Tuesday, April 05, 2022
What to do about war crimes?
As Russia pulls back from the Kiev area, evidence of horrible war crimes is emerging: mass graves, civilians shot with their hands tied, etc. It's deeply disturbing. There really is no "both-sides-ing" this war. The Russians invaded Ukraine without provocation and have violated even the few rules that supposedly apply to war.
But what to do about it?
The United States has already imposed most of the sanctions we can, with mixed results. Europe could make a difference by rejecting Russian oil and gas, but that would possibly degrade their own economies (revealing the long-term mistake of relying too heavily on Russia in the first place).
What about prosecuting those responsible? There is a court for that-- the International Criminal Court in The Hague. But... the United States has never ratified the treaty which created the Court, meaning we are not a part of it. Six other countries voted against it along with us: China, Yemen, Libya, Qatar, Iraq, and Israel.
If we care about war crimes it is time the US joins the nations involved in the Court that holds people accountable for war crimes.
Comments:
<< Home
This is the rare occasion where I disagree with you. I don't see a reason for the United States to join the ICC.
The ICC is complementary to national criminal jurisdiction, and the United States has shown that it will investigate and prosecute servicemembers who violate the law of war. Just off the top of my head, I can think of Calley, Behenna, Lorance, Bales, the Abu Ghraib offenders, the Haditha offenders, and Gallagher.
Is every prosecution successful? No. Are the sentences always long? No. But we have shown a willingness to investigate and prosecute and hold our own accountable, and our court-martial proceedings are legitimate. Given that, there's simply not a need for the United States to resort to the ICC - we can hold our own accountable, so Article 17 of the Rome Statute kicks in and the case is inadmissible to the ICC.
The ICC is complementary to national criminal jurisdiction, and the United States has shown that it will investigate and prosecute servicemembers who violate the law of war. Just off the top of my head, I can think of Calley, Behenna, Lorance, Bales, the Abu Ghraib offenders, the Haditha offenders, and Gallagher.
Is every prosecution successful? No. Are the sentences always long? No. But we have shown a willingness to investigate and prosecute and hold our own accountable, and our court-martial proceedings are legitimate. Given that, there's simply not a need for the United States to resort to the ICC - we can hold our own accountable, so Article 17 of the Rome Statute kicks in and the case is inadmissible to the ICC.
# posted by 
: 11:05 AM
: 11:05 AM
Excellent point, Campbell. Sadly, the abuse of the pardon power has undermined this argument somewhat (and you know how hard this is for me to say!). Trump pardoned SEVEN men who were accused of murder or manslaughter as soldiers. They walked from pretty serious crimes. (In comparison, he pardoned only six black men accused of narcotics crimes-- so more white men for murder/manslaughter during wartime than black men for drugs).
Hopefully, that was an anomaly-- and it should be noted that the military opposed those grants.
Hopefully, that was an anomaly-- and it should be noted that the military opposed those grants.
Actually, they didn't all walk-- some of them served time before receiving clemency. It is worth nothing that Behanna, Lorance, and Gallagher (who you described) all received clemency under President Trump (though Gallagher got a military clemency under pressure from Trump).
Post a Comment
<< Home
