[Tezcatlipoca]

Originally Posted by Defiant

http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0...135099,00.html


I think we all know why he's trying this on with Britain and not the US. Everyone knows were the softest country in the world now. I do think its funny that it just happens to be a French lawyer too

Although this lawyer is apparently going to represent Saddam in his war crimes trial in Iraq, the story does not actually say that the lawyer is suing the UK on behalf of Saddam - the story says:

Saddam Hussein's lawyer is set to file a suit for war crimes against Britain at the International Criminal Court in The Hague.

Veteran French lawyer Jacques Verges says the lawsuit is on behalf of "the families of prisoners of the coalition in which Britain participates".

So, he does not appear to be doing this for Saddam - he just happens to also be Saddams lawyer (well, he claims to be. Others have also said they are going to represent Saddam.).

So it isn't really a case of "Saddam to sue UK" as far as I can tell. (Plus the actual story is titled "Saddam lawyer to sue UK" and not "Saddam to sue UK".)

IMO, this guy is probably just doing this for publicity.


Also, this will not be the first time that someone has attempted to go after the UK for war crimes - & it probably will not be the last.

IIRC, there was at least one other case recently where someone was trying to get the UK done for war crimes at the ICC.

Plus, the ICC only has jurisdiction if the accused country has made no effort to investigate (& if necessary prosecute) the allegations itself. So if the UK carried out its own investigation/inquiry/whatever then it would be safe from the same charges being brought at the ICC.


From: http://www.asil.org/insights/insigh86.htm

In particular, the Court may act only when national systems are unable or unwilling to carry out investigations or prosecutions of the crimes within the Courtââ‚ƚ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s jurisdiction. Thus, even after establishment of the International Criminal Court, States will remain primarily responsible for the investigation and prosecution of international crimes.

And we already know that the Government has said that the prisoner abuse allegations etc *are* being investigated. Plus, from the Sky story:

The military is currently compiling courts martial cases.

So I think the UK is most likely safe from this lawyer's attempt to sue it.

Originally Posted by towny

I don't think they have been granted anything, they just refuse to accept the authority of a permanent War Crimes court as they feared they would fall victim to politically-motivated prosecutions.

I wonder if there is another reason why they won't accept the authority of a war crimes court?

Originally Posted by downquark1

Would that explain why we are being sued and not the US? I would have thought the evidence against them would be stronger.

According to this they have or did have immunity: http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/...974968,00.html

The US signed the treaty setting up the ICC, in the last days of the Clinton Administration.

However, the Bush Administration, in power soon after, plus the Republican-dominated Congress, were vehemently opposed to the ICC - and consequently the ICC treaty was never ratified by the US.

But, although the US never ratified the treaty, it still came into force in July 2002 once the 60th nation had ratified it - which meant that the US would have been under its jurisdiction anyway, despite not ratifying it itself.

And so the US subsequently used threats & bribery to obtain itself immunity from the ICC (as per the story link downquark posted) - immunity for its peacekeepers via a UN Security Council resolution, & immunity from various other countries via bilateral deals.

So the US is safe from the ICC with respect to anything it does in Iraq: because a) the US has got immunity and b) Iraq never even signed the Treaty, let alone ratified it.