Should the US Support the International Criminal Court?
Complete video at: http://fora.tv/2009/03/04/William_Zabel_and_the_Fight_for_Human_Rights
Lawyer and human rights advocate William Zabel claims the International Criminal court to be a “vital international organ for justice,” but admits that the United States is unlikely to sign the ICC treaty in the near future.
—–
New School President Bob Kerrey talks with William Zabel about his distinguished legal career, his work as chairman of Human Rights First, and his role in significant human rights cases, including the landmark Supreme Court decision which put an end to race-based bans on marriage.
William Zabel is chairman of Human Rights First (formerly the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights), a nonprofit international human rights organization. He has traveled the globe on Human Rights First’s behalf, including a 1986 trip to Chile, where he investigated cases involving those who were disappeared under the Pinochet regime. Zabel was a strong advocate for the creation of the International Criminal Court, and he helped support its growth as an effective forum for bringing human rights violators to justice. Zabel also played a key role in the landmark 1967 Supreme Court case Loving v. Virginia, in which the Court declared Virginia’s anti-miscegenation statute unconstitutional, effectively putting an end to race-based bans on marriage. Two years later, he was the lead lawyer in Weiss v. Gardner, where the Supreme Court held that a loyalty oath then required by Medicare was unconstitutional. Later, he signed the brief in Palmore v. Sidoti, in which the Supreme Court held that a white woman could not be stripped of custody of her child because she married an African American.
Bob Kerrey is president of The New School in New York City. For twelve years prior to becoming president of The New School, Bob Kerrey represented the State of Nebraska in the United States Senate. Before that he served as Nebraska’s governor for four years.
Duration : 0:3:36
Tags: against, court, courts, crimes, darfur, dictators, genocide, humanity, illegal, internationalism, law, legal, Military, National, nations, Obama, opposition, prosecute, sovereign, treaty, tried, try
January 27th, 2010 at 12:32 am
The evidence is the …
The evidence is the UN reports that were continually written identifying the types of WMD Saddam was attempting to produce and secret deals he had with rogue countries that were sending him the raw materials. Even your beloved Democrats believed it when Bubba’s numbers were tanking in light of the Paula Jones allegations. What hard evidence do you have that Oil companies literally paid the Bush administration for a war on Iraq. There’s plenty of oil in the world we don’t need to fight for.
January 27th, 2010 at 12:32 am
And one other thing …
And one other thing on your earlier comment: where did you hear about the ICC prosecuting “aggression against the environment”? To my knowledge, that is not within the ICC’s jurisdiction at all and it is not planning to incorporate it into its jurisdiction.
January 27th, 2010 at 12:32 am
The question should …
The question should be: what evidence is there that Bush started a war that was really necessary? If there is no such evidence, than he must have just felt like it. Or the oil companies paid him for it. Or Cheney forced him into it. Whatever other reason there might have been, it was not a legitimate one, because there we lack the evidence.
January 27th, 2010 at 12:32 am
Yeah I know, I hear …
Yeah I know, I hear that all the time. ‘Bush just felt like starting a war’. Do you have any evidence to back up this claim? We have circumstantial evidence that in ’98 Bill Clinton bombed Iraq since his deposition to a Grand Jury on the Paula Jones case was fast approaching and he needed to bumb up his popularity in the polls based on the nasty facts and damning evidence of that incident possibly becoming known to the public. What evidence is there that Bush just felt like starting a war?
January 27th, 2010 at 12:32 am
The US not …
The US not acknowledging the ICC is exemplary of their knowledge of their own war crimes. Must be embarrassing that the country that is so in love with itself for its ‘freedoms’ (since when is that word plural?) and is constantly nagging about it to other countries, is afraid of this court.
January 27th, 2010 at 12:32 am
‘If Obama has to …
‘If Obama has to take military action’
Bush never HAD TO take military action, he just started a war because he felt like it (aka ‘wrong intelligence’).
January 27th, 2010 at 12:32 am
No, well unless …
No, well unless Obama starts rounding up all the southern white people and whacking their arms off. Then Yes, but only after I lost an arm or a foot.
January 27th, 2010 at 12:32 am
No, well unless …
No, well unless Obama starts rounding up all the southern white people and whacking their arms off. Then Yes, but only after I lost an arm or a foot.
January 27th, 2010 at 12:32 am
William Zabel is a …
William Zabel is a far-left liberal whose law fir contributes to far-left Democrats such as John Edwards, a conniving trial lawyer who made millions abusing outrageous malpractice judgements. William Zable is most definitely ***NOT*** and impartial supporter of the ICC. Another leftist Democrat with an ax to grind.
January 27th, 2010 at 12:32 am
The American courts …
The American courts work just fine thank you. Things may move slow, but we don’t need another UN-style body telling us what to do legally. “aggression against the environment” – sorry, I find this extremist. Just another International body to muck up our legal system. Leftists are all giddy about the ICC because they think it’s an alternative way to go after Cheney. Trust me, if Obama has to take military action the ICC finds unjust, the very same libs will have second thoughts about the ICC
January 27th, 2010 at 12:32 am
how is it possible …
how is it possible that the americans don’t see that they’ll eventually be the ones telling ICC what to do? they can easily cover their own as they always have, and they get a free bonus excuse for invasion, which means less civil dissent (international consequences = nil as usual).
January 27th, 2010 at 12:32 am
If the …
If the international court will prosecute the bush family syndicate for genocide, theft, fraud, crimes against humanity, and psychotic manipution then please issue the warrant …the world gives them permission and get the red out of china too. I would recognize an international court before a global court, come clean out the congress, they wont listen to us anyway
January 27th, 2010 at 12:32 am
Hard to speak out …
Hard to speak out authoritatively against issues like Darfur when they won’t even sign up to international conventions like the ICC. As with other issues, like climate change, American influence in the world is weakened further.
January 27th, 2010 at 12:32 am
how can he point an …
how can he point an accusing finger at other countries yet in the the same breathe say that his own country is afraid of supporting the international courts for fear of being indited…..???!!!….that right there is double think!!!!
January 27th, 2010 at 12:32 am
was this chap Bob …
was this chap Bob Kerry a Viet Nam war criminal or am i confusing him with someone else?
~just a question that’s all
January 27th, 2010 at 12:32 am
He does not worry …
He does not worry about the American People but the military that may fall into war crimes because what our Leaders had them do. Our country is sick and all the stupid dumb in office need to be sent to prison. ALL OF THEM!! Why is it ok for them to try the American People for Internet Crime in a different Country because there so called laws? They dismiss our laws but want to take Americans to there country and put us in prison for so called internet crime of Hurt Feelings? Outrage!!