After the next presidential election, the US should accede to Rome Statue and dump this loser on the steps of the ICC. Might as well nab Bibi as well, Maduro-style.
The ironic thing is that by the time his second term is over, this probably would be the only legal play left to the USA to actually get him inside a prison.
I will be honest, the genuine reservations voiced about the ICC and the due process problems are legitimate. I don’t agree that they outweigh the benefits of joining the ICC, but I do understand that a reasonable person could conclude otherwise.
For one, ICC proceedings take years and there is no right to a fast trial. Article 67 of the Rome Statute gives the defendant a right against “undue delay” but this clause is essentially toilet paper in reality. A defendant can spend years in detention awaiting a resolution to their case, even if they are later acquitted and released (which has happened).
For comparison only, there is a right to a speedy trial in American law. If exercised, this usually results in a trial scheduled in mere weeks, at most a month or two for complex cases.
Genuine reservations are actually irrelevant in this. The Maga fascists are threatening other countries for supporting the court. This isn’t about improving the ICC it’s about blowing up international law. Democrats cannot hide behind “objections”.
But I would even push back on your premise. Even such reservations are overstated. The ICC is a complementary court of last resort. If a national authority conducts a genuine investigation and decides not to prosecute the ICC must respect that decision and cannot intervene. The ICC can only step in when a national legal system is inactive, unwilling, or unable to carry out justice. So if the US wants to ensure speedy trial etc, all it has to do is to hold itself to the already existing legal standards it has for itself.
So far, in the cases which have actually run to completion in the ICC, they have been about crimes committed in countries with weak or non-functional judiciaries. This, I would assume, is the court’s primary purpose.
Your assertion that the ICC Prosecutor is obligated to respect the decision of a state party’s procuratorial authority to not prosecute seems unsupported by the text of the Rome Statute. Article 20, Section 3 of the Statute only precludes the ICC from trying offences which have been fairly and impartially tried in another court. The key here, is that the accused must have actually been tried. A decision not to prosecute by local prosecutors does not prevent the ICC Prosecutor’s Office from pressing charges.
I do, however, agree for the most part that the United States can avoid the issue with respect to its own citizens by simply prosecuting all the possible crimes domestically in American courts, which would remove the jurisdiction of the ICC, averting all the nasty due process violation concerns. The US can accede with a reservation that all crimes involving US citizens will instead first be referred to the US Department of Justice for local prosecution, and then domestic legislation can force the Department of Justice to at least put some effort into a prosecution to satisfy the requirements of Article 20, Section 3 and foreclose ICC jurisdiction.
There are also some arguments about how the US being obligated to arrest visiting foreign heads of state or government with active warrants against them would be detrimental to the general peace-building process, but I don’t agree with this interpretation. Article 98 of the Rome Statute states that state parties are not required to extradite in violation of other obligations of international law, presumably including diplomatic immunity.
So yes, I agree that it is a weak argument for not adopting the Rome Statute. To be clear, I think the real reason the US did not ratify the Rome Statute is because the US military has its fingers in so many pies that it’s inevitable that some criminal conduct has occurred somewhere, but having even a single US service member appear before an international war crimes tribunal would be geopolitically embarrassing, especially since neither of the two other contemporary world powers subject themselves to ICC jurisdiction.
After the next presidential election, the US should accede to Rome Statue and dump this loser on the steps of the ICC. Might as well nab Bibi as well, Maduro-style.
Could also just drop him off in Iran…
After all, every ‘official act’ is legal and beyond reproach now, and diplomatic gifts are certainly official acts.
The ironic thing is that by the time his second term is over, this probably would be the only legal play left to the USA to actually get him inside a prison.
If the ICC is known for anything, it’s the completely broken pre-trial process.
The Democrats have been silent about this…
I will be honest, the genuine reservations voiced about the ICC and the due process problems are legitimate. I don’t agree that they outweigh the benefits of joining the ICC, but I do understand that a reasonable person could conclude otherwise.
For one, ICC proceedings take years and there is no right to a fast trial. Article 67 of the Rome Statute gives the defendant a right against “undue delay” but this clause is essentially toilet paper in reality. A defendant can spend years in detention awaiting a resolution to their case, even if they are later acquitted and released (which has happened).
For comparison only, there is a right to a speedy trial in American law. If exercised, this usually results in a trial scheduled in mere weeks, at most a month or two for complex cases.
Genuine reservations are actually irrelevant in this. The Maga fascists are threatening other countries for supporting the court. This isn’t about improving the ICC it’s about blowing up international law. Democrats cannot hide behind “objections”.
But I would even push back on your premise. Even such reservations are overstated. The ICC is a complementary court of last resort. If a national authority conducts a genuine investigation and decides not to prosecute the ICC must respect that decision and cannot intervene. The ICC can only step in when a national legal system is inactive, unwilling, or unable to carry out justice. So if the US wants to ensure speedy trial etc, all it has to do is to hold itself to the already existing legal standards it has for itself.
So far, in the cases which have actually run to completion in the ICC, they have been about crimes committed in countries with weak or non-functional judiciaries. This, I would assume, is the court’s primary purpose.
Your assertion that the ICC Prosecutor is obligated to respect the decision of a state party’s procuratorial authority to not prosecute seems unsupported by the text of the Rome Statute. Article 20, Section 3 of the Statute only precludes the ICC from trying offences which have been fairly and impartially tried in another court. The key here, is that the accused must have actually been tried. A decision not to prosecute by local prosecutors does not prevent the ICC Prosecutor’s Office from pressing charges.
I do, however, agree for the most part that the United States can avoid the issue with respect to its own citizens by simply prosecuting all the possible crimes domestically in American courts, which would remove the jurisdiction of the ICC, averting all the nasty due process violation concerns. The US can accede with a reservation that all crimes involving US citizens will instead first be referred to the US Department of Justice for local prosecution, and then domestic legislation can force the Department of Justice to at least put some effort into a prosecution to satisfy the requirements of Article 20, Section 3 and foreclose ICC jurisdiction.
There are also some arguments about how the US being obligated to arrest visiting foreign heads of state or government with active warrants against them would be detrimental to the general peace-building process, but I don’t agree with this interpretation. Article 98 of the Rome Statute states that state parties are not required to extradite in violation of other obligations of international law, presumably including diplomatic immunity.
So yes, I agree that it is a weak argument for not adopting the Rome Statute. To be clear, I think the real reason the US did not ratify the Rome Statute is because the US military has its fingers in so many pies that it’s inevitable that some criminal conduct has occurred somewhere, but having even a single US service member appear before an international war crimes tribunal would be geopolitically embarrassing, especially since neither of the two other contemporary world powers subject themselves to ICC jurisdiction.