A United Nations war-crimes tribunal has rejected as "utterly unfounded" the refusal by an American journalist to testify about an interview with a suspected war criminal that was published in The Washington Post.
A panel of three U.N. judges dismissed the motion on behalf of retired reporter Jonathan C. Randal in which his publication argued that compelling journalists to testify could endanger their lives and the lives of sources.
The decision paves the way for the court to order that Randal appear in The Hague. Although the tribunal cannot physically force him to testify, its orders are binding under international law. It could request that authorities in France, where Randal lives, assist in carrying out the order.
The Post quoted its managing editor, Steve Coll, as saying yesterday that "the last couple of years have made clearer than ever how hard is the work of independent correspondents in combat zones where many combatants are not formally aligned with any government and suspicious of the motives of the media."
Coll expressed concern that warring parties would view journalists "as instruments of some faraway court or power and deal with them as such" if such subpoenas were allowed, the Post said.
Keep in mind that:
quote:The majority of journalists who died in the line of duty during the last decade were killed in direct reprisal for their reporting, not while covering combat, according to a study released Thursday by the Committee to Protect Journalists.
Of the 389 journalists killed between 1992 and 2001, 62 of them, or 16%, died in cross fire, while 298, or 77%, were targeted for their work, the New York-based group found.
[ June 18, 2002, 14:53: Message edited by: First of Two ]
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
If you honestly believe that the reason the US Government opposes international courts is that they have a fervent wish to protect safety and integrity of the world's journalists, then you're even stupider than I thought. Like everyone from the CIA on down hasn't been trying to find out where Al-Jazeera was getting all their Bin Laden videos from.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
The point, since you don't seem to get it, is that this court has ruled against what many in the US consider a fundamental right of journalists not to be forced to testify about or to reveal their sources.
It's generally considered a first amendment right, something most of us take fairly seriously and dislike seeing considered 'utterly unfounded.'
Whether or not it is THE reason, it is a GOOD reason.
quote:Like everyone from the CIA on down hasn't been trying to find out where Al-Jazeera was getting all their Bin Laden videos from.
A good point, but if the US were to be shown to be using the same tactics that the UN court is using to get that information, people much like yourself would no doubt be throwing screaming hissy fits.
[ June 18, 2002, 16:05: Message edited by: First of Two ]
Posted by DT (Member # 80) on :
Shut the hell up Lee! You don't know what you're talking about. We Americans will let NOTHING stand in our way of that First Amendment. Unless you read other threads in this flameboard, in which case you'll learn it doesn't really matter if the President's safety is threatened. But see Lee, you British don't understand! You don't understand fundamental values of freedom of the press. Well, unless the military is involved, the Smith Act and all. But, aside from that, shut up you Brit you don't know! This is one of our many reasons to not be a part of the international court. That and you stupid Europeans don't understand our need to mine the harbours of tiny countries that pose no threat to us! We can't have your morals, so much lower than our's, stopping us. And you stupid British don't even understand the need to murder, in cold blood, your own citizens for doing the same thing! Stupid stupid British!!!
(as a disclaimer, for any who don't quite grasp sarcasm, the preceding including JUST a little bit of it - let's call it satire)
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Actually, it's neither. But don't let that stop you.
So, what color on the political spectrum are you THIS time around, oh former-ardent-states-rightist-suddenly-turned-neo-Trotskyist ?
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
I'm apparently missing the bit that says "and journalists don't have to tell anyone where they get their information". If that's what "freedom...of the press" means, then shouldn't "freedom of speech" mean that anyone who speaks doesn't have to testify, either?
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
DT! Pal! Long time no see!
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
Daniel has us bang to rights. I'd like to plead guilty and throw myself on the mercy of the court, and ask that filling the Titanic with cute cuddly Irish peasants, and then deliberately running it into an iceberg, into consideration.
Why, you know, if the US actually supported the actions of the War-Crimes Tribunal, you might actually be able to get us Brits for atrocities committed during your War of Independence. 8)
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Great Idea!!!!1
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Let me put it in a nicer, less confrontational manner...
I'd like to see specific examples of the proposed ICC's (International Criminal Court's) boundaries when it comes to the protection of individual rights.
I have been given the impression that some of its boundaries are in conflict with the boundaries of the rights afforded to citizens of the USA under the Constitution and derived Supreme Court decisions.
I could be mistaken, and would appreciate clarification.
I am not in favor of further restrictions on the constitutional individual rights of citizens of the USA, therefore I cannot support any organization or governing body which would do so.
Specific refence to the bodies of laws which would be cited by the ICC in tendering its decisions would be helpful.
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
So an American citizen can do whatever he or she likes to anyone, anywhere in the world, and once back in the USA can play the court system to its full obstructionist best? That would mean no American can ever be held guilty of committing war crimes.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Case law, as it seems, should come from the various member nation/states.... which will conflict with one anothers... Which will set the highest precedent? How will this determination be made???
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
I certainly understand the question of jurisdiction, and the problem with the fact that some rights under the Constitution may not jibe with the ICC. It's a valid conflict.
However, you also have to consider that war crimes tribunals have been an accepted function in response to certain acts of "excess" that are committed in wartime. What's the difference between certain Nazi acts (I'm not referring to the Holocaust, but to smaller crimes) and incidents involving the deaths of large numbers of civilians in, say, Vietnam or Korea?
Did the US get to hold a tribunal after WWII simply because they were the winners? By extension, are we unwilling to potentially lose face by admitting to mistakes by individual soldiers?
Yes, incidents like the ones I alluded to in Vietnam or Korea are quite a bit different from the organized extermination in the Holocaust, but the deaths of large numbers of civilians or helpless prisoners is something that still deserves to be investigated. And in an international conflict, perhaps a world court is the best place to hold such investigations.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by Vogon Poet: So an American citizen can do whatever he or she likes to anyone, anywhere in the world, and once back in the USA can play the court system to its full obstructionist best? That would mean no American can ever be held guilty of committing war crimes.
Ta-da!
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
I think that little man is made of straw.
Just answer the question I DID ask, m'kay?
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"I have been given the impression that some of its boundaries are in conflict with the boundaries of the rights afforded to citizens of the USA under the Constitution and derived Supreme Court decisions."
Perhaps I'm missing something here, but my responce would be "whoopdee-fucking-doo". Does it matter what rights the US gives its citizens? There are countries in the Muslim world where intense discrimination against women is not only legal, but encouraged. Would you say that, since those rights are grnated by one country, they should be considered legal everywhere by this international court.
If multiple countries are going to come up w/ a single legal system, there are going to be disputes. The US doesn't have a free pass to win every single one of those arguements. The US Constitution applies to the US and the US only. Anywhere else in the world, it's so much scrap paper.
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
What Tim said. Where's your Messiah now, Flanders?
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
The US Constitution applies to the US and the US only. Anywhere else in the world, it's so much scrap paper.
Exactly the problem.
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
Suddenly the idea of a World Government doesn't seem so bad, eh?
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Was that directed at me, or just a generally sarcastic statement? Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote:Suddenly the idea of a World Government doesn't seem so bad, eh?
Only if its ours, not theirs.
There are countries in which most of the rules of law, such as 'due process' and 'no torture' are laughable concepts, as well.
Reducing something to the lowest common denominator may be fine in math, but it positively SUCKS as a legal concept. If the court is only as strong as its weakest member, legally speaking, it's worse than having no court at all.
But if you want to start trying people according to, say, Fundie Muslim justice, I suppose that's okay... we won't miss any of those prisoners in Guantanamo, anyway. *Ratatatatatatatatat* Trial over.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Of course, since the ICC is illegal, according to the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, its first duty should be to disband itself.
According to articles 12 and 25 of the Statute of the International Criminal Court, the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court shall extend to individual United States citizens even if the United States does not `ratify, accept, or approve' the Statute of the International Criminal Court.
According to the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, no nation may be bound by a treaty to which that nation has not consented; therefore the United States, which has not consented to the Statute of the International Criminal Court in the manner prescribed by the Constitution of the United States, cannot be bound by the Statute of the International Criminal Court even if 60 countries ratify, accept, or approve it.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
But its citizens still can, if they go off galavanting about the world, committing crimes.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Perhaps, but what crimes but war crimes can such a court try? And who can commit war crimes but military personel? That makes things slightly more sticky.
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
quote:Originally posted by Omega: And who can commit war crimes but military personel?
Why don't you track down a random address in, say, Dubrovnik, call the person up, and ask them this question?
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
quote:Originally posted by Omega: And who can commit war crimes but military personel?
I would greatly argue that point. Wiesenthal's people hunted for decades for Mengele & others who were part of the Nazi extermination efforts, yet held no official military titles or rank. Is Osama bin Laden ineligible for such crimes? What about Sheik Omar Abdul Rahman, who headed the 93 WTC bombing? In Rwanda, those massacres were not based in the military but rather tribal, literally tearing the nation in half.
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
quote:There are countries in which most of the rules of law, such as 'due process' and 'no torture' are laughable concepts, as well.
The question about a nation being bound by a treaty it did not sign is an interesting question...
It's my understanding that people visiting a foreign country are bound by that country's laws. Therefore, if a war crime were committed in a country that had signed on to the ICC, could the alleged perpetrator not be tried by the ICC?
On the other hand, foreign embassies still have a measure of power in other countries, and citizens traveling in those countries have recourse to the local embassy or consulate.
Damn, I don't think I want to be an international lawyer... I participated in the Model UN's International Court of Justice for four years in high school but this is a really tough question.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Despite the usual Flameboard gloss, or perhaps grime, these are interesting questions. Consider: in your typical representative democracy, there are going to be laws that sizable majorites may wish to have no part in. They did not vote for them, nor did they vote for the people who made them, or even for the creation of the office for the people who made them. So at what point does it become necessary for me to follow laws I disagree with? Or, more importantly and more interestingly, at how does the necessity come about at all? Where, in other words, is the source of our obligation to obeying the law?
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
I'd argue that the obligation comes from the ability & willingness of said lawmakers to enforce it. Adultery is illegal in pretty much every state, but when was the last time you saw someone pulled in for balling his secretary? Sodomy is still illegal in many southern states, yet there are no nightly roundup of those who possess Metropasses for the man-train.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
So do we only have to obey laws if there is force behind them? Or, to reverse it, we have a moral obligation to obey laws made by the physically powerful, regardless of content?
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
I realize it looks like I'm engaging in some kind of sneaky socraticism here, but I really don't have an answer I'm trying to lead everyone towards. Admittedly, I happen to think, personally, that obeying whomever owns the biggest gun is not adequate, but my discomfort with the idea doesn't make it wrong.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
quote:Or, to reverse it, we have a moral obligation to obey laws made by the physically powerful, regardless of content?
No, absolutely not. Such morals would be meaningless and of very little value.
Reminds me of a playground bully who is sheepishly followed *only* if nobody dares to stand up to him...
[ June 21, 2002, 04:41: Message edited by: Cartman ]
Posted by EdipisReks (Member # 510) on :
i believe that, by definition, only military personnel can commit "war" crimes. however, that does not stop a "non-combatant" who commits atrocities from being declared an "enemy of the state". i imagine that if osama is ever captured (and assuming that whoever captures him doesn't take justice into their own hands)he will be declared an enemy of the state. i don't know *exactly* what this would mean, but i'm sure that anyone declared an enemy of the state would not be accorded standard human rights.
in the case of the "dirty bomb" dirty bastard, i think that he should have been declared an enemy of the state instead of an enemy combatant, being that he is a US citizen and all. terrorism makes the blood boil, and in my heart i want to see osama punished in a visceral manner, but we can't allow the government to run all over the constitution in order to protect the nation. we should save the country, but we shouldn't destroy it in the process. if we break the morality and idealism that this country was built on we become no better than those we oppose.
[ June 21, 2002, 05:18: Message edited by: EdipisReks ]
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Americans make me tingle with happy and mirth.
Posted by EdipisReks (Member # 510) on :
boy Cartman, that article you posted sure seems to be from a source unclouded by *ahem* yellow journalism *ahem*. Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
That's pretty typical.
I should also point out that the article Grocka linked to also had absolutely no bearing on the part of my post he quoted.
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
FOT you really should learn to read a whole article not just the headlines.
"HELD AS �ENEMY COMBATANT� Padilla is being held in the Charleston Naval Weapons Station brig in Hanahan, S.C., as an �enemy combatant,� an unorthodox legal maneuver that allows U.S. officials to hold him indefinitely."
By your president declaring him an enemy combatant , he was in fact denied due process, so if the president can just say that this person cannot have due process then anyone can be denied these rights. Therefore you only have the illusion of due process.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Er.
A speedy trial has little to do with due process, which is defined as "a course of proceedings at law or carried out through agency rules or other devices that is in accordance with the law of the land." It means "fair" not "fast."
Which it IS, whether you're happy about it or not.
And I was talking about day-to-day activity, not during wartime. I don't believe there's whole lot of precedent supporting your assertion that the same rules of "speedy trial for prisoners" apply during wartime.
He's being CHARGED as an enemy combatant... whether he IS or not will, we assume, come out at his eventual trial.
I believe that once charged with a crime, unless it's something really minor, you stay in jail until trial. They may then sentence you to 'time served' and release you, assuming you're found guilty of something the penalty for which you would have served while waiting for trial.
[ June 22, 2002, 13:17: Message edited by: First of Two ]
Posted by EdipisReks (Member # 510) on :
quote:Amendment VI: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial
seems to me that james madison and entourage did indeed think that fast was good . of couse, the whole purpose of the speedy trial is to prevent the government from simply holding people indefinitely, but generally the prosecution is given time to complete their case, unless a judge orders them to hurry it up.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Yes, yes, but it's also generally understood that speedy trials for enemy troops during wartime aren't a priority.
If you can show me a country wherein they ARE a priority (other than the drumhead "shoot 'em now, prisoners are inconvenient" variety of wartime trial), I'll take it back.
Otherwise the assertion stands.
Posted by EdipisReks (Member # 510) on :
quote:but it's also generally understood that speedy trials for enemy troops during wartime aren't a priority.
that may very well be true, but when we are dealing with a US civilian citizen, the right to a speedy and public trial must always be a priority.
Posted by The New CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
i gotta wait til frickin august for my court date! id love to get whacked on the wrists, pay a fine and start some community service now, but i gotta wait two months of worrying and swallowing bile that is going to make my ulcer have a new little brother to keep him company. speedy trial my ass!
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
I think we can with only a moderate degree of flameboardishness say that, with the era of the New War, the concept of a "civilian" is dead, dead, dead.
Posted by The Same Ultra Magnus (Member # 239) on :
"the era of the New War"
Term Coinage?
Posted by Snay (Member # 411) on :
quote:with the era of the New War
I'd guess coinage is a war without a declaration of such, focused against people or organizations (possibly certain ideological traits) and not countries.
[ June 22, 2002, 21:21: Message edited by: Snay ]
Posted by EdipisReks (Member # 510) on :
quote:speedy trial my ass
i'm sure that the actual trial will be plenty speedy. i'm also sure that your courtdate in august was the soonest available. VI amendment or not, you have to way until the docket has a space open.
Posted by Capped In Mic (Member # 709) on :
yeah, well i know that.. im just not happy about it
Posted by The Real Folk Blues (Member # 510) on :
i wouldn't be either. but at least you didn't get your right hand chopped off.
Posted by The Same Ultra Magnus (Member # 239) on :
Else you'd not be able to enjoy the fight between Seven of Nine, Princess Leia and that other girl from that other show, with the guys and those other guys.
Posted by The Real Folk Blues (Member # 510) on :
he could train with his left hand.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
This is a bit slow, but what on earth is "yellow journalism"?
Posted by Snay (Member # 411) on :
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)