Re: OT - Nearly Half the Country Wants Bush IMPEACHED

Terraholm wrote:

Johnny wrote:

Terraholm wrote:

Johnny wrote:



The courts have no jurisdiction in cases of impeachment, and
there are no appeals from an impeachment or from a
conviction pursuant to an impeachment.


They could still eat up a lot of clock over a combined impeachment by the time the court said it had no jurisdiction.



A summary dismissal based on want of jurisdiction would take a few weeks at most. The Nixon case is controlling: impeachment is non-justiciable.



It is unlikely but not impossible once they are out of office.

The Rome Treaty was signed in 2000 by Clinton at the signing
deadline, even though he said he would not recommend it for
ratification as it stood then. Since then they reached the 60
required ratifications to establish in July 2002, the International
Criminal Court, instituted for the prosecution of war crimes
committed after that date. Bush's declaration to the UN (referred to as the unsigning letter)
"the United States does not intend to become a party to the treaty.
Accordingly, the United States has no legal obligations arising from
its signature on December 31, 2000." But officially it is still
signed.

But not ratified. See, U.S. Constitution, Art. II, Sec. 2,
Clause 3, requiring the advice and consent of the Senate to
treaties.


The treaty or Rome statute established the institution of the court. The requirements have been met. The president can agree to acceed to the statute by executive agreement. International law regards each mode of international agreement as binding, whatever its designation under domestic law.



WRONG. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_the_International_Criminal_Court

The President cannot unilaterally bind the U.S. to a treaty, treaties require ratification by the Senate.


A new letter filed with the UN from the next administration could
well indicate the legal obligations inherent in the treaty's signing
changing the status to cooperation and an intention for future
ratification. That might expose Bush and/or Cheney to at least being
charged eventually. Even without US cooperation if Bush's crimes were committed in and
with the government of a country that has ratified or has agreed to
be a party to the treaty he could be charged. Flying out prisoners
to be tortured would qualify. 104 states have ratified or acceded to
it. Also Iraq tried to ratify the treaty in 2005 but Bush pushed
them into withdrawing it. Afghanistan did declare accession. While the defining of the treaty's 'war of aggression provisions are
still not defined... Gitmo detainees "Depriving a prisoner of war of
a fair trial" and especially flying out prisoners to other
countries for torture "Unlawful deportation, confinement or
transfer" with no legal recourse. Both charges certainly fall within
"Grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions" even according to McCain
they are guilty of torture... and the required "part of a plan or
policy"...

These arguments are all "what ifs."


Sure. As I said it is unlikely, but not impossible. I doubt the Clintons would go for it. Edwards has already stated he would acceed to and push for radification of the treaty.



And as a matter of Constitutional Law, until the Senate ratifies it, it does not bind the U.S. no matter what International Law says.

Under the current state
of our treaty obligations, the court cannot acquire
jurisdiction over the United States or American citizens
without the consent of the United States.


This one can over non-acceeding nations citizens if the crimes are committed in a country that is a state party to the statute. Afghanistan ratified it, Iraq tried to and may well do so as soon as Bush is out of control of their government


WRONG. No treaty is binding on the United States unless unless the Senate ratifies it, and they have not done so.

I repeat: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_the_International_Criminal_Court

Article 12 - Preconditions to the exercise of jurisdiction
the Court may exercise its jurisdiction if one or more of the following States are Parties to this Statute or have accepted the jurisdiction of the Court in accordance with paragraph 3:

(a) The State on the territory of which the conduct in question occurred or, if the crime was committed on board a vessel or aircraft, the State of registration of that vessel or aircraft;
(b) The State of which the person accused of the crime is a national.


The United States is not a party because the treaty has never been ratified by the Senate. The President cannot unilaterally bind the U.S. to a treaty unless the Senate ratifies it.

In response to

the judgment against the United States by the court in
Nicaragua v. United States (International Court of Justice,
June 27, 1986), U.N. Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick dismissed
the court as a "semi-legal, semi-juridicial, semi-political



Different court. Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court
did not exist until 2002 and applies to war crimes committed after 7-1-02.


Same principle.

How Bush has been dancing around it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States_Parties_to_the_Rome_Statute_of_the_International_Criminal_Court


I repeat, the U.S. is not bound by the treaty until the Senate ratifies it, and Bush's withdrawal of *presidential* agreement to the treaty simply means that he is not submitting it to the Senate for ratification, thus it is of no force and effect on the U.S.

I repeat: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_the_International_Criminal_Court

In 2002, the U.S. Congress passed the American Servicemembers' Protection Act (ASPA), which contained a number of provisions, including prohibitions on the U.S. providing military aid to countries which had ratified the treaty establishing the court (exceptions granted), and permitting the President to authorize military force to free any U.S. military personnel held by the court, leading opponents to dub it the "Hague Invasion Act." The act was later modified to permit U.S. cooperation with the ICC when dealing with U.S. enemies.
The U.S. has also made a number of Bilateral Immunity Agreements (BIAs, also known as "Article 98 Agreements") with a number of countries, prohibiting the surrender to the ICC of a broad scope of persons including current or former government officials, military personnel, and U.S. employees (including non-national contractors) and nationals. As of 2 August 2006, the US Department of State reported that it had signed 101 of these agreements.[29] The United States has cut aid to many countries which have refused to sign BIAs.[29]

In 2002, the United States threatened to veto the renewal of all United Nations peacekeeping missions unless its troops were granted immunity from prosecution by the Court.[30] In a compromise move, the Security Council passed Resolution 1422 on 12 July 2002, granting immunity to personnel from ICC non-States Parties involved in United Nations established or authorized missions for a renewable twelve-month period.[30] This was renewed for twelve months in 2003 but the Security Council refused to renew the exemption again in 2004, after pictures emerged of US troops abusing Iraqi prisoners in Abu Ghraib, and the US withdrew its demand.[31]

===

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition

A story in the Los Angeles Times on December 8, 2005, seems to corroborate the claims of "torture by proxy." It mentions the attorneys for Majid Mahmud Abdu Ahmad, a detainee held by the Pentagon at Guantanamo Bay, filed a petition to prevent his being transferred to foreign countries. According to the petition's description of a redacted classified Defense Department memo from March 17, 2004, its contents say "officials suggested sending Ahmad to an unspecified foreign country that employed torture in order to increase chances of extracting information from him."

(original article ( http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/120805J.shtml )

Mr Falkoff, representing Ahmad, continued: "There is only one meaning that can be gleaned from this short passage," the petition says. "The government believes that Mr. Ahmad has information that it wants but that it cannot extract without torturing him." The petition goes on to say that because torture is not allowed at Guantanamo, "the recommendation is that Mr. Ahmad should be sent to another country where he can be interrogated under torture."[95] I

This treaty is ratified:

United Nations Convention Against Torture (UNCAT) Article 3 states

1. No State Party shall expel, return ("refouler") or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.
2. For the purpose of determining whether there are such grounds, the competent authorities shall take into account all relevant considerations including, where applicable, the existence in the State concerned of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights.



All this is moot because the treaty has never been ratified by the Senate; and it likely will never be, considering that it is likely to require a constitutional amendment to submit the U.S. to the jurisdiction of a court that is higher than the U.S. Supreme Court.

I repeat: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_the_International_Criminal_Court

The key to your entire treaty argument is simply Senate ratification, which has not happened and is unlikely to.

.

Relevant Pages