton, program director of the World Federalist Association (WFA), a private organization in Washington, which advocates for international conflict resolution. While it was "written in harsh language", but actually do not force the President to act. The whole process only show "that the Republicans in an election year to commute their right wing".
 
Who is a criminal, the U.S. government will alone determine
The EFC has now launched a counter-movement to life: the open letter of protest to the "Washington Working Group on the International Criminal Court" to the Senate have several representatives of churches, human rights and peace organizations signed, including Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, as well as the civil rights activist Jesse Jackson and war veterans.
 
 
U.S. bombers in action: control undesirable by independent judges
Even within the Senate take the Den-Haag-enemy resistance, about the democratic Senatores Christopher Dodd (Connecticut). Dodd wonders "whether we really want to send out troops to liberate people from the International Court of Justice. The Philippines is also our Allies, but there are terrorists," a polemic Dodds spokesman Tom Lenard. "If the UN does in the future these terrorists in The Hague the process, want the USA then invade and liberate them, because they come from an allied country?"
  In the bill now adopted the formula was at the instigation Dodds after all newly inserted, the law should the USA "does not prevent them to support international efforts, Saddam Hussein, Slobodan Milosevic, Osama bin Laden, other members of al-Qaeda and Islamic Jihad supply and other foreigners of justice, charged with genocide or crimes against humanity are accused. "
Thus, the Congress tried obviously a balancing act between the American claim to defend human rights around the world, and the refusal to submit to an international court, which - unlike the UN bodies - including the superpower is no veto .
 
The contradictory U.S. foreign policy might appear before the court
The soldiers Protection Act even paints the scenario that not only "members of the U.S. armed forces will be exposed to the risk of international accusations", but even that "the president and other high government officials are being sued by the International Court of Justice".
 
This holds even Republican spokesman for Munson absurd: "I can not imagine who could arrest the President to me," he admits. But also, any corporal, the austrage missions for his country "must be sure before this court, the rules of which do not belong to U.S. law." These demonstrative concern appears only advanced. Conflicts between the International Criminal Court and U.S. governments are likely

No comments:

Post a Comment