You write that the U.S. would veto any attempt to bring Israeli officials to the ICC. But that's impossible, because the U.S. is not a member of the ICC. Bill Clinton signed the treaty creating the court, but it was never ratified in the Senate. Under G.W. Bush, the U.S. notified the court that it was rescinding that signature and the U.S. would not ratify the treaty. Congress then passed a law making it illegal to assist the Court in trying any American, and guaranteeing that the U.S. would deploy military power to free any American who found him or herself in the hands of the ICC. Some of us called it the "Invade the Hague" law.
The fact that the U.S. is not a signatory on the Rome Statute is relevant to any attempts to hold U.S. officials responsible for war crimes committed in the course of the "war on terror." There is still legal (if not political) space to try such persons in U.S. courts for violations of U.S. law, but the chances of that are dim indeed. In consequence, we have a president who campaigned on the promise to commit more war crimes than his opponents.
Thank you, Juan for reminding us that it was torture that paved the way for the illegal U.S. invasion of Iraq. As I've said a bunch of places, torture is not for discovering the truth, it is for establishing a truth desired by the torturing regime.
Even though I knew it was coming, my heart sank when I read the trial balloons about re-opening the CIA dark sites and reinstituting torture. Nor should we be fooled by formulas that permit any "interrogation" techniques that are permitted in the Army Field Manual. Some of these, including sleep deprivation, are profound forms of torture.
We should also expect that Trump et al will find a new John Yoo to redefine torture in a manner to their liking.
Thank you, Juan, for making this key point, which the Chilcot report evades by deferring to the hypothetical future judgment of some "properly constituted and internationally recognized court." Ironically, in the Nuremberg Tribunal it was the United States and Britain who insisted that the first charge Nazi officials should face was that of committing the "Crime against Peace" -- making an illegal, aggressive war. Here in the U.S., citizens must continue to insist that international laws are real laws, and that our country should start obeying them.
Adding my thanks to those of many others. Your work continually demonstrates how rigorous scholarship can underpin thoughtful, accessible, and essential commentary.
Adding my thanks to those of many others. Your work continually demonstrates how rigorous scholarship can underpin thoughtful, accessible, and invaluable commentary.
Your careful, persistent writing is a model for me of how an academic can do work with intellectual integrity and that really matters. I may not always agree with you, but I am always grateful to you.
Fair enough! And, as you say, highly unlikely.
You write that the U.S. would veto any attempt to bring Israeli officials to the ICC. But that's impossible, because the U.S. is not a member of the ICC. Bill Clinton signed the treaty creating the court, but it was never ratified in the Senate. Under G.W. Bush, the U.S. notified the court that it was rescinding that signature and the U.S. would not ratify the treaty. Congress then passed a law making it illegal to assist the Court in trying any American, and guaranteeing that the U.S. would deploy military power to free any American who found him or herself in the hands of the ICC. Some of us called it the "Invade the Hague" law.
The fact that the U.S. is not a signatory on the Rome Statute is relevant to any attempts to hold U.S. officials responsible for war crimes committed in the course of the "war on terror." There is still legal (if not political) space to try such persons in U.S. courts for violations of U.S. law, but the chances of that are dim indeed. In consequence, we have a president who campaigned on the promise to commit more war crimes than his opponents.
Thank you, Juan for reminding us that it was torture that paved the way for the illegal U.S. invasion of Iraq. As I've said a bunch of places, torture is not for discovering the truth, it is for establishing a truth desired by the torturing regime.
Even though I knew it was coming, my heart sank when I read the trial balloons about re-opening the CIA dark sites and reinstituting torture. Nor should we be fooled by formulas that permit any "interrogation" techniques that are permitted in the Army Field Manual. Some of these, including sleep deprivation, are profound forms of torture.
We should also expect that Trump et al will find a new John Yoo to redefine torture in a manner to their liking.
Thank you, Juan, for making this key point, which the Chilcot report evades by deferring to the hypothetical future judgment of some "properly constituted and internationally recognized court." Ironically, in the Nuremberg Tribunal it was the United States and Britain who insisted that the first charge Nazi officials should face was that of committing the "Crime against Peace" -- making an illegal, aggressive war. Here in the U.S., citizens must continue to insist that international laws are real laws, and that our country should start obeying them.
Here's a query, Juan. Patrick Cockburn at CounterPunch (http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/12/04/more-planes-than-targets-why-the-air-war-will-fail/) says Daesh may have as many as 100,000 men under arms. Your estimates have been considerably lower. What do you think accounts for the difference in the figures?
Adding my thanks to those of many others. Your work continually demonstrates how rigorous scholarship can underpin thoughtful, accessible, and essential commentary.
Adding my thanks to those of many others. Your work continually demonstrates how rigorous scholarship can underpin thoughtful, accessible, and invaluable commentary.
Your careful, persistent writing is a model for me of how an academic can do work with intellectual integrity and that really matters. I may not always agree with you, but I am always grateful to you.