A reader recently sent us an email that had a meandering --
but strongly critical -- message of opposition to President Barack
Obama.
The email, which can be read in its entirety
here, urges veterans and their families to vote in the 2014 midterm elections in order to send Obama a message. Here are excerpts:
"The President, the Commander in Chief,
has made the Rules of Engagement (ROE) so difficult, that our troops are
often killed before they can even get permission to fight. Nothing has
been done to stop our troops from being murdered by the Afghanis they
are training, either.
"Now, the President wants the US to sign
on to the UNs International Criminal Court (ICC), which would allow the
UN's ICC to arrest and try US troops for War Crimes, without the legal
protections guaranteed under US Law, and from which there is no appeal.
The President, with his Democratic control of the Senate, has nearly all
the power. If the Non-Establishment Republicans, and Conservatives, can
take back the Senate in 2014, our troops can once again be protected
from unnecessary danger. Please consider this, and send it on to your
mailing lists."
We will be checking a few claims from this email, but in this report,
we’ll look at the claim that "the President wants the U.S. to sign on
to the U.N.’s International Criminal Court."
First, some background on the International Criminal Court and its relationship to the United States.
The ICC is a permanent, independent court headquartered in the Hague
that investigates and brings to justice individuals who commit war
crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide, according to the
Congressional Research Service.
Cases may be referred to the ICC either by a member state, the court’s
own prosecutor, or the U.N. Security Council. The court only
investigates or prosecutes serious crimes by individuals (not
organizations or governments), and then, only when national judicial
systems are unwilling or unable to handle them.
The court’s founding document, known as the Rome Statute, entered into force on July 1, 2002. So far, 122 nations have become
members
of the court. But while the United States signed the Rome Statute under
President Bill Clinton in 2000, it has not moved on to ratification --
the step that would make membership official.
This position is intentional. Under President George W. Bush, the
United States actually went so far as to "un-sign" the Rome Statute. The
reasons included concerns that the court could exercise jurisdiction
over U.S. citizens or military officials, as well as a perceived lack of
checks and balances on court pursuits.
More recently, United States opposition has softened -- within limits.
In 2008, the United States decided not to veto a Security Council
resolution to refer a case from the Darfur region of Sudan. Then, when
Obama took office, it
began attending
sessions as an "observer" nation in 2009. In January 2010, a Justice
Department review found that "informational" support for "particular
investigations or prosecutions" would be legal under laws passed under
Bush.
In theory, the Obama administration could choose to seek Senate
ratification. But even if it did, experts say, the administration’s
ability to win the 67 votes in the Senate is almost nonexistent, given
the extent of lingering concern about U.S. membership in the court.
"President Obama has made no indication that he ‘wants the U.S. to
sign on to the U.N.’s International Criminal Court,’" said Steven
Groves, a senior research fellow at the conservative Heritage
Foundation. "Since everyone knows such a transmittal would be dead on
arrival, the likelihood that the president would do so before the end of
his term is negligible, if not zero."
Steven R. Ratner, a University of Michigan law professor who
specializes in international law, agrees, calling the email’s claim
"completely wrong."
"Although the U.S. is no longer actively opposed to the court's
existence and operation, as was the Bush administration, the Obama
administration has no intention of submitting the ICC statute to the
Senate," Ratner said.
In other words, the email is wrong to claim that Obama, "with his
Democratic control of the Senate, has nearly all the power." All Obama
could theoretically do is ask for Senate support. Even if the Democrats
had 67 votes -- which they don’t -- ratification for this particular
agreement would be an uphill battle.
We should add that the email has some other misleading elements about
the court, such as when it says the court can "arrest and try U.S.
troops for War Crimes, without the legal protections guaranteed under
U.S. Law, and from which there is no appeal."
While the ICC can issue "arrest warrants," it cannot enforce them.
The ICC "cannot ‘arrest’ anyone -- it has no police power whatsoever,"
said Georgetown University professor of government and foreign service
Anthony Clark Arend. Instead, it has to rely on its member states to do
so, and "a state would not want to cooperate with the ICC if it sought
arrest based on trumped-up charges," Ratner said.
Ratner added that, contrary to the email’s claim about weak legal
protections, the ICC procedures are "generally on par with U.S. law,
with small exceptions such as trial by judges rather than a jury, and
looser rules for admission of evidence."
Our ruling
The chain email says Obama "wants the U.S. to sign on to the U.N.’s
International Criminal Court." While the Obama administration has been
more willing to engage with the court than the Bush administration,
which was strongly opposed to cooperating, Obama has made no sign that
he wants to become a full-blown member of the court. Even if he did,
doing so would require 67 votes in the Senate, making it essentially a
nonstarter. We rate the claim False.
," Feb. 18, 2013
Email interview with Steven R. Ratner, University of Michigan law professor, April 24, 2014
Email interview with Steven Groves, senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation, April 24, 2014
Email interview with Brett Schaefer, senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation, April 24, 2014
Email interview with Anthony Clark Arend, Georgetown University professor of government and foreign service, April 24, 2014
Five new judges of the International Criminal Court were sworn in on March 9, 2012. (ICC photo)
