The term Invasion Act was introduced by Senator Leahy (Dem). During the amendment debate in the Senate in December 2001, Leahy wondered aloud:
"As a Congress do we want to authorize a military invasion of The Hague, risking the lives of United States military personnel, to free indicted war criminals?"
Jesse Helms, © Time Magazine
The man spinning the wheels: Karl Rove, politicizer par excellence and expert handler of weapons of mass-distraction
Macropus fuliginosus
The Invasion Act
On the 6th June this year, the US Senate adopted a bill that sanctions military intervention in the Netherlands. This provision is part of the so-called American Servicemembers' Protection Act (ASPA).
ASPA
The goal of this bill is to prohibit the President from co-operating with the International Criminal Court (ICC). In addition, this bill contains a range of measures against countries that co-operate with the Court and defines strict conditions for US participation in UN peacekeeping operations.But the most contentious section is the provision that allows the US President to use "all means necessary and appropriate" to free US citizens being held in custody by the Court. This provision led to the bill being informally referred to as the 'invasion act'.
History
The American Servicemembers' Protection Act is the result of years of lobbying against the International Criminal Court. Republican senator Jesse Helms (N. Carolina) and Congressman Tom Delay (Texas) have cast themselves as the political representatives of this strongly nationalist, conservative movement.Jesse Helms started work on an initial version of the ASPA as early as 1998, but the bill was not put before both Houses of Congress until May 2001. In December of that year, Helms managed to get the bill added as an amendment to the defence budget. During a muddled session in the last hours before the Christmas recess, the Senate adopted a limited version of the bill, which only prohibited US financial support for the International Criminal Court in 2002.
In May of 2001, the House of Representatives attached the bill to the Foreign Affairs budget. This comprehensive version — which contains the provision for using all means necessary to free suspects from the court's jurisdiction — was adopted by the Senate in June 2002.
On August 2nd 2002 the bill was signed by president Bush.
Rhetoric
It is important to realise that the draft bill consists mainly of rhetoric. In practice, the President already has far-reaching (and controversial) powers to protect US citizens abroad. The only important item the bill adds is that the President will in future be able to say that he is acting with the express authority of the Senate.This does not alter the fact that the draft bill contains highly bellicose language. Without batting an eyelid, it extends the war against terror to include international law. The sentiments are clear: The United States feel threatened by the big, bad, and most of all, untrustworthy, outside world. For this is what all American objections to the International Criminal Court eventually boil down to: they do not trust the international community one bit. And this distrust goes so far that they are threatening a loyal ally with a de facto war.
Kangaroo-court?
Opponents of the ICC believe that US military and security staff defending US interests abroad may, wrongfully, end up facing an unreliable, politically motivated, unaccountable 'kangaroo court'.This fear is unjustified, and results from a deep ignorance of the actual authority of the ICC. For there are, in fact, many guarantees in place making it almost inconceivable that US citizens would be tried without cause.
The jurisdiction of the court is extremely narrowly defined, for example: it will only try cases of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. In all cases, there must be clear evidence for specific intent and premeditated plans for committing these crimes. So the Court will most certainly never try incidental or individual cases of (war) atrocities.
The ICC is also explicitly complementary. In other words, the Court will only pursue cases when the state with jurisdiction over the suspect is either incapable or unwilling to apply justice of its own accord. This means that the Court will actually have less authority than the Yugoslavia and Rwanda Tribunals.
Furthermore, the Court is not unaccountable at all. In point of fact, the UN Security Council can prevent a case from being brought before the International Criminal Court. In addition, the independent prosecutor must also present their case to three judges.
Invasion
The ASAP is the result of intangible fears combined with a stubborn refusal to understand, resulting in an (un)conscious distortion of reality. It is this explosive mix of ignorance and vague emotions that make this bill so dangerous. The bill is not contemptible because it calls for an invasion of the Netherlands. No, this bill should be resisted with appropriate means because there is nothing to it but war rhetoric.
More on the Invasion Act:
- Text ASPA bill (pdf-format 66KB)
- Politics vs. justice in The Hague (Int. Herald Tribune)
