List Only

Should Gaddafi 'turn himself in' to the ICC?

This is not a joke. Foe starters, he would be able to talk about NATO's invasion of Libya. As far as I know, there has never been, in any courtroom, a much-needed inspection of NATO's activities. Also; just by being there at the Hague, in the ICC's custody, Gaddafi would set some legal wheels in motion. Perhaps I am showing extreme optimism by saying this, but I believe that Gaddafi, in the role of prisoner, would make that court do its job. On May 16, 2011 the ICC put out an arrest warrant for Libya's leader Col Muammar Gaddafi. The 1998 Rome Statute, by which the International Criminal Court was established, is an easy read in full. http://www.un.org/law/icc/index.html A good summary of the 'procedural provisions' can be found on the ICC's website.http://www.icc-cpi.int/Menus/ICC/Search?qt=procedural+provisions&x=23&y=12&la=en This is how simple it all is: "The accused shall make an admission of guilt or plead not guilty. If the Trial Chamber is not satisfied that the accused understands the nature and consequences of the admission, or that the admission is supported by the facts of the case, it will consider the admission of guilt as not having been made, in which case the trial will be continued under the ordinary trial procedures. The parties may submit evidence relevant to the case. Everyone shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty .The burden of proof is on the Prosecutor. The accused's guilt must be proved beyond reasonable doubt." But here is the real kicker: "The accused may examine the witnesses against him or her, and obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his or her behalf." 'Examine' does not mean 'have a close look into their eyes' or even 'ask them to strip.' It means that the reluctant (i.e., subpoenaed) witnesses can be cross-examined. They must cough up requested information, or risk being jailed for contempt of court. So, What a situation! How did the powerful ever make such a boo-boo as to let this stuff get into print? Let us have a brief chronology here; In 1945 at Nuremberg, and in 1947 at Tokyo (ah, Tokyo), the victors of World War II held military-style tribunals. There was no pressure on such courts to behave honestly. Indeed as we now realize, the whole shebang was a farce, but ­ as tends to happen ­ words get thrown around and in this case they came up with 'crimes against humanity.' From this trial, which was meant to put Nazism in its place (you can interpret that broadly), something called "the Nuremberg principles" emerged. Thus it happened that, in the 1950s, the UN General Assembly instructed the ILC to codify this 'Nuremberg principles' business. (The ILC is the International Law Commission) They did so. They came up with seven rather bland principles, and no method for turning them into enforceable law -- except for the one very proper method: recommend to individual governments that they incorporate it into domestic law. The best-known is Principle IV, that you cannot defend your criminal actions by saying "I was only following orders." In Principle VI we find the possibility of punishing two newly declared crimes: 'crimes against peace' (defined as planning or waging a war of aggression) and 'crimes against humanity.' Being head of state, Gaddafi could quickly get Libya to sign and ratify the Rome Statute. Then, as a member, Libya can ask the ICC's Special Prosecutor ­ an Argentine, Moreno-Ocampo (currently serving his second elected term, not a good sign if you know what I mean) to investigate the war crimes perpetrated by NATO. Of course Libya can't pursue the big one, the Crime of Aggression. As mentioned, Nuremberg Principle VI did actually specify the crime of waging war -- meaning, you know, invading another country "a la Hitler." When the Rome committee was meeting in 1995-97, Americans squelched that one. The Parties recently, however, agreed to an amendment, to criminalize the making of war. But hilariously they gave this a come-into-force date of 2017. Boy, you've really got to hand it to them eh? Of course I realize it takes will, and that words are by no means enough. But read these words, from the Rome Statute's preamble, and see if they stimulate your will: "Mindful that during this century millions of children, women and men have been victims of unimaginable atrocities" "Determined to put an end to impunity for the perpetrators of these crimes" "Emphasizing that nothing in this Statute shall be taken as authorizing any State Party to intervene in an armed conflict or in the internal affairs of any State" That's right; NO INTERVENING! So, does Gaddafi have a case? All thoughts welcome.

Public Comments

1. Why? He can just to the Saudis and they will put him up.
2. Where are the ICC (this simply isn't cricket) arrest warrants for key Israeli officials over the last sixty six years, where is the one for Blair, for Bush and for Sarcozy and Moron? Considering the half million deaths in the Middle East because of Western intervention and policy you can hardly say getting your own house in order is a criminal offense when you get a jihadist freed (no lawyer governence could achieve such a result) and secured Western oil company investment improving the welfare of anti Western people. It's highly likely Gaddafi pointing out Israel is the prime suspect in the assassination of JFK that such Western agression began, that sounds more plausible than Dickless Sarcozy being worried that a racist womaniser (at the least) was any serious political opponant or that Jim Crow loving David 'Hitler' Moron wanted to have Sharia law in the UK, perhaps the refugee crisis he has created doesn't add up to a hill of beans, I'd like to know the views of Whitehall on this issue though, the next UK security assessment is going to be a hoot.