Quote:
Originally posted by RUgreek
I still like Germany, but what's up with Belgium and other countries trying to circumvent diplomatic immunity? I don't recall the ICC prosecuting the US government for war crimes, so why would Germany want to get involved? Just doesn't make complete sense to me...unless it's all b.s. and a publicity stunt.
|
Its ironically to do with the strict laws regarding war-crimes and war-ciminals enshirined in German law following WWII... laws actually written up in this case by US & UK military lawyers involved with the Nuremburg trials - all part of giving the trials legitamacy under the joint allied legal system (or as it was known as later the United Nations) and under German law. So if Rumsfeld was charged, it would actually be under the 60 year old legal framework laid down to charge the Nazis...
As for diplomatic immunity... its legal applications are not as broad as the movies would have you think, and even Rummy did qualify it doesn't protect you from 'capital' crimes - such as war-crimes.
Finally the ICC... well the ICC is kinda like the Geneva Convention; it only applies to you if you are a signatory... but as we know Bush refused to sign on... but hey what do you expect considering the legal advice on international laws he's already been given? Off the top of my head I can recall Gonzales refering to the Geneva Convention as "quaint" and not applicable to the US.
Threaded Mode