Zionist Momentum and the War Crimes Issue in the United States, 1944–1945

2022 ◽  
pp. 24-68
Author(s):  
Beth Van Schaack

This chapter identifies three unfortunate gaps in the United States’ federal penal code: The United States lacks a crimes against humanity statute, the war crimes statute has a limited jurisdictional reach and does not conform to US obligations under the Geneva Conventions, and the code lacks express mention of superior responsibility. These gaps significantly hinder the reach of the United States’ prosecutorial authorities and have led to instances of impunity, and incomplete accountability, where perpetrators within US jurisdiction cannot be prosecuted for their substantive crimes and must be dealt with through immigration and other remedies. The chapter then evaluates various proposed amendments to Title 18, drawing upon previous bills, international criminal law, and other federal statutes. It closes by arguing that discrete statutory amendments would enable the United States to exercise leadership in atrocities prevention and response without increasing the risk that US personnel will be subjected to litigation overseas.


Itinerario ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 38 (1) ◽  
pp. 125-144
Author(s):  
David Fettling

On 17 April 1946, seven Australian war crimes investigators left the military perimeter British troops were maintaining around the city of Batavia and travelled into an anarchic, lawless Javanese hinterland, rife with different Indonesian revolutionary militants fighting the Dutch and each other. As they entered the kampong of Tjaringin, north of Bogor, automatic rifle fire hit their car. Two men died immediately; a third was found days later in a nearby ditch, shot in the back of the head. Amid outrage in the Australian press, External Affairs Minister H. V Evatt announced he was sending an Australian judge, Richard Kirby, to investigate the killings. This article analyses Kirby's trip to Indonesia and his approach to the task of locating and bringing to trial the murderers.Kirby's task was a microcosm of the challenge the West faced in responding to the nationalist uprisings that convulsed postwar Asia. Those uprisings, at times marked by violent antiforeign sentiment, raised for Western nations the spectre of permanent instability and anarchy impeding their interests and influence: O.S.S. officer Peter Dewey's murder in Vietnam the year before had similarly encapsulated this issue for the United States. Yet by the end of the 1940s, Western policymakers had for the most part moved from supporting formal colonialism to supporting the formation of independent states run by Asian nationalists. Australia's support for the Indonesian Republic in its struggle against Dutch rule was an early example of this shift. It so happened that Kirby's 1946 Java mission coincided with a period of backtracking in Australia's progressive attitude to the Indonesian question: indeed, Kirby's minister at times expressed qualms with Kirby's approach.


2019 ◽  
Vol 113 (3) ◽  
pp. 625-630

On April 4, 2019, the United States revoked the visa of Fatou Bensouda, the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC). This action occurred less than a month after Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced that, except to the extent otherwise required by the UN Headquarters Agreement, the United States would impose visa restrictions on “those individuals directly responsible for any ICC investigation of U.S. personnel.” In her preliminary investigation into the situation in Afghanistan, Bensouda had specifically listed war crimes by U.S. military and intelligence agencies as one of several categories of crimes that her office found reason to believe had occurred. Approximately one week after Bensouda's visa revocation, the ICC's Pre-Trial Chamber (PTC) denied her request to move forward with an investigation of the situation in Afghanistan.


2007 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
pp. 198-231
Author(s):  
Sarah Finnin

AbstractThis article provides a detailed update on the progress of the United States military commissions under the regime established by the Military Commissions Act of 2006 for the trial of detainees captured during the War on Terror for so-called war crimes. In particular, the author examines the plea and sentencing of Australian detainee David Hicks, the pre-trial developments in the case of Canadian detainee Omar Khadr, and the early litigation involving the detainees who have been dubbed the ‘September 11 co-conspirators’. The author also touches on the Supreme Court decision inHamdanv.Rumsfeld, some of the significant features of the Military Commission Act, the recent federal court litigation in the case ofBoumedienev.Bush, and the construction of the new military commission building at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base.


2021 ◽  
Vol 115 (1) ◽  
pp. 138-140

On September 2, 2020, the Trump administration announced that the United States had added the International Criminal Court (ICC) prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda, and the head of the Office of the Prosecutor's Jurisdiction, Complementarity, and Cooperation Division, Phakiso Mochochoko, to the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control List of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons. The action followed Executive Order 13,928, signed in June, which authorized economic sanctions and visa restrictions on ICC employees who are investigating whether U.S. forces committed war crimes in Afghanistan. Governments and human rights groups decried the sanctions as an attack on international justice.


2002 ◽  
Vol 5 ◽  
pp. 394-406 ◽  
Author(s):  
Luc Walleyn

Belgium was variously praised, criticized and ridiculed for its 1993 law (as amended in 1999) giving it universal jurisdiction over war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. The invocation of this law against Israeli and US defendants provoked an unprecedented conflict with Israel and serious tension with the United States of America in 2003. After months of diplomatic incidents, economic threats, provocative complaints and political debate, Belgium's controversial anti-atrocity law was repealed on 5 August 2003, ten years after entering into force. Even in the international legal community, real understanding of what happened in this legal laboratory is not common. This article is not a neutral study, but a contribution from an actor and a privileged witness.


2019 ◽  
Vol 113 (1) ◽  
pp. 169-173

On September 10, 2018, U.S. National Security Advisor John Bolton delivered an address fiercely criticizing the International Criminal Court (ICC). Bolton challenged the legitimacy of the ICC and expressed particular concern over its inquiry into potential war crimes committed by members of the U.S. military and intelligence agencies in Afghanistan. He identified retaliatory measures the United States would undertake if the ICC “comes after us, Israel or other U.S. allies.”


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document