Re: {UAH} Uganda is right to question the International Criminal Court By Beti Kamya-Turwomwe

Hannah,



Read this:



The ICC might or might not work in one's favour depending on the USA /

Israel's interests of the day. It is, therefore, shortsighted to

subject our quest for justice to such external whims. Instead of

defending or criticising the ICC, we should discuss how to build our

own credible judicial system, accountable to Ugandans, rather than to

the vagaries of USA / Israel foreign policy, channeled through the

ICC.





Betty Kamya is posturing on what she has the faintest idea about.

This is what saddens me about the quality of the so-called leaders we

have in Uganda. They are just an embarrasment. They are never

detrerred from jumping into a debate on a subject on which they have

no clue.They just rush gung-ho and pour out innanities and drivel,

hoping that no one will notice. It reminds me of Museveni's article on

marxism, recently posted here, on which I commented . Again there,

Museveni, rather stupidly, attempts to dicuss complex issues of

philosophy, a subject he is awfully ill-equipped to handle, and which

moreover requires a higher degree of intellectual ability than he

possesses.



George Okello





On 11/13/13, Hannah Ogwapiti <hannahogwapiti@googlemail.com> wrote:

> Uganda is right to question the International Criminal Court

> By Beti Kamya-Turwomwe

>

> It is a pity that the average debate on whether or not Uganda should pull

> out of the International Criminal Court (ICC), like most debates in Uganda,

> is politically partisan rather than objective!

>

> The ICC was conceptualised as a court of last resort and enacted under the

> Rome Statute to investigate and prosecute crimes against humanity, where

> States are unable or unwilling to do so through their own judicial systems.

> While the ICC spirit is commendable for "standing up to Goliath", it should

> never replace the need to build credible national judicial systems, for the

> simple reason that by its very nature (of being accountable to 122 member

> states, each with its own interests), the ICC is vulnerable to political

> pressures. Indeed, it is for that reason that the USA, Israel and China

> pulled out of the ICC.

>

> Israel fears the "inevitable political pressure on the ICC…, and believes

> the geographical appointment of judges would disadvantage her…"

> The USA argues that (i) the ICC is a political court without Appeal, it

> would deny USA citizens their right of appeal - that offends the USA

> Constitution, (ii) submitting to the ICC would be tantamount to cession of

> judicial authority to another body other than the USA Supreme Court, which

> is unconstitutional.

> Contrary to the ICC spirit, the USA (i) passed the American Service members

> Protection Act, (dubbed "The Hague Invasion Act"), which provides for

> immunity from prosecution, of American soldiers, outside USA jurisdiction,

> when they commit crimes during war (ii) signed Bilateral Immunity

> Agreements with 101 of the 122 ICC Member States, prohibiting the surrender

> to the ICC by those States, of any USA national, (iii) threatened to veto

> renewal of all UN peacekeeping missions unless her troops were granted

> immunity from ICC.

>

> So Americans can go anywhere, terrorise the world and go home safe and

> sound, under the cover of the Bilateral Immunity Agreements that protects

> them from the ICC, yet the ICC is the court of last resort!

>

> But when it is convenient, the USA can use her seat and veto power on the

> UN Security Council to refer other nationals to the ICC, an institution she

> snubbed!

>

> China's concern, among other things, is that the ICC prosecutor's immense

> power under the Rome Statute, plus the "open cheque" to determine the

> various nation's ability or willingness to conduct free trials make him /

> her vulnerable to political influence.

>

> China's fears came to pass when Sudan's President Omar el Bashir was

> referred to the ICC for investigation by the UN Security Council, although

> Sudan is not a signatory to the Rome Statute. Clearly, the UN Security

> Council does not rate as crime-against-humanity enough to refer to the ICC,

> the consequences of former US President Bush and UK Prime Minister Tony

> Blair's lies about the elusive weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the

> invasion of Libya, the civil war in Syria, or the atrocities meted against

> Palestinians by Israel.

>

> But when Kenyans were trying to put their past behind them and elect a new

> government under a new Constitution, the West would not let them, with

> their threats of "decisions have consequences…" China can rest her case.

> Surely, are these not reasons enough (there are scores more but for lack of

> space!) for Uganda to question to whom the ICC is accountable, and demand a

> review of the Rome Statue?

>

> The ICC might or might not work in one's favour depending on the USA /

> Israel's interests of the day. It is, therefore, shortsighted to subject

> our quest for justice to such external whims. Instead of defending or

> criticising the ICC, we should discuss how to build our own credible

> judicial system, accountable to Ugandans, rather than to the vagaries of

> USA / Israel foreign policy, channeled through the ICC.

>

> Ms Kamya is the president, Uganda Federal Alliance. ufapresident@gmail.com

>

> --

> *H.OGWAPITI*

> -----------------------------------------------------

> *"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we

> are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and

> servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." *

> ---Theodore Roosevelt

>