Election night, Kenya, 2007. The votes roll in, and at some time around 11pm, as victory seemed imminent for the opposition candidate, all televisions in the country went black. When broadcasts resumed in the morning, the incumbent had materialized enough votes to soundly win the election. In the aftermath, a wave of violence broke out in which some 1,300 people were killed. In opposition to a domestic investigation of the violence, Kenyan MP's chanted 'Don't be vague; go to the Hague!' Now, three years later, some officials are a bit less enthusiastic. A series of articles on the ICC investigation of political violence in Kenya: I II III IV [more inside]
posted by kaibutsu on Dec 15, 2010 - 5 comments

How the world's campaign to stop a genocide created a quagmire. (Print version.)
posted by andoatnp on Jan 2, 2010 - 10 comments

Jacques Vergès has defended Milosevic, Carlos The Jackal, Saddam Hussein and nazi Klaus Barbie (you know, with with the one with the museum) in court. What kind person does it take to do that, and why? [more inside]
posted by smoke on Aug 30, 2009 - 29 comments

Donald Rumsfeld: The War Crimes Case and TIME: A lawsuit to be filed on Nov. 14th in Germany will seek a criminal prosecution of the outgoing Defense Secretary and other U.S. officials for their alleged role in abuses at Abu Ghraib and Gitmo. Lawyers for the plaintiffs say that one of the witnesses who will testify on their behalf is former Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski, the one-time commander of all U.S. military prisons in Iraq. Karpinski… has issued a written statement to accompany the legal filing, which says, in part: “It was clear the knowledge and responsibility [for what happened at Abu Ghraib] goes all the way to the top of the chain of command to the Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld ”. . . . Rumsfeld's resignation, they say, means that the former Defense Secretary will lose the legal immunity usually accorded high government officials. Previously: Chain of Command, (May 9, 2004); Interview with Abu Ghraib general, (November 8, 2005)
posted by spock on Nov 11, 2006 - 67 comments

Article 98. From 1995 through 2000, the U.S. government supported the establishment of an International Criminal Court. In 2001, the Bush Administration ended US participation in ICC meetings and, on 6 May 2002, officially nullified the previous signature of the Rome Statute. [more inside]
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken on Dec 16, 2003 - 32 comments

The United States is cutting off military aid to 35 countries, including Colombia and six east European nations, because they back the International Criminal Court and have not exempted Americans from possible prosecution.
"...the Bush administration is afraid the tribunal in The Hague, Netherlands, backed by most European countries, might hear politically motivated prosecutions of U.S. military and civilian leaders."
posted by jonvaughan on Jul 2, 2003 - 56 comments

Hussein claims to be "pleased" as the ICC names its prosecutor. Surely it's only a matter of time before they attempt to try Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld & co. as well? Blair might well escape prosecution this time (he was only obeying orders) but who will come out looking the worst once the international jury is in? [more inside]
posted by cbrody on Apr 1, 2003 - 5 comments

That other great bone of transatlantic contention, the International Criminal Court, was finally born today. Dead at birth, or a source of hope for victims??
posted by Doozer on Mar 11, 2003 - 36 comments

U.S. Declares Itself Above the Law. Powell says that a groundbreaking United Nations International Criminal Court would be harmful towards maintaining U.S. military action. But what does skipping out on such niceties as genocide and human rights abuses say to the rest of the world about accountability in Washington? Discuss.
posted by ed on May 6, 2002 - 87 comments