Clinton Suggests US Could Join International Criminal Court

NAIROBI, Kenya — U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton says it is a "great regret" that the United States is not a member of the International Criminal Court.

Clinton spoke Thursday in Kenya during a seven-nation tour of Africa.

The court is the first permanent institution authorized to try individuals for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes when national courts are unable or unwilling to do so.

The U.S. formally rejected U.S. participation in May 2002. A main concern was that American servicemen hunting down terrorists abroad might not be safe from politically motivated prosecutions.

Clinton said it is "a great regret but it is a fact that we are not yet a signatory. But we have supported the court and continue to do so."

Comments

[mikefina]

Would she support a war-crimes trial for her husband relating to innocent civilians killed in the bombing of an aspirin factory? Or non-combatants killed in Somalia or Kosovo by US forces acting under direction of the President? Or would the court only apply to servicemen and sailors, exempting the current Secretary of State whose foreign policy initiative (paired with those of her boss), killed 60 Pakistani's in a drone attack on a wedding ceremony?

Fair-minded readers look forward to hearing from Madame Secretary...

[RTIII]

I _STRONGLY_ support our joining.

Remember, the ICC only acts if the local jurisdiction(s) fail to prosecute. So, prosecutions with acquitals means the end of it for those people. If serious pressure is applied to catch and try U.S. Citizens, then the U.S. can perform investigations and conduct trials before the ICC actually gets anything done. So, this is only a fail-safe to ensure justice happens. ...I think the vast majority of the world, and even a majority of U.C. citizens today would support investigations and trial of GWB and Cheney for initiating a war of aggression in Iraq and the biggest risk to "rule of law" today is the lack of such investigation and prosecution.

The USA will never heal from the wounds inflicted by GWB and Cheney until they are tried in court.
.

[mikefina]

WOuld you be so STRONGLY supportive, if the first act of the ICC was to indict Pres. Obama for his ongoing detention of terror suspects in Guantanamo? If his bogus pledge to close Gitmo were to be proven false? If the reccommendation were 15 years incarceration in a Hague-based war-crimes prison camp--with Milosovic as a roomate?

If so, then, yes, by all means, let's join the ICC.

[RTIII]

Yes, I do.

First of all, Obama isn't (yet?) on the world's radar screen of warcriminals.

Secondly, Bush & Cheney are - along with many who were in their administration - and the country cannot heal until these two are at least properly (thoroughly and honestly) investigated and put on trial for any alleged crimes revealed.

Thirdly, Obama's unwillingness to address the horrific actions of Bush Cheney is both a perfect example of and is precisely why the ICC acts when local governments fail to do the right thing. This is the very reason it exists in the first place; local governments are seldom both willing and able to prosecute their own.
.

[LeeCalif]

The US would only do that to try to get the US off the hook bacause of all the laws this country has broken.

[treetracker]

Please, become a signatory to the World Court!

[jasev01]

And now Chenney is really scared.

[Tulka2]

Empires certainly cannot risk joining a world court. Repudiate empire and there might be a chance for us to join the wholesome global village again. Besides...? Better minds than this have noted American Empire is not for the benefit of ordinary Americans. Our military industrial complex serves as the international, corporate ,mercenary army. We are the German mercenaries of this time. Guns for hire.

[Chopin]

ALL empires in history expired, NO EXCEPTIONS. Only interesting question is HOW.
Some expire by pervasive internal corruption and external invasion, like Roman Empire.
Some after victorious but debilitating large scale war, like British Empire after WW2.
Some after militarism made them bite off more than they can chew, like Third Reich and Japanese Empire after WW2, Greek Empire after Alexander, and French Empire after Napoleon.
Some expire when internal cohesion dissolved and finances crumpled, like the Soviet Empire.

American Empire is the modern odd phenomenon. This empire has doubtless grown to its full imperial reach, without majority of people even being fully aware of it or discussing its imperial status. Strangest phenomenon --- most Americans speak of greatest country inthe world, think of it like arepublic between 2oceans, not aglobal empire. There's great difference between the two.
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=confessions+of+an+economic+hitman&search_type=&aq=1&oq=confessions+of+an+

There's little doubt imperial status will end some point, even when most citizens don't acknowledge its status. Important question is HOW. Voluntarily, gradually, peacefully, like British Empire? or involuntarily, suddenly, catastrophically, like Third Reich?

Progression of foreign military adventures from Vietnam to Iraq in 4decades doesn't presage well. Superimpose collapsing economy, huge deficits (budgetary+trade) and crushing national debt over $11 Trillion. That makes combustible unstable mixture. Dropping dollar is another factor. It's hightime all Americans fastforward to 21st century, and begin wideranging indepth debates and discussions over its future destiny.
.

[IFTYS]

Sorry, but this is not the direction our country should take. The UN lacks zero backbone and I would not want our country to be answerable to a bunch of crooks. we have our own problem with our own set of political crooks. Personally I think the UN building should be closed down and moved to another country. The amount of money the American people pay to have those fools sit and dictate international policy is a JOKE.

On top of that, obama and the dems, with the help from the UN, are a THREAT to the American Family.

What I speak of is the UN Convention On The Rights Of The Child. Basically, If the UNCRC is ratified, parents will no longer have the final say as to what their children can and cannot eat, watch on television, access on the Internet, even what people they can hang with. In my estimation, the UNCRC is what the obama administration is all about: CONTROL. They want to control our lives from A to Z.

Karl Marx, the architect of the most repressive form of government ever devised, said that the main obstacle to implementation of a socialist state was the autonomy of the family.

[Tulka2]

(Heads up. The moment i saw you didn't capitalize Obama's name and put "THREAT" all in capital letters....? I stopped reading.)

[IFTYS]

twit

[treetracker]

You really need to turn off Limbo and Beck and learn to read and think for yourself. But, I know, it's soooo much easier and less time consuming, if you don't have to do any of that. Memorizing the talking points is just so much faster, isn't it?

[IFTYS]

If you took to time to read and understand, then maybe you'll know this isn't something Limbaugh or Beck has mentioned.

I have recently finished reading a book on traditional parenting by John Rosemond. Rosemond also writes articles for a few newspapers where he mentioned UNCRC.

But go ahead and put your full faith in obama and his administration.

Pinhead

[steel71]

ICC = global government. We have the US Constitution, no need for an international court, thank you. Hillary should be tried in the ICC before signing us up.

[NickConrad]

Take off the tinfoil hat, it's an expanded Hague which we were more than happy to use for Slobodan Milosevic. Israel pushed us not to sign it because Ariel Sharon was potentially going to be brought up on war crimes charges, and eventually we had the same fear about Bush. There's no big scary corporate conspiracy headquartered on the back of your money that's coming to get you all because international law exists.

[Chopin]

How can the ICC try a US citizen before it is ratified by the Senate? Don't comment if you can't even make a serious argument in 2 sentences.

[Jonatan Cruz]

Don't you think the US constitution is pretty outdated, like 200 yo. I think my constitution is much better.
for example it includes "#
# Children shall enjoy the protection provided for in the international agreements safeguarding their rights."

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Spanish_Constitution_of_1978

Also in response to IFTYS: hello! They're a bunch of people representing all the countryes in the world, hello! hello!, democracy not tirany of the US multinationals all over the world.

[TRYKER]

What a disappointing article. Nothing happening...a simple suggestion and nothing.
Of course we should be in the ICC, we need to begin to see ourselves as not the "grand exception" but as ordinary citizens of the world, no better than and no worse than any other citizens of any country.
Our arrogance is our downfall. What part of equality don't we understand?

[Cheryl2]

If we were part of the international court Bush and Cheney would have to be prosecuted for their war crimes. That is why we have not become members.

[Tulka2]

We refused to join long before Bush and Cheney. Empire requires protection of Rome's soldiers and whatever damn thing they might get up to.

Repudiation of empire is the first step towards joining the rest of the law-abiding world village.

[Chopin]

True. Repudiation can come in many guises:--
Suppose a third consecutive expanding and disastrous war is in the making, at its early stages of a massive buildup (call it by its popular term "surge").
Suppose the economy continues to slide and shrink from virally expanding unemployment.
Suppose the deficit and debt continue to balloon organically out of control.
Suppose foreign creditors collectively refuse to continue expanding their support of US debt load.
Suppose the USDollar continues to drop in value in international currency markets.

Well, all of those suppositions are becoming undeniable realities. At what point would they catastrophically merge into one integrated unsolvable problem, like a machine collapsing from metal fatigue and total breakdown. Would it matter where the weakest point appears in the system that would trigger total collapse? The point is the system is unstable. Repudiation can occur involuntarily at any point in a house of cards. The results would amount to the same thing.

[IndepBob]

Since joining might subject war criminals George Bush, Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld to prosecution for torture and murder, I kind of doubt we'll be joining up any time soon.

[Tim303]

Hooray

[Annieke]

If they do, please first repel the The Hague Act before I wake up one day finding a few JI Joes on my doorstep (not far from the ICJ).

It is a true shame that the US, one of the initiators of the Neurenberg trials in 1945-1948, chose to stay on the sidelines. Of course after WW II the US was on the right side of history. When it comes to Iraq, I am not so sure.

[K.J. Dwyer - Huffpost Blogger]

When donkeys fly will the United States join, and thereby subject itself to the scrutiny of, an International Tribunal. If it were to do so, its entire modus operandi for the last century or so would be in play.

Read Stephen Kinzer's "Overthrow; America's Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq"

http://www.democracynow.org/2006/4/21/overthrow_americas_century_of_regime_change

Unfortunately, without some revolutionary dismantling of the Military Industrial Complex and some serious re-organization and oversight of the CIA and other intelligence agencies, the United States will never give up its hegemonic tendencies of overt and covert subversion of democracies all over the world, let alone subject itself to International Law.

I like Clinton, but honestly, who is she kidding with this statement?

[AmandaBC]

My point exactly.

[steel71]

K.J. you have to deal with the federal reserve bank first.

[AmandaBC]

Just a publicity stunt. It will never happen. If it did, the international community could put lots of American war criminals on trial, including Bush and Cheney. And that has never happened and never will happen. Because what the international community calls "war crimes", most Americans actually approve of (like Obama's air raids kiIIling hundreds of innocent civilians in Pakistan and Afghanistan.)

[Chopin]

I wouldn't go so far as to declare "it will never happen".
America is a global empire today --- economic not territorial. Very important to fully comprehend its implications. If an economic system loses its foundational support that props it up and functioning, what is there left that would do that job? Nothing ! What is that foundation? The pre-eminence of the USDollar in the global community. Well, what if the rest of the world does not agree that one USDollar buys a dollar's worth of resources, goods and services? What if the rest of the world, through the global financial markets (stocks+bonds) and currency markets, decide that a dollar buys only a nickel's worth? What can America do? Nothing !

So a global economic empire is regulated, controlled and sustained by its economic prowess. That prowess is founded on the credibility of its currency. Have you checked on the US$ index on the global currency market today? or in past 5 years? If the USDollar collapses, would you be the first to know? . . . The fact is, nobody has much of a clue when that happens. Those who tell, don't know. Those who know, don't tell. So, NOBODY has any real basis for saying "it will never happen".