If we captured bin Laden alive, it is exceedingly unlikely that he would be tried outside of a U.S. court. He is associated with so many crimes either committed in the U.S. (both WTC attacks) against U.S. interests abroad (embassy bombings, the U.S.S. Cole, etc.) as well as conspiracy to commit same (Operation Bojinka) that the U.S. has a compelling legal footing for primary right of prosecution.
This would probably not dissuade the ICC from arguing that he should be tried at The Hague for the sake of "fairness" but the U.S. hardly has a history of deferring to international opinion on things -- and in this particular case there is no reason for us to do so.
Phaedrus
This would probably not dissuade the ICC from arguing that he should be tried at The Hague for the sake of "fairness" but the U.S. hardly has a history of deferring to international opinion on things -- and in this particular case there is no reason for us to do so.
Phaedrus
D2,
Saddam cannot be charged for the 9-11 attacks in the ICC.
I urge you to read the charter of the ICC before making further comment on it. One of the main tenets of the ICC is that it can only prosecute crimes committed after July 1. 2002.
"Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man." - The Dude, 1998
Saddam cannot be charged for the 9-11 attacks in the ICC.
I urge you to read the charter of the ICC before making further comment on it. One of the main tenets of the ICC is that it can only prosecute crimes committed after July 1. 2002.
"Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man." - The Dude, 1998
Floyd, I assume you meant Bin Laden, not Hussein, being charged in the 9-11 attacks.
As for the ICC prosecuting crimes, isn't it currently prosecuting Slobodan Milosevic for crimes committed in the '90's? Maybe we're talking about a different international court? I'm talking about The Hague.
As for the ICC prosecuting crimes, isn't it currently prosecuting Slobodan Milosevic for crimes committed in the '90's? Maybe we're talking about a different international court? I'm talking about The Hague.
Sorry, I meant Bin Laden. Actually, neither can be prosecuted for 9-11 at athe ICC.
The International Criminal Court at the Hague cannot prosecute crimes committed before July 1, 2002. Period.
The court at the Hague that is prosecuting Milosevic is a special temporary court formed for the sole purpose of prosecuting individuals from the former Yugoslavia.
Read all about it:
International Criminal Court:
http://www.icc-cpi.int/php/show.php?id=faq#faq6
International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia:
http://www.un.org/icty/glance/index.htm
"Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man." - The Dude, 1998
The International Criminal Court at the Hague cannot prosecute crimes committed before July 1, 2002. Period.
The court at the Hague that is prosecuting Milosevic is a special temporary court formed for the sole purpose of prosecuting individuals from the former Yugoslavia.
Read all about it:
International Criminal Court:
http://www.icc-cpi.int/php/show.php?id=faq#faq6
International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia:
http://www.un.org/icty/glance/index.htm
"Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man." - The Dude, 1998
There may be legal procedures to the contrary, but I would think that Bin Laden would be required to stand trial in the US for the crimes of 9/11. That said, he should also be required to stand trial in every country in which he committed acts of terrorism. What it would come down to is simply who catches him first. Assuming he's still alive at all, there's little doubt the US will get to him first, or one of its allies. Any country assisting the US would easily hand him over.
Floyd, alright then a "special temporary court" could obviously be initiated to prosecute. Not sure how you can say the ICC at The Hague can't prosecute pre-2002 crimes...since it is right now. Obviously exceptions are made. Court...tribunal...whatever. It can be done. That way all sorts of people affected and with knowledge could testify. I mean hell, do we really want all this shit here in the U.S. anyway? It's just not the appropriate forum for international terrorists, which Bin Laden is. International criminals should be tried in International Courts. Pretty simple I think.
D2
The ICC is NOT prosecuting pre-2002 crimes now. The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia is. Two very different courts.
Have you read the sites I pointed you to?
Could a temporary court be convened to try Bin Laden? Possibly, but it would not be the ICC. It would likely take years to work out the details of such a court. The UN Security Coouncil formed the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in 1993 but right now, the Security Council can't agree on where to have lunch let alone form a court. Not so simple I think.
If Bin Laden is caught and ends up in US hands (and he won't be because he is dead), he will be tried by a US Military Tribunal probably held at Guantanamo. For security reasons, he would never be brought to the US.
"Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man." - The Dude, 1998
The ICC is NOT prosecuting pre-2002 crimes now. The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia is. Two very different courts.
Have you read the sites I pointed you to?
Could a temporary court be convened to try Bin Laden? Possibly, but it would not be the ICC. It would likely take years to work out the details of such a court. The UN Security Coouncil formed the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in 1993 but right now, the Security Council can't agree on where to have lunch let alone form a court. Not so simple I think.
If Bin Laden is caught and ends up in US hands (and he won't be because he is dead), he will be tried by a US Military Tribunal probably held at Guantanamo. For security reasons, he would never be brought to the US.
"Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man." - The Dude, 1998
