The Use of American Servicemembers' Protection Act

[Constantinople]

So what if, , an american soldier is for some odd reason taken and convicted of war crimes by the ICC, and taken to the Hague for trial? Would the US use deadly force to free him from Belgium?
"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. It authorizes the President to use “all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release of any [US or allied personnel] being detained or imprisoned by, on behalf of, or at the request of the International Criminal Court”

What would happen if the ICC did try to hold an American soldier, and give him a trial?

[Halcyon Dayz]

F'r crying out loud!

The Hague is in the Netherlands!

[alt_historian]

Originally Posted by Halcyon Dayz

F'r crying out loud!

The Hague is in the Netherlands!

Hey, yeah! Let's be picky, instead of trying to answer the question! Woooo!

Anyway, I suppose if the purpose of this amendment is to let the US (as usual) make an exception for itself in an international forum, then they would attempt to enforce that amendment. How forcefully would, I suppose, depend at least partially on who is in the White House at the time, and their advisers. On the other hand, it might just be a bluff on the part of the US.

Not much of an answer, I know. Sorry!

[HJ Tulp]

Well it's certainly in the Netherlands. Or is Atlanta in Canada?

Anyway, what's the US going to do? Send in a Carrier group? Land a MEU on the beach of Scheveningen? A SpecFor operation would be more logical but expect the security to be ultra-tight.

[alt_historian]

Originally Posted by HJ Tulp

Well it's certainly in the Netherlands. Or is Atlanta in Canada?

Anyway, what's the US going to do? Send in a Carrier group? Land a MEU on the beach of Scheveningen? A SpecFor operation would be more logical but expect the security to be ultra-tight.

Yeah, I know it's in the Netherlands... I kut meant he didn't have to make a big thing of it, and then not say anything else.
"[BTW, the Hague is in the Netherlands] Well, the first thing would be-"
That would have been more constructive. Never mind.

Of course, the whole idea of the US actually sending in a military force to get one of their soldiers out of court is just bizarre. I could understand if they were facing one that would be likely to be prejudiced against them, but the ICC? Really? Wha's the worst that could happen? The trial drags on for years, no matter how bad the alleged crime or how solid the evidence it's all hushed up anyway and the offender is given a slap on the wrist and sent home.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

Which I may well be.

[HJ Tulp]

I agree that a invasion is out of the question. I'm not even going to talk about the military side of it because the diplomatic fallout would be far to big anyway. That doesn't mean that there won't be concequences as there would certainly be alot. If only because having someone from your country being tried by the ICC says alot about your legal-system...

[Constantinople]

Ah shit, I knew that, I was thinking the ICC was in Belgium, realized it was in the Netherlands buy didn't correct the first part. Its not that big a deal, seriously.

[torque7844]

The US would almost certainly not resort to armed tactics. Diplomacy would be the order of the day. If that failed, the US might start yanking support/money/diplomatic ties with countries.

Honestly though, the scenario seems rather ASB-ish.

[HJ Tulp]

IIRC the ICC isn't controlled democratically is it? Those kind of organisations sometimes want to make a point. What's the US going to do then?

[CalBear]

Originally Posted by HJ Tulp

Well it's certainly in the Netherlands. Or is Atlanta in Canada?

Anyway, what's the US going to do? Send in a Carrier group? Land a MEU on the beach of Scheveningen? A SpecFor operation would be more logical but expect the security to be ultra-tight.

Probably nothing since the chances of the ICC overstepping its bounds by that degree are close to nil.

After that things all depend on circumstances and current resident of the White House. The minimum is a good deal of stiff diplomatic verbiage, followed the threat of a significant loss of funding to any number of international organizations as the U.S. works to get it's trooper back.

After that you actually GET the funding cut-off, probably coupled with U.S. withdrawal from all peace keeping and relief operations. This WILL pry anyone short of Himmler loose, simply because the logistical support provided by the USAF, USANG, & USN doesn't exist from any other source. No U.S. support means that the UN Peacekeeping forces and High Commissioner for Refugees are pretty much out of business. You then get to see the U.S. veto just about anything except Christmas cards to the Pope in the Security Council. Follow that up with some foreign/military aid in the right places and suddenly the ICC itself winds up on trial, with the U.S. paying for the lawyers AND the witnesses. That is LOTS of pressure.

Military force is a vanishingly unlikely option. You would need a cause belli almost beyond imagination to even bring the military into play (Hitler reborn with the Nazi's trying an absolutely innocent Jewish American comes to mind as a minimal example). Like I said, vanishingly small.

That being said, IF (and it's a HUGE, Enormous, overwhelming IF); IF the decision was made to set to shooting it would start with SPECOPS with Tactical aircover and just keep looping up from there. One thing that the U.S. is not known for is subtle. Another is accepting defeat well. The "we had to destroy the village to save it" syndrome is alive and well here.

I can't imagine nukes being involved, but outside of that nothing would surprise me once the decision to engage was made.

[Derek Jackson]

The context in which this could theoretically happen would be US forces doing something in a territory that had signed the convention a group of US soldiers seeming to have committed a war crime and the US authorities having done nothing.

If a US President were crazy enough actually send their troops into somewhere in Latin America and something like My Lai, spelling not guaranteed, happened and the US authorities decided to do nothing well maybe

However in such a scenario I rather suspect that US public opinion would be deeply split.

[carlton_bach]

Putting all the pressure in the world on the UN would accomplish nothing at all, given the ICC is not an organ of the United Nations. Once the case is there, the UN can do nothing about it (though the US could lean on the UNSC not to refer a case, assuming this is how it gets before the ICC). Neither can the Netherlands be forced to hand over a prisoner - provision has been made for this eventuality by allowing for proceedings of the court to take place anywhere in the world. You would simply see the person in question moved to a country that either doesn't care or that Washington doesn't dare touch.

Of course there is no telling to what length a hypothetical US president would go in that case, since it would require him to already have emasculated the military's system of criminal investigation, silenced the media and subordinated the courts to executive control. That would be required to ensure that no US agency effectively prosecuted the alleged war crime, which is a precondition for the ICC to become involved at all.

I can't see any state on the ICC's panel having enough of an interest to 'make a point'. It isn't the UN - most of the countries that dislike America enough to want to embarrass it in front of the ICC aren't interested in becoming subject to the jurisdiction of a court like that, and for good reason.

I do wonder whether the Congresscritters who passed that law knew what they were talking about.

[CalBear]

Originally Posted by carlton_bach

Putting all the pressure in the world on the UN would accomplish nothing at all, given the ICC is not an organ of the United Nations. Once the case is there, the UN can do nothing about it (though the US could lean on the UNSC not to refer a case, assuming this is how it gets before the ICC). Neither can the Netherlands be forced to hand over a prisoner - provision has been made for this eventuality by allowing for proceedings of the court to take place anywhere in the world. You would simply see the person in question moved to a country that either doesn't care or that Washington doesn't dare touch.

Of course there is no telling to what length a hypothetical US president would go in that case, since it would require him to already have emasculated the military's system of criminal investigation, silenced the media and subordinated the courts to executive control. That would be required to ensure that no US agency effectively prosecuted the alleged war crime, which is a precondition for the ICC to become involved at all.

I can't see any state on the ICC's panel having enough of an interest to 'make a point'. It isn't the UN - most of the countries that dislike America enough to want to embarrass it in front of the ICC aren't interested in becoming subject to the jurisdiction of a court like that, and for good reason.

I do wonder whether the Congresscritters who passed that law knew what they were talking about.

The point about crippling the UN (and pretty much every other international body) is to illustrate that there are myraid ways that the U.S. can bring extraordinary pressure onto an international body or nation-state without loading a single rifle.

As far as the Congress goes, they knew exactly what they were voting for - something that would look good to the voters in their District/State. That is the survival imperative in DC.

[HARRY]

If we are going to talk ICC then at least have some facts. http://www.icc-cpi.int/about.html

About the Court

The International Criminal Court (ICC) is an independent, permanent court that tries persons accused of the most serious crimes of international concern, namely genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. The ICC is based on a treaty, joined by 105 countries.

The ICC is a court of last resort. It will not act if a case is investigated or prosecuted by a national judicial system unless the national proceedings are not genuine, for example if formal proceedings were undertaken solely to shield a person from criminal responsibility. In addition, the ICC only tries those accused of the gravest crimes.

In all of its activities, the ICC observes the highest standards of fairness and due process. The jurisdiction and functioning of the ICC are governed by the Rome Statute. Download the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court

It is as stated a court of last resort for people who have committed the worst crimes against humanity but their own country for what ever reason is unable or unwilling to bring them to trial. It is my option that the only reason that the USA has not signed up is political show boating by the President. If a US citizen was involved in some form of proven Genocide type act then media pressure alone would force some form of trial. Hell you tried to impreach a President for lying about a blowjob not so long ago. If there has already been some form of judgement on the matter by the accuseds country the ICC can wash its hands on it.

Okay so worst case someone in the US military lets call him Major X orders his men destroy an entire village in say Afganistan. Evidence of the mass murder is documented my NGO survivors statements take etc. The Pentagon ingores any media hype and the Whitehouse and Congress declare it all Al Qida propaganda. Sometime later Major X is traveling in a no government capacity in one of the 105 countries that have signed on to ICC and is recognized. First who ever is pressing charges would need to get a local judge to issue an arrest warrant. Then is they were not already in the the Netherlands Major X if arrested would need to transported to the Hague. Then the ICC would debate whether it was a viable case and every step of the way the US would be sending inthe the best international lawyer availible to argue that he should be tried in the USA.

[DuQuense]

Really? Wha's the worst that could happen? The trial drags on for years, no matter how bad the alleged crime or how solid the evidence it's all hushed up anyway and the offender is given a slap on the wrist and sent home.

In theory he could be sentenced to Life Imprisionment.

IIRC while the ASP act was being debated, there was some talk about being arrested/tried by a Capital punishment nation,
But I think that was all hype.

I beleive there was a lot of Hype about signitories being able to charge McMamara, or Haig , with War Crimes from Vietnam. Etc.

[Looseheadprop]

Originally Posted by Halcyon Dayz

F'r crying out loud!

The Hague is in the Netherlands!

fuck that we'll invade The Hague into Belgium

[ZaphodBeeblebrox]

Originally Posted by Halcyon Dayz

F'r crying out loud!

The Hague is in the Netherlands!

Halcyon Dayz ...

Now Where do I Remember that Name from ...

You Don't Post on The BAUT Forum by Any Chance, do ya'?

[alt_historian]

Originally Posted by DuQuense

In theory he could be sentenced to Life Imprisionment.

IIRC while the ASP act was being debated, there was some talk about being arrested/tried by a Capital punishment nation,
But I think that was all hype.

I beleive there was a lot of Hype about signitories being able to charge McMamara, or Haig , with War Crimes from Vietnam. Etc.

Fair enough. Idunno, it seems to make sense to me to have an ultimate court, beyond the national ones.

[Dean_the_Young]

Originally Posted by carlton_bach

Putting all the pressure in the world on the UN would accomplish nothing at all, given the ICC is not an organ of the United Nations. Once the case is there, the UN can do nothing about it (though the US could lean on the UNSC not to refer a case, assuming this is how it gets before the ICC). Neither can the Netherlands be forced to hand over a prisoner - provision has been made for this eventuality by allowing for proceedings of the court to take place anywhere in the world. You would simply see the person in question moved to a country that either doesn't care or that Washington doesn't dare touch.

I disagree. The nations that would try and move through the ICC are also the same countries that would want to try and move through the UN for international legitimacy. If the US can prove that it can and will shut down various avenues of "soft power" in retaliation should someone try and use the ICC so, then those people aren't going to use the ICC so.

I agree it wouldn't happen in the first place, but using the UN against an unconnected party is nothing new.