'SV - What about the US which has withdrawn it's signature from the International Criminal Court and does not recognize its authority.
FB - Well that is correct, that's unfortunate, and the reason, you'll note, President Clinton did sign and then as soon as Bush came to office he withdrew the signature and the reason was they fully intended to go to war against Iraq. So of course if you're going to commit aggression and war crimes, you don't want an International Criminal Court with jurisdiction to prosecute you. However, that being said, first, if Bush or any of these others in US Government leave the US they could end up in states that are parties to the International Criminal Court or have domestic statutes that would permit them to be prosecuted. Second, as for the ICC, Britain is a party and right now, today, I've been working with some British lawyers on preparation of a complaint against Tony Blair and some of the other British leaders to file them with the ICC. I have recommended that they add, as aiders and abettors, Bush et. all. This can be done. So long as the ICC has jurisdiction with respect to Blair, Bush and the rest of them could be added on and, I think, should be added on. that's being done - I'm not doing the work - it requires British lawyers to do it - but I have advised them I think that that's the way they should proceed and my understanding is that they are. So, we'll see what happens.
SV - Does the ICC have the jurisdiction to prosecute anyone as long as they are in those countries that recognize and are signatories to ICC?
FB - Either they recognize it or commit crimes in states that are parties. In this case, the ICC has jurisdiction to prosecute British nationals such as Tony Blair, Jack Straw and the rest of them. What I'm recognizing however is that Bush et. all be added on as aiders and abettors. Because the ICC statute also permits the prosecution of aiders and abettors to individuals that it already have jurisdiction to prosecute.
SV - Thanks for clearing that up. Some believe that citizens of those countries, which do not recognize the ICC, cannot be subject to prosecution by them.
FB - You cannot file a complaint directly against Bush et. all as principles in the first degree to crimes. You can only proceed after them as aiders and abettors to principles in the first degree where the ICC would have jurisdiction to prosecute the principles in the first degree, but if they have jurisdiction to prosecute the principles in the first degree, my reading of the statute is they would also have jurisdiction to prosecute aiders and abettors.
http://www.mwcnews.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3741&Itemid=26&PHPSESSID=d218732092a88ac1b289796dea58bdf0
FB - Well that is correct, that's unfortunate, and the reason, you'll note, President Clinton did sign and then as soon as Bush came to office he withdrew the signature and the reason was they fully intended to go to war against Iraq. So of course if you're going to commit aggression and war crimes, you don't want an International Criminal Court with jurisdiction to prosecute you. However, that being said, first, if Bush or any of these others in US Government leave the US they could end up in states that are parties to the International Criminal Court or have domestic statutes that would permit them to be prosecuted. Second, as for the ICC, Britain is a party and right now, today, I've been working with some British lawyers on preparation of a complaint against Tony Blair and some of the other British leaders to file them with the ICC. I have recommended that they add, as aiders and abettors, Bush et. all. This can be done. So long as the ICC has jurisdiction with respect to Blair, Bush and the rest of them could be added on and, I think, should be added on. that's being done - I'm not doing the work - it requires British lawyers to do it - but I have advised them I think that that's the way they should proceed and my understanding is that they are. So, we'll see what happens.
SV - Does the ICC have the jurisdiction to prosecute anyone as long as they are in those countries that recognize and are signatories to ICC?
FB - Either they recognize it or commit crimes in states that are parties. In this case, the ICC has jurisdiction to prosecute British nationals such as Tony Blair, Jack Straw and the rest of them. What I'm recognizing however is that Bush et. all be added on as aiders and abettors. Because the ICC statute also permits the prosecution of aiders and abettors to individuals that it already have jurisdiction to prosecute.
SV - Thanks for clearing that up. Some believe that citizens of those countries, which do not recognize the ICC, cannot be subject to prosecution by them.
FB - You cannot file a complaint directly against Bush et. all as principles in the first degree to crimes. You can only proceed after them as aiders and abettors to principles in the first degree where the ICC would have jurisdiction to prosecute the principles in the first degree, but if they have jurisdiction to prosecute the principles in the first degree, my reading of the statute is they would also have jurisdiction to prosecute aiders and abettors.
http://www.mwcnews.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3741&Itemid=26&PHPSESSID=d218732092a88ac1b289796dea58bdf0
Comments
Display the following 9 comments