View Full Version : The US must accept the International Court of Justice in The Hague!!!

09-16-2006, 02:03 AM
The US must accept the International Court of Justice in The Hague!!!

To accept the International Court of Justice in The Hague ( http://www.icj-cij.org ) is the only way to prevent future US-administrations from committing war crimes all over the world to spread violently their "western democratic values".


Be aware of these government criminals after they were forced to stop their worldwide atrocities. Maybe the US detention camps will be used for these guys...

The Bank for International Settlements (BIS) ( link to www.bis.org ) the central bank of central banks must immediately STOP to support the current War Criminals and future Administrations in the White House with credits for their sick aims of war on terror... while destroying their local economy...

Best wishes from Switzerland


09-16-2006, 11:55 AM
U.S.: 'Hague Invasion Act' Becomes Law

White House "Stops at Nothing" in Campaign Against War Crimes Court

(New York, August 3, 2002) A new law supposedly protecting U.S. servicemembers from the International Criminal Court shows that the Bush administration will stop at nothing in its campaign against the court, Human Rights Watch warned today.
Related Material

U.S. President George Bush today signed into law the American Servicemembers Protection Act of 2002, which is intended to intimidate countries that ratify the treaty for the International Criminal Court (ICC). The new law authorizes the use of military force to liberate any American or citizen of a U.S.-allied country being held by the court, which is located in The Hague. This provision, dubbed the "Hague invasion clause," has caused a strong reaction from U.S. allies around the world, particularly in the Netherlands.

In addition, the law provides for the withdrawal of U.S. military assistance from countries ratifying the ICC treaty, and restricts U.S. participation in United Nations peacekeeping unless the United States obtains immunity from prosecution. At the same time, these provisions can be waived by the president on "national interest" grounds.

"The states that have ratified this treaty are trying to strengthen the rule of law," said Richard Dicker, director of the International Justice Program at Human Rights Watch. "The Bush administration is trying to punish them for that."

Dicker pointed out that many of the ICC's biggest supporters are fragile democracies and countries emerging from human rights crises, such as Sierra Leone, Argentina and Fiji.

The law is part of a multi-pronged U.S. effort against the International Criminal Court. On May 6, in an unprecedented move, the Bush administration announced it was "renouncing" U.S. signature on the treaty. In June, the administration vetoed continuation of the U.N. peacekeeping force in Bosnia in an effort to obtain permanent immunity for U.N. peacekeepers. In July, U.S. officials launched a campaign around the world to obtain bilateral agreements that would grant immunity for Americans from the court's authority. Yesterday, Washington announced that it obtained such an agreement from Romania.

However, another provision of the bill allows the United States to assist international efforts to bring to justice those accused of genocide, war crimes or crimes against humanity - including efforts by the ICC.

"The administration never misses an opportunity to gratuitously antagonize its allies on the ICC," said Dicker. "But it's also true that the new law has more loopholes than a block of Swiss cheese."

Dicker said the law gives the administration discretion to override ASPA's noxious effects on a case-by-case basis. Washington may try to use this to strong-arm additional concessions from the states that support the court, but Dicker urged states supporting the ICC "not to fall into the U.S. trap: the law does not require any punitive measures."

Human Rights Watch believes the International Criminal Court has the potential to be the most important human rights institution created in 50 years, and urged regional groups of states, such as the European Union, to condemn the new law and resist Washington's attempts to obtain bilateral exemption arrangements.

The law formed part of the 2002 Supplemental Appropriations Act for Further Recovery from and Response to Terrorist Attacks on the United States.


09-16-2006, 01:27 PM
The American Servicemembers' Protection Act (ASPA) is a United States federal law introduced by United States Senator Jesse Helms as an amendment to the Defense Authorization Act and passed in August 2002 by the Congress. The stated purpose of the amendment was "to protect United States military personnel and other elected and appointed officials of the United States government against criminal prosecution by an international criminal court to which the United States is not party".

The amendment is intended to weaken the position of the International Criminal Court in The Hague as it allows the U.S. government to save U.S. citizens from extradition to the ICC, and also authorizes "any necessary action", as Helms put it, "to free U.S. soldiers improperly handed over to that Court". This led opponents of the act to dub it The Hague Invasion Act.[1][2]

Furthermore, it contained prohibitions on the U.S. providing military aid to countries which had ratified the treaty establishing the court; however, there were a number of exceptions to this, including NATO members, major non-NATO ally, and countries which entered into an agreement with the United States not to hand over U.S. nationals to the Court. ASPA also excluded any military aid that the U.S. President certified to be in the U.S. national interest.


09-16-2006, 01:39 PM
U.S. in New Fight Against War Crimes Court

(New York, June 26, 2002) - The U.S. government is extending its campaign against the new International Criminal Court to peacekeeping efforts at the United Nations, Human Rights Watch said in a backgrounder released today.

The U.S. is trying to get at this treaty through the back door. It's using the Security Council as a battering ram, to attack an institution that dozens of countries regard as a fait accompli.

At the U.N. Security Council, the Bush administration is pressing to exempt peacekeepers from the authority of the court. Ratified by sixty-nine states, the court treaty will enter into force on July 1.

"The U.S. is trying to get at this treaty through the back door," said Kenneth Roth, Executive Director of Human Rights Watch. "It's using the Security Council as a battering ram, to attack an institution that dozens of countries regard as a fait accompli."

Roth called on France, the United Kingdom, and other members of the Security Council to "defend the integrity" of the new court. He noted that the U.S. delegation's previous attempts to exempt peacekeepers in East Timor from the court's jurisdiction ended in failure.

The Human Rights Watch backgrounder examines various proposals the United States has advanced at the Security Council to exempt U.N. peacekeepers from the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. It also analyzes the British-initiated agreement for international troops in Afghanistan (the ISAF agreement), which U.S. diplomats have cited to justify Washington's own efforts to obtain exemption.

At a meeting of the Security Council on Tuesday, June 18, U.S. diplomats presented two alternative proposals to exempt peacekeepers: the first text would apply only to peacekeepers deployed in Bosnia, while the second proposal would exempt peacekeepers in all U.N.-authorized or -mandated operations.

"The U.S. failed to win ironclad guarantees insulating itself from the court when the treaty was negotiated, and now Washington is trying to achieve its goal through other means," said Roth. "This puts the very idea of treaty-making at risk. Why negotiate a document if the U.S. can change it later, behind the closed doors of the Security Council?"

The International Criminal Court will be the first-ever permanent international criminal court authorized to try those accused of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes when national courts conduct sham trials or fail to investigate at all. Beginning July 1, people accused of those crimes could be brought to trial before the court, which will be located in The Hague.

President Clinton signed the Treaty on December 31, 2000. On May 6, 2002, the Bush Administration announced its intention to withdraw U.S. signature.

U.S. War Crimes Ambassador Pierre Prosper has said that President George Bush "was not going to war" against the International Criminal Court.

"What's happening at the United Nations right now looks to me like a full-scale assault on the court," said Roth.