Give the ICC a Chance at Bush & Co.
I really appreciate the Charles Homans discussion being held here on TPMCafe but nobody involved has mentioned a third alternative -- we don't investigate (or do) but at the same time we sign on with the International Criminal Court.
The immediate effect of that would be a long overdue indictment against Henry Kissinger. But the court would eventually catch up with Bush administration officials as well. None of them, including the former president, would be able to travel outside of the United States.
Maybe just the threat of this would be enough to compel some former Bush administration officials to speak openly before congress.
One major drawback to this is that we'd be relying on the international community for our own justice needs. But, that's kind of the point of the ICC. They step in because local systems are too entangled to sort out their own messes. It also means that likely only the human rights violations -- the detentions, torture and renditions would be heard about. The domestic laws that were broken, like the domestic spying, would likely be of less interest to the ICC.
But, you never know.
Let's at least threaten to join if these people won't talk.
The immediate effect of that would be a long overdue indictment against Henry Kissinger. But the court would eventually catch up with Bush administration officials as well. None of them, including the former president, would be able to travel outside of the United States.
Maybe just the threat of this would be enough to compel some former Bush administration officials to speak openly before congress.
One major drawback to this is that we'd be relying on the international community for our own justice needs. But, that's kind of the point of the ICC. They step in because local systems are too entangled to sort out their own messes. It also means that likely only the human rights violations -- the detentions, torture and renditions would be heard about. The domestic laws that were broken, like the domestic spying, would likely be of less interest to the ICC.
But, you never know.
Let's at least threaten to join if these people won't talk.
Advertisement
I agree that this is a good reason to join the court. Even without the Bush factor, however, I believe we really should join and support the ICC if we want to be taken seriously as believers in the rule of law.
November 25, 2008 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, we couldn't have Full Spectrum Dominance, if we allowed international courts to put their noses in our business.
Verbatim quote from the GOP Party Platform of 2008:
""To shield the members of our Armed Forces and
others in service to America from ideological prosecutions, the Republican Party does not accept the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court over Americans. We support the American Servicemembers Protection Act, to shield US personnel and officials as they act abroad to meet global security requirements"
--------
The American Servicemembers Protection Act was known as the "Invade the Hague Act" when it first was passed by the Republican dominated congress back in 2002. When did we invade Iraq?
The language of the act includes elected officials under the umbrella of protection.
November 25, 2008 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Heh - I'm sure they also support Right Guard for Long Lasting Protection.
November 25, 2008 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm torn. I support the concept of the ICC and have been impressed by the trials already held at the Hague.
But I also like the idea of putting Bush Administration officials on trial, where capital punishment is a possibility.
Mostly because I'd like to see conservatives here have to choose between abolishing the death penalty, and watching some of their heroes put to it.
If law is to rule, best be sure it is just.
November 25, 2008 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
That makes martyrs of them. You think that wouldn't stick as an idea? A rallying point? A war cry, perhaps?
That's why the best thing to do is find Osama bin Laden and try him, then imprison him for the rest of his life in segregation. Would've been a better end for Saddam Hussein, too.
Let them turn into bitter, shambling old wrecks in their cells. The confinement and isolation of a cell will serve them well.
November 25, 2008 4:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
It -might- make martyrs of them in some circles if they're convicted and so sentenced.
It could also lead to abolition of the death penalty in the US. And give Project Innocence a respite from having to hustle to save lives.
I'd be OK with seeing people with "Free W" signs, so long as they understand they have to share the sidewalk with the "Free Mumia" folks. We'd have plenty of opportunities to point out that Bush and Cheney would have been hung at Nuremburg and marginalize their supporters.
November 26, 2008 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
My vituperation above notwithstanding, (and when was the last time anyone opened a post thus?) this - charging people straightaway or not - will go a long way towards restoring the credibility of the US in many places where we, among other things, travel and do business.
That in itself is a good idea, yes?
November 25, 2008 4:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, it is a very good idea. I want my nation to be a leader in asserting the rights of people to be free from tyranny. And unchecked executive power to detain people indefinitely is the absolute epitome of tyranny. Because I can no longer trust my government with the sovereignty I have granted it to prosecute crimes, I now want that sovereignty to be placed in a higher power.
November 25, 2008 11:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
As much as I want to see Bush and Co. called on the international carpet (for all the reasons you mention), I am still concerned about the risk that opens our service people up to.
Look at it this way...an official gives orders that a subordinate has to carry out, say, securing a target or a position. Subordinate doesn't know and isn't allowed to ask what the target or position is, but must simply follow orders. Turns out, the target is a school that is sheltering an Al Qaeda operative. Under the ICC, the subordinate who didn't know and couldn't dispute the order would be held accountable - maybe even face the death penalty. The officer who made the order, and the folks who gathered the intelligence probably should be held accountable, but the people at the front lines should not if they're following orders.
Situations like this would lead to an issue in the military where all orders are questioned because with every task front line soldiers would ask, "will I face the death penalty for this?"
I'm all about accountability in the military, and yes more thought *should* be given to consequences, but the individuals at the frontline have little to no say in how things go - they're risking their lives for very little pay, and the ICC would string them up over bad PR.
My suggestion is to reform our military court or rewrite the law so military cases that involve officers are tried in civilian courts due to the conflict of interest.
November 26, 2008 9:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Soldiers on front lines have more immediate worries than prosecution at some later date.
That said, "I was following orders." went out of style at Nuremburg. And rightly so. In the military, properly, no one would issue orders involving needless civilian deaths. This is a situation where working from the top down is definitely called for.
November 26, 2008 10:42 AM | Reply | Permalink