International Criminal Court Declines to Do It's Job
The International Criminal Court (ICC)
"has announced it will not investigate possible war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by the United States and other actors in Afghanistan. . Earlier this month, the U.S. revoked the visa of the ICC’s chief prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda. A 2016 report by the ICC accused the U.S. military of torturing at least 61 prisoners in Afghanistan during the ongoing war. The report also accused the CIA of subjecting at least 27 prisoners to torture, including rape, at CIA prison sites in Afghanistan, Poland, Romania and Lithuania."
https://truthout.org/video/international-criminal-court-drops-probe-into-us-war-crimes-in-afghanistan/
So the United States of Imperialist War Crimes won't cooperate with the international investigation of war crimes they've committed during a seventeen year illegal war which was a giant war crime from the very first lie out of George W. Bush's mouth. Not surprising, there doesn't even need to be an investigation. Anyone that doesn't know by now that the entire Afghanistan war was illegal and based on the lies of 9/11 are either stupid or just don't want to face reality, which is also stupid.
Oh I shouldn't say that. Many people still believe Oswald was the lone gunman and don't even know what the Gulf of Tonkin is. It's not their fault.
Here's Trump, obviously once again being forced by the Deep State because if it was up to him there would be peace on earth, no nuclear weapons and a Trump sign on every building.
"applauded the decision, saying in a statement, “Since the creation of the ICC, the United States has consistently declined to join the court because of its broad, unaccountable prosecutorial powers; the threat it poses to American sovereignty; and other deficiencies that render it illegitimate. Any attempt to target American, Israeli, or allied personnel for prosecution will be met with a swift and vigorous response.”
Ya right Trump you fucker. "Hey, hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today"? Hell, isn't anyone getting sick of this shit? Do you seriously believe that supporting your favorite candidate for the next farce election will make one bit of difference when it comes to U.S. imperialism, global neoliberal capitalism and rule by the rich? I should add, and murdering innocent people including little kids? Hell no it won't. For those that say, "what's your solution"?", I can only say, "are you fucking kidding me"?
Just round them all up from Bush, Obama, Trump on down and get on with it. Be sure to include ALL members of the Congress and Senate during that seventeen year plus period, including the present ones, for aiding and abetting war crimes. That'll show em. Maybe that's what it will take to really end the madness once and for all. But the governments of the world are not going to do that, especially our own.
If the truth and justice is never achieved, what does that mean for human life?
The ICC is an international tribunal established thru the United Nations in 2002, ya, it's not all that old,
"to prosecute individuals for the international crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and crimes of aggression. The ICC is intended to complement existing national judicial systems and it may therefore exercise its jurisdiction only when certain conditions are met, such as when national courts are unwilling or unable to prosecute criminals or when the United Nations Security Council or individual states refer situations to the Court. The ICC began functioning on 1 July 2002, the date that the Rome Statute entered into force. The Rome Statute is a multilateral treaty which serves as the ICC's foundational and governing document. States which become party to the Rome Statute, for example by ratifying it, become member states of the ICC. As of March 2019, there are 124 ICC member states."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court
The establishment of an international court for prosecuting war crimes started after WWI at the Paris Peace Conference resulting in no action although in 1928 the promising except for the capitalist liars from the United States Kellogg-Briand Pact was enacted, an
"international agreement in which signatory states promised not to use war to resolve "disputes or conflicts of whatever nature or of whatever origin they may be, which may arise among them".[2] Parties failing to abide by this promise "should be denied of the benefits furnished by [the] treaty". It was signed by Germany, France, and the United States on 27 August 1928, and by most other states soon after. Sponsored by France and the U.S., the Pact renounced the use of war and calls for the peaceful settlement of disputes. Similar provisions were incorporated into the Charter of the United Nations and other treaties and it became a stepping-stone to a more activist American policy.[3] It is named after its authors, United States Secretary of State Frank B. Kellogg and French foreign minister Aristide Briand. The pact was concluded outside the League of Nations and remains in effect."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kellogg–Briand_Pact
and again after WWII resulting in two tribunals to prosecute war crimes committed by German and Japanese leaders, of course led by the Manifest Destiny Empire duly excused of any wrongdoing whatsoever. In 1948, the United Nations General Assembly officially recognized the need for a permanent international court but the Cold War and other shit got in the way and it wasn't until the 90's after the Yugoslavia and Rwanda war crimes, of which the United States continued to evade culpability in the murder of humans and destruction of countries, that the final push started resulting in the ICC.
"Finally the General Assembly convened a conference in Rome in June 1998, with the aim of finalizing the treaty to serve as the Court's statute. On 17 July 1998, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court was adopted by a vote of 120 to 7, with 21 countries abstaining. The seven countries that voted against the treaty were China, Iraq, Israel, Libya, Qatar, the United States, and Yemen.[10] Israel's vote against was due to the inclusion in the list of war crimes "the action of transferring population into occupied territory".
"Following 60 ratifications, the Rome Statute entered into force on 1 July 2002 and the International Criminal Court was formally established.[12] The first bench of 18 judges was elected by the Assembly of States Parties in February 2003. They were sworn in at the inaugural session of the Court on 11 March 2003."
The ICC has been used primarily to prosecute African leaders resulting in a backlash from some African countries withdrawing from the ICC and calls for the African Union as a whole withdrawing from it. Can't say as I blame them even though some of those African leaders, with a little help from our friends, have behaved like Hillary Clinton on Ritalin.
The reality is there's no official avenue for justice at all on Planet Earth regarding the unbelievable crimes against humanity committed by the people that have been in charge of our government. The ICC is useless, like the United Nations itself, against those that rule us. It can't get done via our own political system because it's owned by the very people who have committed the crimes. The only remedy is a revolution, a change in power from them to us. If there ever was a time in human history for a global people's revolution, it is now. For those that don't agree, just remember, what kind of world would it be if no one called for revolution? Is that what you want?
[video:https://youtu.be/8de2W3rtZsA]
FYI:
Here's a list of the crimes the ICC claims jurisdiction over.
Crimes against humanity
Article 7 defines crimes against humanity as acts "committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack". The article lists 16 such as individual crimes:
Murder
Extermination
Enslavement
Deportation or forcible transfer of population
Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty
Torture
Rape
Sexual slavery
Enforced prostitution
Forced pregnancy
Enforced sterilization
Sexual violence
Persecution
Enforced disappearance of persons
Apartheid
Other inhumane acts
War crimes
Article 8 defines war crimes depending on whether an armed conflict is either international (which generally means it is fought between states) or non-international (which generally means that it is fought between non-state actors, such as rebel groups, or between a state and such non-state actors). In total there are 74 war crimes listed in article 8.[72] The most serious crimes, however, are those that constitute either grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 1949, which only apply to international conflicts,[72] and serious violations of article 3 common to the Geneva Conventions of 1949, which apply to non-international conflicts.
There are 11 crimes which constitute grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions and which are applicable only to international armed conflicts:
Willful killing
Torture
Inhumane treatment
Biological experiments
Willfully causing great suffering
Destruction and appropriation of property
Compelling service in hostile forces
Denying a fair trial
Unlawful deportation and transfer
Unlawful confinement
Taking hostages
There are seven crimes which constitute serious violations of article 3 common to the Geneva Conventions and which are applicable only to non-international armed conflicts:
Murder
Mutilation
Cruel treatment
Torture
Outrages upon personal dignity
Taking hostages
Sentencing or execution without due process
Comments
Time for
UATWMF!
Ya got to be a Spirit, cain't be no Ghost. . .
Explain Bldg #7. . . still waiting. . .
If you’ve ever wondered whether you would have complied in 1930’s Germany,
Now you know. . .
sign at protest march
You are right.
After decades of thinking there must be a legal way to solve this, the problem of our fascist government applying fascism on people all over the world, in our name, with our tax money, or with our promissory note given that we have no such money, after 3 years of discussing it here with such good people who have such good skills and articulate expression, I am at the point of feeling the radical idea of replacing our government is unfortunately necessary to contemplate.
The failure of Congress to override Trump's veto of their measure to end our involvement in the Yemen war pretty much tells us our Congress is lawless and craven. The vote to spend a trillion dollars on modernizing nuclear weapons in order to make them more usable and the shipping of those tactical nukes to Eastern Europe pretty much says we and the people of Europe, Russia, the Middle East, and anywhere else that is targeted are of no more use to the think tank specialists who design our foreign policy.
When in the course of decades of this insanity we find the Congress has no interest in the survival of the people of this country much less the people of Europe, Asia, Africa, and the Russian subcontinent, I think we have to look at the Declaration of Independence as our only guiding light, the only statement that makes sense.
Well said, Linda
The government is just part of the criminal organization that has been in charge of the country since its founding.
I once thought that the Nuremberg trials were done fairly, but I've learned that winners make the rules. Anyone really think that no American committed any war crimes during WWII? Of course you don't, but that's the history we have been taught by them. Both Bolton and Pompeo threatened the Spanish judge who wanted to bring people up on charges and when that didn't work they threatened the ICC. The case she wanted to try must have been very heinous because we know that people have committed many war crimes, but haven't been charged.
This little baby
is our target in Yemen.
Members of Congress are total cowards.
https://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/12/12/its-2016-do-you-know-where...
I would never ask any poster to solve
the world's problems or the nation's problems. Maybe not even a city's problems. That's just a stupid demand, IM0. Moreover, it just may be that some problems are too entrenched and too well-defended to have a solution.
No armed revolution in the US will start any time soon. If it does, it is highly likely to fail. We can't even get the Constitution amended.
Within that, each of us can either do whatever it is that he or she can do, preferably without having illusions about it, or we can each give up.
It's interesting how most people
assume a revolution must be violent with arms. I suppose most revolutions have included arms and violence, but we all know what we're up against and we aren't going to win by defeating them militarily like the "original" American revolution. I've long felt a revolution can be peaceful if you simply go by the primary goal of a change in power. It can't be done within our current political system, but perhaps through an independent working class movement.
I'll do what I can for my family and friends, best I can do. I think you're right, there is no hope so it's everyone for themselves and whoever they want to help at this point.
Yes,
I agree with you. But I think we should start by flooding the media's and Congress's inboxes with photography of the carnage on children that we are committing. I think the ban on publishing photography of our war atrocities is why this continues, whereas during Vietnam we saw film and photographs of children and other civilians piled as corpses and burned by chemicals. The mainstream media are prohibited from publishing such imagery now.
The MSM isn't banned from publishing images
They are merely threatened with being shot on sight if not obediently "imbedded." See the differerence? More than anything, the corporate media will not publish available images of western carnage and atrocities that are available from non-sanctioned news services if it undermines the approved narrative. That would be unpatriotic. Selective self-censorship amounts to being a willing agent of government propaganda, but it's voluntary. Prior restraint is rarely necessary.
The opposition to the status quo can't even take control
of itself. Argue, bicker, divide, disagree, not him, not her, vote, don't vote, BLM no ALM - How can we have even a peaceful revolution if we can't get ourselves together. A good attempt was BernieOrBus in2016, but everyone flaked and voted for LoTE. So here comes clown car 2020 full of Democratic candidates whose only purpose is to divide up the primary vote enough to allow the super delegates to step in. Can we get together enough to undermine this cooking coup? Hell no. We are a hopeless lot in my book.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
And there you have it:
And it's about to happen again.
That was not my assumption, Big Al.
My post said
That was a reference to all things, peaceful and not, not only armed revolution. Then, because others on the thread had referenced armed revolution specifically, my post went on to say that armed revolution is not going to do it, either.
I really dislike making a post like that. Then again, I also dislike both unreality (aka, pipe dreams, pie in the sky, etc.), including that subset of unreality that I dub "message board bravado." As long as I've been posting, I should be used to it, but I'm still not sanguine about it (no pun intended).
In my opinion, we might have had some kind of chance in the 1950s or very early 1960s. Or maybe it was too late, even then. I don't know enough about it to sayThe PTB has certainly been on its guard against "the rabble" and "the mob" since forever; and the secret notes of the Constitutional Convention amply demonstrate why, when the Constitution was ratified, only about 6% of the population was eligible to vote and the Framers were just fine with that.
A peaceful revolution, but first we have to change our entire system. Cool, except...how do we first change the system peacefully? Or even with armed revolution? I'll listen to anything that makes sense. (I won't fire at anyone, but I will wear a bulletproof vest and be a human shield for anyone on the side of the majority of Americans. And, yes, I'd be willing to die if a majority of Americans had any kind of realistic shot at success, no matter how tiny.)
It's just that I've been discussing politics on and off since college and posting since 2004 with people of all intelligence levels and I've yet to hear a practical solution.
In any event, it's too late now, I think, to do anything but nibble around the edges.
I figure I'll
never give up til I die because I know what these bastards have done and are doing. When you know the truth, you can't unknow it.
I do know some celebrities have upwards to 100 million followers on twitter. That's more than how many voted for either Trump or Clinton in the last election. People join the democratic party and try to get out the vote for their favorite candidates. Millions send money to them.
But we can't organize an independent movement to challenge the oligarchy and it's duopoly?
Well, if so.
.
If it is indeed do-able, let's get started. Your prior post said we'd have to change our system first. So, again, how do we do that?
No,
the political system can't be changed without an independent movement, that would be the purpose, democracy. We don't have it, the question is, do enough people want it. I think for most progressives, they're stuck on trying to elect more and better democrats to achieve whatever they're trying to achieve, which evidently for most is not democracy. And an independent movement is perceived as too difficult (or hopelessly and naively impossible) therefore they debate who to support for the next election. But there are way more indies out there now than there are republicans or democrats, so can't say there isn't room to work.
Me, I'm willing to help in any way I can.
I don't believe that if we wanted it enough,
we'd find a way. However, I cannot prove that is false, any more than you can prove that it is true. For example, you are certainly intelligent, not hung up on elections and very desirous of changing the system. Yet, no plan.
I have not seen any evidence to suggest that we would come up with a plan if we wanted it enough, I have seen and heard many authors and posters and other people struggling with the issue for many years. And not only in modern times. How long have many people opposed war? Where is the plan to stop war mongering? Too much money and power involved in wars.
With the exception of Gandhi and the "jewel in the crown," I think armed revolution is the most effective thing humans have come up with so far, although a real, bone-chilling fear of armed revolution among the PTB has also been effective. I think what got England to act was the fear of an armed uprising in India. (Then again, had Gandhi been assassinated before he accomplished his goal, as wwere MLK, Jr. and Bobby Kennedy, what would have happened?) Still, the outcomes of revolutions have not always been wonderful, even if the "good guys" won the war.
I do believe that, if Americans were sufficiently desperate, like that Tunisian vendor who set himself on fire, we might do something desperate, even if it resulted in the horrors of war that we inflicted on Iraq, deaths, maiming, displacement, selling children, etc. But doing some desperate does not necessarily result in changing an entire system for the better.
Since I've volunteered--very sincerely and not at all rashly, btw--to act as a human shield if Americans have even a slim chance of winning an armed revolution, I don't think I am among those who believe changing just too difficult for me/us to contemplate. Being a human shield is no picnic to contemplate, either. Still, I find it easier to contemplate being a human shield than to conclude that I don't see any realistic way out.
And I am certainly not among those who believes elections are the solution. I have to wonder a little where you are so opposed to discussing the relative merits of candidates that it may have become the prism through which you view the issue and therefore the reason you think debating candidates' merits prevents us from coming up with solutions?
In any event, your mileage and that of at one other poster on this site who also believes that we would find a solution if we wanted it enough, obviously varies. But, as I said, I can't disprove it any more than you or her can prove it. It's like arguing that Kerry would have been a much better President than Bush. So, I don't think we will agree on this, even though you have convinced me on other things. But, that's fine. Unithink would disappoint, and probably scare, me. Civil disagreement is fine with me, though.
and i'd submit once again
that a peaceful revolution will take a massive revolution of values and higher consciousness. and right now, wars are being waged for resources via Africom (how many? nick turse had added them up), and Nato is adding members as fast as they can.
but you've pinged tracy chapman for me;thank you, and for this post as well:
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xv8FBjo1Y8I]
Thanks wd. I think the human race needs a
collective "evolution of values and higher consciousness" to continue civilization on and maintain this planet, but I'm not sure that's the first step. Many in the yellow jacket movement moved to focusing on democracy as the number one issue because nothing can be done without the people given the power to decide their fates. That's just the way it's got to be. The same sentiment was common during the Occupy movement. People around the world are getting increasingly frustrated at their political systems which are corrupted by those with the wealth and power, i.e., rule by the rich, the same thing revolutionaries have faced for centuries, which makes sense as global technological capitalism increases it's pace. Freedom from the tyranny of the rich.
Maybe in order to take that next step in our "evolution of values and higher consciousness", we need to take down the power that rules us first.
i guess my thinking
went back to zeese and flowers' Oct. 2011 movement, for which they'd believe that there had been a movement of higher consciousness, and if millions of the aware would march on freedom square in deecee, the government would simply surrender. i know how silly it's sounds, but then they hadn't counted on those pesky kids who'd headed to zuccotti park in sept. of 2011, had they?
but my experience was that Occupies (and alternately 'Decolonizes') all over the nation were multi-dimensional as to why they set up camps, or attended GAs, from war, to police state murders and incarcerations, the insane level of militarization of the po-po, and a long list.
as i'd repeated again in my post on the insane difficulty of third parties getting in, when would an actual socialist become president? the same formula. sure, there are plenty of indies, and a hella lot of folks who don't vote, but of those who do, don't 'progressives' always claim that *this next election* is an emergency, and LOTE vote for the D team? and therein lies my same contention as to my formula. we need to wake up, and
rise like lions from our slumber...
we are many, they are few
hold.the.phone.
unless i missed it in your OP, i hadn't seen this: War Crimes of Aggression (as per wikipedia):
1.Invasion or attack by armed forces against territory
2.Military occupation of territory
3.Annexation of territory
4.Bombardment against territory
5.Use of any weapons against territory
6.Blockade of ports or coasts
7.Attack on the land, sea, or air forces or marine and air fleets
8.The use of armed forces which are within the territory of another state by agreement, but in contravention of the conditions of the agreement
9.Allowing territory to be used by another state to perpetrate an act of aggression against a third state
10.Sending armed bands, groups, irregulars, or mercenaries to carry out acts of armed force
this as well in the long charts of past and ongoing prosecutions and investigations:
'The referral of the situation in Venezuela (II) was jointly made by Argentina, Canada, Colombia, Chile, Paraguay, and Peru.'
also: milosevic died in his cell at the hague, but was exonerated 'posthumously' in 2016, apparently. what a fucked up story, and neil clark tells it very well, and i'd assuming he wrote it upon his vindication.
yep: 2016 but the usual suspects reported it as...a travesty of justice.
Didn't see that either,
I thot I found that list at the ICC website but now I can't find it again. And I bitched about not including the stuff you've uncovered, thank you mucho. I'm pretty sure there's something in the UN charter that covers economic warfare also.
which nations among the friends
of the US empire should be charged for war crimes at the hague? including amerika, israel, the UK, oh, the list could goes on to include paul kagame, narendra modi... but palestine not israel, was on the hart...of course.
and VZ II, brought by proxies as the suck-ups to the current Washington regime, which of course was begun under Obomba-rule. jeebus. it's all so f'd up at the ICC, UN, and tra la la.
clinton, Nato, and yugoslavia: milosevic, a socialist.
Somewhere
I read that it is a war crime to leave an arsenal of weaponry, tanks, bombs, launchers, guns, missiles, explosives, et al, unguarded and unsecured such that some gang like ISIS gets access to it. It's what we did in Iraq. We outfitted them. We armed them. We are responsible. But we said the government of Iraq was responsible. But the law said we were responsible because we brought it there and left it unguarded.
Here's what they got. Please see the list at this link, scroll down, keep going, it just gets worse:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_equipment_of_ISIL