#21 ·
Let me dig a little deeper into this. Take a look at Article 6 of the Security Council resolution:
Decides that nationals, current or former officials or personnel from a State outside the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya which is not a party to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court shall be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of that State for all alleged acts or omissions arising out of or related to operations in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya established or authorized by the Council, unless such exclusive jurisdiction has been expressly waived by the State.
The Obama administration dug its heels in—unconditionally, mind you—insisting that mercenary war criminals be shielded from outside prosecution. Why? Because they didn't want to put anyone in the line of fire. They were terrified that if they didn't protect themselves, officials from both the Bush and Obama administrations could end up facing war crimes charges at the international court on the exact same legal grounds used against Libyan mercenaries.
[T]he US insisted that the UN resolution was worded so that no one from an outside country that is not a member of the ICC could be prosecuted for their actions in Libya.
...
The whole thing was viewed as a calculated move to avoid setting a precedent where Americans might actually face prosecution by the ICC for alleged crimes in other conflicts...
Even some UN observers were stunned by this paragraph, though frankly, I don't see what's so shocking about it. It’s just classic Washington: using every ounce of diplomatic muscle available to dodge the very standards they demand everyone else live by, all while playing shield for their own potential war criminals. And let's be real, when I say "potential," I mean it.
Decides that nationals, current or former officials or personnel from a State outside the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya which is not a party to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court shall be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of that State for all alleged acts or omissions arising out of or related to operations in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya established or authorized by the Council, unless such exclusive jurisdiction has been expressly waived by the State.
The Obama administration dug its heels in—unconditionally, mind you—insisting that mercenary war criminals be shielded from outside prosecution. Why? Because they didn't want to put anyone in the line of fire. They were terrified that if they didn't protect themselves, officials from both the Bush and Obama administrations could end up facing war crimes charges at the international court on the exact same legal grounds used against Libyan mercenaries.
[T]he US insisted that the UN resolution was worded so that no one from an outside country that is not a member of the ICC could be prosecuted for their actions in Libya.
...
The whole thing was viewed as a calculated move to avoid setting a precedent where Americans might actually face prosecution by the ICC for alleged crimes in other conflicts...
Even some UN observers were stunned by this paragraph, though frankly, I don't see what's so shocking about it. It’s just classic Washington: using every ounce of diplomatic muscle available to dodge the very standards they demand everyone else live by, all while playing shield for their own potential war criminals. And let's be real, when I say "potential," I mean it.