Ironworks Gaming Forum - View Single Post

Grojlach · 06-09-2002, 08:05 AM

Well, I still have doubts whether this bill is really fake or not... After all, there have been some really strange bills in the past, right? I don't think this will pass though...

Anyways, the first mention of this law was already in October 2001:

U.S.: Don't Support Legislation Against War Crimes Court

(New York, October 5, 2001) In a letter to U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell, Human Rights Watch today voiced serious concern about the State Department's endorsement of the American Servicemembers Protection Act (ASPA), legislation which would attempt to undermine the establishment of a permanent war crimes court.
The ASPA has been characterized as "The Hague Invasion Act" because it authorizes the U.S. to use force to liberate any U.S. or allied persons detained on behalf of the proposed International Criminal Court (ICC), which will be based in The Hague, The Netherlands.
The ASPA also prohibits U.S. military assistance to those states that ratify the ICC treaty, except for NATO members and some major non-NATO allies.
The Bush administration expressed its support for the ASPA in a September 25 letter from U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Legislative Affairs, Paul Kelly, to Senator Jesse Helms, who is sponsoring the legislation.
Yesterday, Washington's closest ally, the United Kingdom, became the forty-second country to ratify the ICC treaty. Once sixty countries ratify the treaty, the court will be established, most likely in 2002. Virtually every key U.S. ally and every member of the European Union strongly supports the creation of the court, and a number of European allies have expressed concern about the ASPA and the Bush Administration's endorsement of it.
"The United States is forging a global coalition against terrorism, and the State Department has just endorsed a bill that authorizes an invasion of the Netherlands," said Richard Dicker, Director of the International Justice Program at Human Rights Watch. "This makes no sense. It hardly seems like a good moment for the U.S. to be threatening sanctions against dozens of countries simply because they want to bring to justice the perpetrators of crimes against humanity."
Although the State Department was able to negotiate with Helms a presidential waiver in the ASPA that could lessen the legislation's effect, it has also made clear that it would oppose all conceivable legislative alternatives to the ASPA. This action could undermine U.S. credibility in forging coalitions against human rights abusers, Human Rights Watch said, and it will have no success in preventing entry into force of the treaty, since the pace of ratifications has already proven even faster than expected.
"The American Servicemembers Protection Act is misnamed and ill-timed," said Dicker. "The State Department's decision to support it is inexplicable. This court represents the greatest advance in human rights protection in the last fifty years."
The letter to the U.S. Secretary of State can be found at http://www.hrw.org/press/2001/10/powell-ltr1005.htm

Source: Human Rights Watch

Another more recent article:

Bush's Snub Of Criminal Court Undermines World Justice

In its opposition to the International Criminal Court, and its legally dubious and arrogant "unsigning" of the treaty that created the ICC, the Bush administration continues on a regressive, dangerous path, writes PNS contributor Amy Ross.
The International Criminal Court (ICC) is now a reality. But the United States won't be at the table. Office space has been rented. Professionals from around the world will serve as judges, attorneys and translators, tasked with prosecuting human rights violations such as war crimes and genocide. But the U.S. chair will be empty. This week, President Bush "unsigned" President Clinton's signature on the treaty creating the court, a move dubious in its legality and shocking in its arrogance. Bush's insistence that the United States stands above the court really means that America will be left outside this important international body. The new court enjoys the support of nations worldwide, including all of the European democracies and a majority of the countries the United States considers its closest allies. The ICC won't take the place of these national courts; it has jurisdiction only if the courts fail to act. It will be located in The Hague, a city with a long tradition of hosting international treaties and institutions. The Bush administration's move typifies its disregard for multilateral cooperation. The White House has made it clear that it will use its muscle to stymie the ICC, which it believes might hold U.S. citizens (soldiers and public servants) accountable to international justice. Last fall, the Bush administration endorsed legislation -- the American Servicemembers' Protection Act -- calling for sanctions against countries that support the initiative. This legislation was characterized in Europe as "The Hague Invasion Act," because it authorized the United States to use force to bring about the release from captivity of any U.S. service member detained or imprisoned by the ICC in the Netherlands. "At a time when allies in Europe and around the world are rallying to stand with the United States against a common threat, the State Department should not be embracing legislation that authorizes an invasion of the Netherlands," the group Human Rights Watch stated in a letter to Secretary of State Colin Powell. "It hardly seems like a good moment for the U.S. to be threatening sanctions against dozens of countries simply because they want to bring to justice perpetrators of crimes against humanity." Opposition in the Senate managed to remove the extreme language from a defense appropriation bill. It must be noted that American aversion to the International Criminal Court predates the Bush administration. For five weeks in 1998, under President Clinton's watch, the U.S. delegation to the United Nations conference wrestled with the rest of the world over the ICC treaty. Washington strenuously objected to elements in the treaty that gave the ICC its powers, and in the minds of the vast majority of the other participants, made the court viable.
The United States insisted on conditions that would essentially make it impossible to try an American. As one frustrated delegate said at the time, "We are being forced to accept a court that is either weakened by 'American exceptionalism,' or weakened by the lack of involvement of the U.S." Despite accommodations and compromises, the United States became increasingly isolated, watching as its allies coalesced into the group of "like-minded nations." In the end, 120 countries voted to adopt the treaty. Only seven voted against it. The United States and Israel publicly announced their opposition; the five other countries in the secret vote were reported to be China, Libya, Iraq, Yemen and the Sudan. Behind this movement to combat bestial crime with rational justice is the recognition that warfare increasingly affects civilians. In the past, soldiers were the victims of war. But throughout the 20th century, civilians made up more than 90 percent of the casualties of war.
On Sept. 11, we Americans felt this reality. Now we share with others across the planet the knowledge that we can become civilian casualties, the "collateral damage" of conflict. As the Bush administration's bellicose and increasingly unilateral response to 9-11 appears to be failing in its objectives -- Osama bin Laden has eluded capture, and threats against the United States at home and abroad continue -- it is time to reassess our strategy.
With the ratification of the ICC on April 11, the global community will commit itself to responding to outrageous crimes with rational legal mechanisms. The ICC cannot try past crimes; it looks toward the future. In theory, the very existence of a professional court -- competent and empowered -- could deter individuals from committing crimes against humanity. In this best-case scenario, the ICC will see little action.
But in the event that genocide, forced expulsion of populations, widespread rape, "disappearances," torture, and other crimes occur, the ICC can respond. After thorough criminal investigations, indictments can be issued, trials held and verdicts reached. It's a process that will surely be conflictive and arduous. It will take time, money and international cooperation and resolve. Such is the messy operation of democracy and civilization.
Bush's lack of engagement with the ICC is dangerous. While the rest of the world continues to develop laws, norms and practices to combat crimes against humanity, the United States has pulled itself out of the action. Perhaps by abandoning "American exceptionalism" and working within the initiatives of international justice, we might all find ourselves closer to peace and security.

Source: PacificNews

And a few more:
http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/icc/us.htm
http://www.crimesofwar.org/onnews/news-Tepperman.html
http://www.wfa.org/issues/wicc/obeyw...therlands.html

It's in all the dutch newspapers as well, like the NRC.

So if this is "just" an onion story, it took at least 8 months to figure it out, seeing as the first mention of it was back in October.

[ 06-09-2002, 08:09 AM: Message edited by: Grojlach ]

06-09-2002, 08:05 AM	#56
Grojlach Zartan Join Date: May 2, 2001 Location: Ulpia Noviomagus Batavorum Age: 44 Posts: 5,281	Well, I still have doubts whether this bill is really fake or not... After all, there have been some really strange bills in the past, right? I don't think this will pass though... Anyways, the first mention of this law was already in October 2001: U.S.: Don't Support Legislation Against War Crimes Court (New York, October 5, 2001) In a letter to U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell, Human Rights Watch today voiced serious concern about the State Department's endorsement of the American Servicemembers Protection Act (ASPA), legislation which would attempt to undermine the establishment of a permanent war crimes court. The ASPA has been characterized as "The Hague Invasion Act" because it authorizes the U.S. to use force to liberate any U.S. or allied persons detained on behalf of the proposed International Criminal Court (ICC), which will be based in The Hague, The Netherlands. The ASPA also prohibits U.S. military assistance to those states that ratify the ICC treaty, except for NATO members and some major non-NATO allies. The Bush administration expressed its support for the ASPA in a September 25 letter from U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Legislative Affairs, Paul Kelly, to Senator Jesse Helms, who is sponsoring the legislation. Yesterday, Washington's closest ally, the United Kingdom, became the forty-second country to ratify the ICC treaty. Once sixty countries ratify the treaty, the court will be established, most likely in 2002. Virtually every key U.S. ally and every member of the European Union strongly supports the creation of the court, and a number of European allies have expressed concern about the ASPA and the Bush Administration's endorsement of it. "The United States is forging a global coalition against terrorism, and the State Department has just endorsed a bill that authorizes an invasion of the Netherlands," said Richard Dicker, Director of the International Justice Program at Human Rights Watch. "This makes no sense. It hardly seems like a good moment for the U.S. to be threatening sanctions against dozens of countries simply because they want to bring to justice the perpetrators of crimes against humanity." Although the State Department was able to negotiate with Helms a presidential waiver in the ASPA that could lessen the legislation's effect, it has also made clear that it would oppose all conceivable legislative alternatives to the ASPA. This action could undermine U.S. credibility in forging coalitions against human rights abusers, Human Rights Watch said, and it will have no success in preventing entry into force of the treaty, since the pace of ratifications has already proven even faster than expected. "The American Servicemembers Protection Act is misnamed and ill-timed," said Dicker. "The State Department's decision to support it is inexplicable. This court represents the greatest advance in human rights protection in the last fifty years." The letter to the U.S. Secretary of State can be found at http://www.hrw.org/press/2001/10/powell-ltr1005.htm Source: Human Rights Watch Another more recent article: Bush's Snub Of Criminal Court Undermines World Justice In its opposition to the International Criminal Court, and its legally dubious and arrogant "unsigning" of the treaty that created the ICC, the Bush administration continues on a regressive, dangerous path, writes PNS contributor Amy Ross. The International Criminal Court (ICC) is now a reality. But the United States won't be at the table. Office space has been rented. Professionals from around the world will serve as judges, attorneys and translators, tasked with prosecuting human rights violations such as war crimes and genocide. But the U.S. chair will be empty. This week, President Bush "unsigned" President Clinton's signature on the treaty creating the court, a move dubious in its legality and shocking in its arrogance. Bush's insistence that the United States stands above the court really means that America will be left outside this important international body. The new court enjoys the support of nations worldwide, including all of the European democracies and a majority of the countries the United States considers its closest allies. The ICC won't take the place of these national courts; it has jurisdiction only if the courts fail to act. It will be located in The Hague, a city with a long tradition of hosting international treaties and institutions. The Bush administration's move typifies its disregard for multilateral cooperation. The White House has made it clear that it will use its muscle to stymie the ICC, which it believes might hold U.S. citizens (soldiers and public servants) accountable to international justice. Last fall, the Bush administration endorsed legislation -- the American Servicemembers' Protection Act -- calling for sanctions against countries that support the initiative. This legislation was characterized in Europe as "The Hague Invasion Act," because it authorized the United States to use force to bring about the release from captivity of any U.S. service member detained or imprisoned by the ICC in the Netherlands. "At a time when allies in Europe and around the world are rallying to stand with the United States against a common threat, the State Department should not be embracing legislation that authorizes an invasion of the Netherlands," the group Human Rights Watch stated in a letter to Secretary of State Colin Powell. "It hardly seems like a good moment for the U.S. to be threatening sanctions against dozens of countries simply because they want to bring to justice perpetrators of crimes against humanity." Opposition in the Senate managed to remove the extreme language from a defense appropriation bill. It must be noted that American aversion to the International Criminal Court predates the Bush administration. For five weeks in 1998, under President Clinton's watch, the U.S. delegation to the United Nations conference wrestled with the rest of the world over the ICC treaty. Washington strenuously objected to elements in the treaty that gave the ICC its powers, and in the minds of the vast majority of the other participants, made the court viable. The United States insisted on conditions that would essentially make it impossible to try an American. As one frustrated delegate said at the time, "We are being forced to accept a court that is either weakened by 'American exceptionalism,' or weakened by the lack of involvement of the U.S." Despite accommodations and compromises, the United States became increasingly isolated, watching as its allies coalesced into the group of "like-minded nations." In the end, 120 countries voted to adopt the treaty. Only seven voted against it. The United States and Israel publicly announced their opposition; the five other countries in the secret vote were reported to be China, Libya, Iraq, Yemen and the Sudan. Behind this movement to combat bestial crime with rational justice is the recognition that warfare increasingly affects civilians. In the past, soldiers were the victims of war. But throughout the 20th century, civilians made up more than 90 percent of the casualties of war. On Sept. 11, we Americans felt this reality. Now we share with others across the planet the knowledge that we can become civilian casualties, the "collateral damage" of conflict. As the Bush administration's bellicose and increasingly unilateral response to 9-11 appears to be failing in its objectives -- Osama bin Laden has eluded capture, and threats against the United States at home and abroad continue -- it is time to reassess our strategy. With the ratification of the ICC on April 11, the global community will commit itself to responding to outrageous crimes with rational legal mechanisms. The ICC cannot try past crimes; it looks toward the future. In theory, the very existence of a professional court -- competent and empowered -- could deter individuals from committing crimes against humanity. In this best-case scenario, the ICC will see little action. But in the event that genocide, forced expulsion of populations, widespread rape, "disappearances," torture, and other crimes occur, the ICC can respond. After thorough criminal investigations, indictments can be issued, trials held and verdicts reached. It's a process that will surely be conflictive and arduous. It will take time, money and international cooperation and resolve. Such is the messy operation of democracy and civilization. Bush's lack of engagement with the ICC is dangerous. While the rest of the world continues to develop laws, norms and practices to combat crimes against humanity, the United States has pulled itself out of the action. Perhaps by abandoning "American exceptionalism" and working within the initiatives of international justice, we might all find ourselves closer to peace and security. Source: PacificNews And a few more: http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/icc/us.htm http://www.crimesofwar.org/onnews/news-Tepperman.html http://www.wfa.org/issues/wicc/obeyw...therlands.html It's in all the dutch newspapers as well, like the NRC. So if this is "just" an onion story, it took at least 8 months to figure it out, seeing as the first mention of it was back in October. [ 06-09-2002, 08:09 AM: Message edited by: Grojlach ] __________________ [url]\"http://www.audioscrobbler.com/user/Grobbel/\" target=\"_blank\"> [img]\"http://www.denness.net/rpi/username/Grobbel\" alt=\" - \" /></a>