Since its inception in 2002 the International Criminal Court (ICC) has never charged anybody from a Western nation like the United States; however, it has charged numerous times the victims of US/NATO wars, according to an American an author and political commentator based in Chicago.
Stephen Lendman made the remarks in an online interview with Press TV on Thursday while commenting on Iran’s Judiciary Chief Ebrahim Raeisi’s statement who said the United States must face prosecution at international courts for “systematic racism” and violations of basic human rights.
In remarks on Tuesday, Raeisi slammed the shocking US police brutality that led to the death of George Floyd last week, saying the tragedy “laid bare America unmasked.”
Floyd, an unarmed African-American man, died after a US police officer kneeled on his neck for more than eight minutes despite his cries that he could not breathe.
Following is the text of Lendman’s interview:
I would be delighted if there was a way to bring the people in the US who are causing so much grief and harm and high crimes of war against humanity and police state violence at home, I would be ecstatic if there was a way to bring them before any international tribunals with independent judges prosecuting and judging them.
The problem is with bringing the US to the ICC - International Criminal Court. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is to prosecute nations for criminal actions and the ICC - International Criminal Court - is to charge individuals in nations with crimes of war, aggression against humanity, and genocide.
Well, one problem with bringing US officials there is of course the US is nuclear-armed and dangerous. It can do whatever it pleases. The US going up against the tribunals wouldn't be very much of a match.
Legally, the US is not a member of the court. So if a nation is not a member of the court it really isn't a tribunal where you can bring a nation before.
Another nation that is a member of the court could use a universal jurisdiction to want to bring US officials to justice, a topic I have written about in the past. It's been a long time, but the concept of universal jurisdiction at international law when one nation can use it, not necessarily to bring someone before the court, but to try an individual or individuals on their own, and nation wanting to do this using that authority could bring Trump, Mike Pompeo, earlier the US officials George Bush, Obama and the endless numbers of them including their underlings.
Bring them and try them under their judicial process and if found guilty, which of course they would be, there's overwhelming evidence against them, and prosecute them and imprison them in their countries. And this is a legal thing to do.
Of course going up the US, I mean if anybody tried to do this to the US, the Marines would invade and you know what they would do. It was also a US law passed in 2002. It was euphemistically called something like the Hague Invasion Act. If anybody at The Hague where these international courts are located – the ICC and ICJ, they are in Hague. If they do anything to prosecute US officials, basic essence of this law was the Marines would be sent in to rescue these people and bring them back home again and you can just imagine what do any nation do to earn a tribunal whatever daring the whole US officials when they don’t even hold accountable.
Throughout the history of the ICC -- the ICJ is different, the ICJ has ruled against the US, at least twice I'm familiar with, once involving Iran, the other time in the 1980s involving Nicaragua. The US simply ignored the ruling. It does whatever it pleases. The ICC, it's been in existence from around 2002 so close to 20 years has never charged anybody from a Western nation -- the US, or any other Western nation or Israel for the crime or war against humanity, or anything else. What it has done numerous times, it charged victims of US wars, and NATO wars and Israeli wars with crimes and prosecuted them and imprison them. That's what it's done.
The notion that the ICC would ever go all the way to prosecute US officials, which they certainly can do in absentia if they cannot get them physically there at the court, they can do it in absentia. I mean, there is something going on to hold US forces responsible for crimes in Afghanistan. That's going on.
There is also proceedings that could go on to hold Israel responsible for crimes. I don't think these will come to anything, and I will see if anything would happen that didn’t happen before I wish there would. There is overwhelming guilt against both countries.
Unfortunately, it will take some something other than a court and maybe a change in world to hold these criminals, the criminals in these countries, responsible for their acts and the criminal acts, the worst that I could imagine the highest of high crimes or war against humanity and genocide. That’s what they’re guilty of. There is nothing more serious than those.
No comments:
Post a Comment