Group items tagged

While the charge that Obama and other administration officials committed crimes under the Rome Statute for the International Criminal Court might seem odd because the U.S. never acceded to that treaty or to the jurisdiction of the ICC, the statute applies to those who commit war crimes within the jurisdictions of nations that have acceded to the treaty and to their superiors who either knew of should have known that such crimes would be committed and did not act to prevent them.  Pakistan  and Yemen have acceded to the treaty. The Rome treaty requires the arrest of those classified as war criminals under that treaty if they set foot in any nation that has acceded to the treaty. So just as Bush administration figures have done, Obama and crew will need to restrict where they travel after he leaves office.

The linked article should have mentioned that it was a mock tribunal, without legal authority or powers.

The U.S. could help Israel on the war crimes issue only by indirect pressure; like Israel, the U.S. never signed the treaty to join the International Criminal Court so has no direct  voice there. 

Some conflicting reports on Palestine taking Israel to the International Criminal Court charging war crimes. The conflict may be because of the different times they were published This article published yesterday says that Abbas said last week that he would only do so if Hamas agrees and said he was awaiting a decision by Hamas. But the Haaretz live blog on Gaza says that "Palestinian Foreign Minister Riad al-Malki says after meeting prosecutors at the International Criminal Court [today] that there was "clear evidence" that Israel committed war crimes in  Gaza." http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/1.608928 So it sounds like Palestine has initiated the process at the ICC and that Hamas leadership has decided to accept the risk that they will face war crime charges themselves. If so, that's a strong sign that some nation has agreed to bankroll the Palestine government if the U.S. ends its aid to Palestine. Most likely Qatar from what I've read. The U.N. Human Rights Council has already launched its own investigation of potential war crimes committed during Israel's latest invasion of Gaza. An article passed by me sometime during the last 48 hours that quoted the Chief Prosecutor at the ICC to the effect that she would act if Palestine filed charges but said that "the ball is in Palestine's court." The ICC has been widely criticized for its preference of convicting the leaders of African nations rather than of caucasian nations. Given that circumstance, the Court of 15 judges may welcome the Palestinian opportunity to prove that it is willing to convict leaders of a non-African nation. Certainly, Israel's occupation and colonization of Palestine since hostilities ceased in 1967 offers more than fertile ground for such a case. I have to admit that I enjoy my mental picture of Benjamin Netanyahu in chains standing in the Court's dock in The Hague. 

Which helps explain why, in a recent poll of Palestinians in both Gaza and the West Bank, the Hamas leader outpolled Abbas by something on the order of 70-30 on the question of who Palestinians would vote for as President if elections were held at that time. 

I'll add some comments here later. This is a very important event. Rapp resigned the day after this article. See https://news.yahoo.com/u-s--war-crimes-ambassador-stepping-down-in--frustration--194011155.html

As with senior Bush II administration officials, travel abroad is becoming increasingly risky for high Israeli officials.  Background: After similar events a couple of years ago involving high Israeli officials, the UK Parliament enacted law purporting to exempt the UK from the international law obligation to arrest and prosecute war criminals no matter where the war crimes were committed. But that legislation clashed irreconcilably with the UK's treaty obligations as a member of the E.U. Apparently, a UK judge understood that the E.U. obligations trumped the national legislation in that regard.  

I did not bookmark the news about this tribunal's decision last year because I mistakenly assumed that it was a mock trial, that it had no legal force.  But in this interview with renowned international law professor Francis Boyle, who served as co-prosecutor, I learned that the trial was legally constituted, and that international law requires other nations to either extradite Bush and his top officials or independently try them for war crimes and crimes against humanity. Note that Boyle gives Obama no points either, calling for his impeachment and prosecution. So we might look forward to a similar prosecution of Obama and his top officials after he leaves office. 

"It's still hard to believe we now live in a country where a district judge can demand that we bring in refugees from state sponsors of terror and failed states saturated with terrorists and no data systems during a time of war. It's almost unfathomable that a district judge, an institution created by Congress, can overturn long-standing refugee law and bar the federal government from prioritizing persecuted religious minorities for refugee resettlement. All in contravention to statute, numerous clauses of the Constitution, the social contract, the social compact, popular sovereignty, jurisdictional sovereignty, and 200 years of case law. If Obergefell redefined the building block of all civilization, Judge James Robart's ruling redefined the building block of a sovereign nation. It's hard to comprehend a judicial opinion more divorced from our Constitution, sovereignty, fundamental laws, founding values, history, and tradition. It's also hard to imagine an opinion that is of greater consequence - unless it is ignored. In the long run, Congress must strip the federal judiciary of their power grab and restore Congress' plenary power over immigration, as it was since our founding. However, in the meantime, it's time to make impeachment great again. Impeachment was a critical check on abuse of power   Before the growth of political parties killed the separation of powers, the tool of impeachment was regarded by our founders as one of the most effective ways of checking the executive and judicial branches of government. By my count, impeachment is referenced 58 times in the Federalist Papers and countless times during the Constitutional Convention. Impeachment [U.S.CONST. art. II, §4] was not only reserved for those who engage in criminal behavior. It was clearly designed to check abuse of power. As the Congressional Research Service observes, Congress has identified "improperly exceeding or abusing the powers of the office" as a criterion for

Note that according to a leaked U.S. State Dept. cable on Wikileaks, Ms. Darshan-Leitner confessed to officials of the U.S. Embassy that Shurat HaDin has "accepted direction" from the Israeli government and works closely with Mossad. https://cablegatesearch.wikileaks.org/cable.php?id=07TELAVIV2636

"The U.S. Constitution provides impeachment as the method for removing the president, vice president, federal judges, and other federal officials from office. The impeachment process begins in the House of Representatives and follows these steps: The House Judiciary Committee holds hearings and, if necessary, prepares articles of impeachment. These are the charges against the official. If a majority of the committee votes to approve the articles, the whole House debates and votes on them. If a majority of the House votes to impeach the official on any article, then the official must then stand trial in the Senate. For the official to be removed from office, two-thirds of the Senate must vote to convict the official. Upon conviction, the official is automatically removed from office and, if the Senate so decides, may be forbidden from holding governmental office again. The impeachment process is political in nature, not criminal. Congress has no power to impose criminal penalties on impeached officials. But criminal courts may try and punish officials if they have committed crimes. The Constitution sets specific grounds for impeachment. They are "treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors." To be impeached and removed from office, the House and Senate must find that the official committed one of these acts. The Constitution defines treason in Article 3, Section 3, Clause 1: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."

WIth the caveat that these measures must stiil be approved by the signatories to the Rome Convention, the addition of aggression to the list of war crimes that the International Criminal Court takes  jurisdiction over will drastically contract the number of nations that high officials who have launched wars of aggression will dare travel to.  The Barack Obamas, George W. Bushes, Tony Blairs, and  Benyamin Netanyahus of the world will have to plan their travel much more selectively.   The measure is expected to be adopted.

"New York Police Department detectives and prosecutors working an alleged underage sexting case against former Congressman Anthony Weiner have turned over a newly-found laptop he shared with wife Huma Abedin to the FBI with enough evidence "to put Hillary (Clinton) and her crew away for life," NYPD sources told True Pundit. NYPD sources said Clinton's "crew" also included several unnamed yet implicated members of Congress in addition to her aides and insiders. The NYPD seized the computer from Weiner during a search warrant and detectives discovered a trove of over 500,000 emails to and from Hillary Clinton, Abedin and other insiders during her tenure as secretary of state. The content of those emails sparked the FBI to reopen its defunct email investigation into Clinton on Friday. But new revelations on the contents of that laptop, according to law enforcement sources, implicate the Democratic presidential candidate, her subordinates, and even select elected officials in far more alleged serious crimes than mishandling classified and top secret emails, sources said. NYPD sources said these new emails include evidence linking Clinton herself and associates to: Money laundering Child exploitation Sex crimes with minors (children) Perjury Pay to play through Clinton Foundation Obstruction of justice Other felony crimes NYPD detectives and a NYPD Chief, the department's highest rank under Commissioner, said openly that if the FBI and Justice Department fail to garner timely indictments against Clinton and co- conspirators, NYPD will go public with the damaging emails now in the hands of FBI Director James Comey and many FBI field offices. "What's in the emails is staggering and as a father, it turned my stomach," the NYPD Chief said. "There is not going to be any Houdini-like escape from what we found. We have copies of everything. We will ship them to Wikileaks or I will personally hold my own press conference if it comes to that." The NYPD

I've read the brief. I don't think the implied partial repeal of the War Powers Resolution argument should fly. The relevant provision establishes a rule of interpretation of later statutes and the appropriations bills neither reject the rule of interpretation nor specifically provide authorization for use of military force. They just authorize funding. On the standing issue, I think the DoJ position is correct; the oath of office applies only to senior officers who make the decision to initiate a war. But DoJ may have opened the door to a more compelling standing argument by arguing that the war does not constitute a war crime, a crime against peace, or a crime against humanity under international law. DoJ did not need to make that argument because Smith had not alleged in his complaint that he was being ordered to commit such crimes, but by doing so DoJ waives any argument that such issues are beyond the scope of Smith's standing and the evidence that the Iraq and Syrian wars are illegal under international law is, to say the least, strong.

Not a decision to go to the ICC, but the latest in a consistent dribble of information indicating that the Palestinian state is working toward doing so.  The slow pace of the public indications hint that they are intended to increase Palestinian leverage in negotiations. To me the questions of whether Abbas would actually make such a complaint and if he did so whether ICC would proceed with a prosecution are far from settled.  Almost certainly, such a complaint would end negotiations and U.S. subsidy of the Palestinian government's expenses. Abbas has previously shown no sign of being more than a U.S.-Israeli puppet. And the U.S. and Israel are applying stiff pressure on the ICC not to take the case if it arrives there, including a U.S. threat to cease its funding contributions to the ICC. On the other hand, if Abbas wishes to preserve his unity government with Hamas and thus have standing to speak for the entirety of the Palestinian population, he *must* be perceived  in Gaza as either delivering or fighting hard for very substantial easing of Israel's blockade of Gaza. A complaint to the ICC would be perceived as fighting hard, as having abandoned his commitment to resolution purely via negotiation.   So there is a lot of pressure on Abbas to do something more than negotiate unsuccessfully. And the U.S. and Israel leadership surely realize that.

High Israeli officials are not safe from arrest for war crimes outside Israel.