U.S. concerns about International Criminal Court being proved justified as Balkans tribunal considers Clinton indictment

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
Story Link


ZAGREB, Croatia ? The Balkans war crimes tribunal is examining whether charges are warranted against former President Clinton and his aides for supporting a 1995 military offensive by Croatia that recaptured territory then held by rebel Serbian forces. The Croatian World Congress sent a letter last week demanding that Carla Del Ponte, the chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), open a criminal investigation into Mr. Clinton and other top officials of his administration for "aiding and abetting indicted Croatian Gen. Ante Gotovina in a 1995 Croatian military operation known as 'Operation Storm.'"

When asked if the prosecutor's office plans to indict Mr. Clinton and U.S. officials, Florence Hartmann, spokeswoman for Mrs. Del Ponte, said: "We are working on the basis of an ongoing investigation." Besides Mr. Clinton, others named in the complaint are former National Security Adviser Anthony Lake, former Deputy National Security Adviser Samuel Berger, Ambassador Richard Holbrooke and former U.S. Ambassador to Croatia Peter Galbraith.

Fears that American officials and soldiers will be prosecuted for participating in U.N.-backed peacekeeping efforts lie behind the Bush administration's threat to scuttle the present U.N. peacekeeping mission in Bosnia. The threat is part of a dispute involving a separate but similar U.N. tribunal, the International Criminal Court, which was modeled after the ICTY and opened its doors last week. Both courts are based in The Hague. The Balkans court angered U.S. officials two years ago when it acknowledged it was looking into a similar complaint against NATO commanders for their role in the 1999 U.S.-led bombing campaign in Yugoslavia. Court officials said at the time they felt obliged to look into all complaints placed before them, but they dropped the matter after a preliminary investigation.

Gen. Gotovina was indicted by the ICTY in June 2001 on charges that he exercised "command responsibility" over a military campaign in which 150 Serbian civilians were killed. Secretly supported by the Clinton administration, Croatian forces launched a massive three-day military offensive ? known as "Operation Storm" ? on Aug. 4, 1995, in which Croatia recovered territories occupied by rebel Serbs following Zagreb's drive for independence from Yugoslavia in 1991.

The Croatian World Congress, a nongovernmental organization (NGO) that advises the United Nations, said it believes neither Gen. Gotovina nor Clinton administration officials are guilty of war crimes. However, it said that if Mrs. Del Ponte insists on prosecuting Gen. Gotovina, then American officials should be prosecuted in the interests of "evenhanded justice" because they played a pivotal role in aiding the general's campaign in Operation Storm. The Croatian World Congress said the U.S. administration gave the green light for the operation and provided diplomatic and political support for it. But the NGO stressed that "the most just outcome would be to withdraw the indictment against Gen. Gotovina."


The possibility that the Gotovina case will lead to U.S. officials being indicted by the ICTY worries some lawmakers on Capitol Hill.
Rep. Henry J. Hyde, Illinois Republican and chairman of the House Committee on International Relations, said in a May 29 letter to Secretary of State Colin L. Powell that at committee hearings on the ICTY, "Testimony was presented at our hearing questioning the factual basis for this indictment. "It was brought to our attention that the ICTY may investigate U.S. officials for potential command responsibility in connection with Operation Storm." Mr. Hyde said the ongoing investigation in the Gotovina case poses "risks" that U.S. officials would be prosecuted by the "U.N. tribunal for formulating or carrying out U.S. government policy."

Gen. Gotovina, 48, was the military commander of Sector South of the operation that was responsible for the capture of the city Knin. He is also accused by the prosecutor's office at The Hague of overseeing the ethnic cleansing of 150,000 Serbs in Croatia who fled the military assault. He is currently in hiding, his whereabouts unknown.

The United States provided military and technical assistance to Operation Storm in order to deliver a defeat to then-Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic's goal of forging an ethnically pure "Greater Serbia."


 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,699
6,196
126
Good, lets go to court and see what they got. Justice will eventually have to be international if it's to mean anything. The effort should be to bring the concept of justice to a refined state. Everybody wants justice except for the justice that applies to them. Our international stance is inherently untennable.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
Good, lets go to court and see what they got. Justice will eventually have to be international if it's to mean anything.

I don't disagree with you in theory. And if this was as far as it went, then it wouldn't be an issue. However, my concern would be that this won't be a one-time deal, that Clinton and other officials (and potentially servicemen) will face constant legal harrassment for the rest of their lives over stupid trivia.

I'm not Bill Clinton's biggest fan, but he IS our former President, and he deserves to live his life as a private citizen in relative peace, and not have to worry about being slapped with a ICC supoena every time he goes out to walk the dog. Even worse, a subpoena alledging that some war crime happened somewhere in the world when he was President, and that he's therefore somehow to blame for it taking place.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,699
6,196
126
Why should he live in pease if he is a war criminal? Every war criminal who looses power and is succeptable to prosicution just wants to live in peace. Why should an American president be any different. You live in a country where you can be sued for any reason whatsoever. You could be harasses all your life. The point is that bringing charges is one thing. Getting a conviction is another. We are all going to have to play by the same rules if we want the rules to mean something. Our attitude is, as I said, untennable.
 

Weyoun

Senior member
Aug 7, 2000
700
0
0
Speaking hypothetically, what if Clinton was actually guilty of committing a war crime? Would he then have the 'right' to life his life in peace? As an INTERNATIONAL citizen, he should be held responsible for any crimes that arose as a result of his commands, irrespective of his nationality. While some people may disagree with me, I think the legal rights and responsibilities of an individual should extend beyond their borders and 'acting in the common interest'.

If he committed the crime, then he's guilty. Why not stand trial and fight for his rights in a fair manner instead of resorting to patriotic cliches and a national constitution?

sorry if I appear to be a little general, Bush's comments are already being integrated into my reply
 

Lucky

Lifer
Nov 26, 2000
13,126
1
0
But the question is whether international courts will never be just towards the US.
 

Kadarin

Lifer
Nov 23, 2001
44,303
15
81
I agree with glenn1 on this; it would be ridiculous if any tinhorn dictator could bring spurious charges in some international court (which will likely have anti-US bias, as it's based in Europe) and subpoena any US official they please for whatever reason on whatever charge.. Such a court would become another tool for anti-US organizations to harrass the US, and would likely not mete out a whole lot of productive justice. The US is right for not supporting it.

While Moonbeam is right about the fact that it would be nice if we could have high standards for international justice, in practice it wouldn't work.
 

Martin

Lifer
Jan 15, 2000
29,178
1
81
Originally posted by: glenn1
Why should he live in pease if he is a war criminal?

So you're saying Bill Clinton is a war criminal?

He clearly said IF

So IF Clinton is guilty, do you think he should live out the rest of his life in peace? Do you think every leader should lead his life in peace after his time in office is over? Or is it OK for other leaders to be indicted (pinochet, milosevic), but not US leaders?

I'm not sure, but you seem opposed to them even investigating him, let alone indicting or putting him on trial.
 

AndrewR

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
11,157
0
0
We haven't achieved meaningful cooperation on law enforcement in the vast majority of cases, yet people expect countries with different political, social, religious and economic ideals to come together for a cohesive definition of justice free from tampering by outside influence? There are better odds on seeing Iran renounce terrorism tomorrow.
 

Dually

Golden Member
Dec 20, 2000
1,628
0
0
The U.S. is special for many reasons and therefore should not be held liable to the ICC.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,699
6,196
126
Anybody who has faced justice knows that the courts are always biased against them, our courts their courts, it makes no difference.
 

Weyoun

Senior member
Aug 7, 2000
700
0
0
The U.S. is special for many reasons and therefore should not be held liable to the ICC.

I'd like to pretend for a second that was a satire.

Just WHY does the US deserve special treatment in this issue? The last time I checked, they were just another country in that funny place others like to call the WORLD. Sure, I appreciate genuine attempts at peace and 'peace-keeping' missions, but YOU'RE NOT THE ONLY ONES! If a crime was commited while on a peace-keeping mission, the individual responsible should be held accountable. At what point to we begin to consider nationality when discussing human rights? Should it have ANYTHING to do with it?

Nobody should be exempt from International courts. Laws are flexible, they change over time. An international court would try people widely considered to be dangerous, having done something morally incorrect at the global level. Why is it assumed that American nationals would be persecuted under such a system? Even if they were, why are so many people of the belief that the judges are prejudiced? There really isn't much difference between American and European rights and ideologies. Rather, the condescending attitude of foreign hatred causes much of the supposed 'rift' between America and the world

(regarding peacekeeping missions, I acknowledge that the US maintains a significant presence. While their numbers, and hence number of trials would be mathematically greater, the probability of error or crime remains identical with other foreign peacekeepers. That is a risk, along with their lives, that everyone takes when engaging in such activities)
 

LH

Golden Member
Feb 16, 2002
1,604
0
0

FYI

France has IMMUNITY from the ICC... Why should they get special treatment? That should be the real question.

The problem with the ICC is the political bias against the US. As seen in the UN and WTO.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,425
8,388
126
Originally posted by: AndrewR
We haven't achieved meaningful cooperation on law enforcement in the vast majority of cases, yet people expect countries with different political, social, religious and economic ideals to come together for a cohesive definition of justice free from tampering by outside influence? There are better odds on seeing Iran renounce terrorism tomorrow.
this may be the best post in here so far.


as for international courts, i suppose they have basis in the nuremburg trials after WWII. those were show trials. they were a farce of justice, a court whose existence was solely to have some sacifices to absolve the rest of germany of its gross disregard for human life.
 

Czar

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
28,510
0
0
Originally posted by: LH

FYI

France has IMMUNITY from the ICC... Why should they get special treatment? That should be the real question.

The problem with the ICC is the political bias against the US. As seen in the UN and WTO.
do they? could you give me a link please

 

Double Trouble

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,272
103
106
Oh my goodness, I agree with Moonbeam on this one.

You can't have it both ways. You can't say "everyone should be under the jurisdiction of this international court", and then say "except for us, of course, because we wouldn't be treated fairly". That's complete BS. Like all justice, either it exists for everyone, or it exists for noone.

I don't like the idea of such an international court at all, because I think a step towards some sort of global government, but the position of "it's fine for everyone else to be prosecuted, so long as we are immune" is not logical or just.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
I'm not sure, but you seem opposed to them even investigating him, let alone indicting or putting him on trial.

I'm not opposed to either an investigation of Bill Clinton in particular, or the ICC in general. I am however concerned with the possibility i already expressed, that the ICC and similar organizations will be tools used to endlessly harass for political reasons, not prosecute true war criminals.

I agree with the Bush administration position that there should be a control mechanism in place to limit abuse of prosecutorial authority by an ICC-type organization, and yet disagree with the policy of withdrawing from the arrangement altogether unless unilateral immunity is granted to certain individuals. Why do you seem to misrepresent this as not being a valid position to take on the matter, insisting that if the ICC doesn't have unlimited prosecutorial powers, that it's somehow useless? Nothing could be further from the truth.


 

IGBT

Lifer
Jul 16, 2001
17,956
137
106
Well there you go again...even your icon of magnanimous liberalism is under the microscope of the sham International CrimCourt. This has got to be a lawyers wet dream come true.
 

Scipionix

Golden Member
May 30, 2002
1,408
0
0
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Good, lets go to court and see what they got. Justice will eventually have to be international if it's to mean anything. The effort should be to bring the concept of justice to a refined state. Everybody wants justice except for the justice that applies to them. Our international stance is inherently untennable.

The POINT of our opposition to the ICC is that American citizens have a right to the protections offered by our Constitution. We cannot voluntarily surrender the rights of our citizens to extranational "justice." It is that simple.

 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,699
6,196
126
Seems like for you,Scipionix, every thing is simple. You just blow stuff out there and say see simple huh. I would guess that the government is allowed to establish international agreements and somebody would have to successfully win in the Supreme Court before it actually became unconstitutional. Don't try smoking dope in Turkey with the expectation that their courts have no authority over your US citizen's ass.
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |