The US and the ICC (by CP)

vs.

The ICC

The summary in the Wikipedia on the International Criminal Court (ICC) is excellent and there is no point in reformulating it:

"The International Criminal Court (ICC or ICCt) is an intergovernmental organization and international tribunal that sits in The Hague in the Netherlands. The ICC has the jurisdiction to prosecute individuals for the international crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. The ICC is intended to complement existing national judicial systems and it may therefore only exercise its jurisdiction when certain conditions are met, such as when national courts are unwilling or unable to prosecute criminals or when the United Nations Security Council or individual states refer investigations to the Court."

Emphasis mine. Important for this post is that ICC jurisdiction is by definition a surrogate for national jurisdiction.

The US withdrawal from the ICC

The US withdrew from the ICC on May 7, 2002. The US argued it needed to withdraw from the ICC for the following reasons:

• The ICC would not allow for a satisfactory protection of rights when compared to US law.
  
  
• The US alleged lack of adequate checks and balances on the powers of ICC prosecutors and judges.
  
  
• The US added that the treaty dilutes the U.N. Security Council's authority over international criminal prosecutions.
  
  
• The US argued that under the treaty US service members and officials could be charged with war crimes as a political move by other nations.
   
  
• The ICC could attempt to assert jurisdiction over US service members, as well as civilians, involved in counter terrorist and other military operations in the war on terrorism.

The argument that the ICC would not allow for a satisfactory protection of rights when compared to US law does not appear to hold water.

David Scheffer led the US negotiation team at Rome and stressed that during the negotiations the US put great emphasis on the convention meeting the standards of US constitutional tests and expressed confidence at that the US in this succeeded.

ASPA, or The Hague Invasion Act

Congress then enacted the American Service-Members Protection Act (ASPA), which was signed into force by George W. Bush on August 2, 2002. APSA's goal it was to:

"protect United States military personnel and other elected and appointed officials of the United States government against criminal prosecution by an international criminal court to which the United States is not party."

ASPA's language is indicative of the exhuberantly aggressive US mood at the time, given that it called to use

"all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release of any US or allied personnel being detained or imprisoned by, on behalf of, or at the request of the International Criminal Court".

It got nicknamed The Hague Invasion Act, because the freeing of US citizens from the ICC by force would be possible only through an invasion of The Hague, Netherlands, the seat of the ICC, several other international courts and of the Dutch government. Given that that would constitute the crime of aggression, against a NATO ally no less, one can fairly call that excessive.

To the best of my knowledge, hope and change notwithstanding, that law is still in force.

However, more relevant here is that, practically, the act prohibits federal, state and local governments and agencies (including courts and law enforcement agencies) from assisting the ICC and the act also prohibits U.S. military aid to countries that are party to the court.

The act makes exceptions for aid to NATO members, major non-NATO allies, Taiwan, and countries that have entered into "Article 98 agreements", or bilateral immunity agreements (BIA).

The BIA

ASPA was issued with a goal in mind, and the US made their decision to stay out of the ICC abundantly clear by strong arming into existence (using, as mandated by ASPA, threats to cut off aid, military aid, loans etc pp) BIA as the main effort of the Bush administration's hostile approach to the ICC. Speaking of hostility, the State Department group negotiating the BIA was led by John Bolton.

The list of BIA signatories [PDF] is made up of the obvious clients and the who's who of the third world. Notably absent is the EU. We will get to that.

http://www.amicc.org/usicc/biacampaign

http://www.law.georgetown.edu/library/research/guides/article_98.cfm

http://www.iccnow.org/documents/CICCFS_BIAstatus_current.pdf  [PDF]

On the face of it, BIA are a straightforward answer to the perceived problem of exposing US servicemen and officials to extradition and prosecution under the Rome Statute.

But then, they would be a straightforward answer if not the legal reasoning in the BIA left something to be desired: They are not reconcilable with the treaty. To explain: The norm BIA are based on is Article 98(2) of the ICC's Rome Statute (Text):

Article 98
Cooperation with respect to waiver of immunity and consent to surrender

1. The Court may not proceed with a request for surrender or assistance which would require the requested State to act inconsistently with its obligations under international law with respect to the State or diplomatic immunity of a person or property of a third State, unless the Court can first obtain the cooperation of that third State for the waiver of the immunity.

2. The Court may not proceed with a request for surrender which would require the requested State to act inconsistently with its obligations under international agreements pursuant to which the consent of a sending State is required to surrender a person of that State to the Court, unless the Court can first obtain the cooperation of the sending State for the giving of consent for the surrender.

Here's David Sheffer, the US chief negotiator for the Rome Statute, on 'America's original intent' on Art 98(2) [PDF]:

"The agreements were not intended to cover individuals acting abroad in a private capacity or independently for foreign government or international organization purposes. Indeed, in contributing to the drafting of that provision of the Statute, the US delegation did not seek to protect the entire body of US nationals, such as the many US nationals who are engaged outside the United States as humanitarian aid workers, as journalists, as staff of the UN or intergovernmental relief agencies, as representatives of NGOs, as expatriate employees of private companies, or as tourists.

In contrast, the bilateral non-surrender agreements negotiated by the current US Administration are intended to cover not only current or former government officials, government employees (including contractors), and military personnel, but also all US nationals, including those acting in a strictly private capacity."

Article 98(2) explicitly requires the existence of a "sending state" relationship. The US assertion in the BIA that they cover all US nationals has no basis in the text. Tourists or businessmen don't have a 'sending state'.

The following remarks by ICCnow make the genesis of Article 98(2) clearer still:

Article 98(2) was drafted by the US out of the concerns of many states that their existing obligations under surrender agreements, especially SOFAs and SOMAs, could conflict with their obligation to cooperate with the ICC. Therefore, parallel to Article 98(1), which addresses conflicts between the Rome Statute and diplomatic immunity, Article 98(2) was developed to resolve potential conflicts in other kinds of situations where individuals have entered a state's territory on official US business, whether pursuant to a SOFA, SOMA, or perhaps even an extradition agreement.

i.e. the Bushmen essentially tried to rewrite Article 98(2) with the assertion that it covers all US persons, without basis in the treaty, and very much cognizant of that fact.

EU attitudes and reactions to the US withdrawal

In reaction to the US campaign against the ICC, the European Union adopted a framework of Guiding Principles concerning Arrangements between a State Party to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and the United States Regarding the Conditions to Surrender of Persons to the Court [PDF]. Excerpt:

- Existing agreements: Existing international agreements, in particular between an ICC State Party and the United States, should be taken into account, such as Status of Forces Agreements and agreements on legal cooperation on criminal matters, including extradition;

- The US proposed agreements: Entering into US agreements – as presently drafted – would be inconsistent with ICC States Parties’ obligations with regard to the ICC Statute and may be inconsistent with other international agreements to which ICC States Parties are Parties;

- No impunity: any solution should include appropriate operative provisions ensuring that persons who have committed crimes falling within the jurisdiction of the Court do not enjoy impunity. Such provisions should ensure appropriate investigation and – where there is sufficient evidence - prosecution by national jurisdictions concerning persons requested by the ICC;

The boldened, colourful part probably accounts for the notable absence of EU member states among the signatories of BIA with the US. The EU said in polite terms that they would not breach their obligations under the Rome statute to accommodate the US in the US desire to protect from prosecution, say, torturers. In doing so informally, they also left  member states some wiggle room just in case US pressure on them individually became too great to resist.

Remarkably, in this instance the very intense US pressure as much as the abrasive style of the period caused considerable resentment, stiffening European positions.

The EU and law

For once the EU's position came close to a principled one. And if one looks at the EU, this shouldn't come as a surprise, as acceptance of the US position would have run counter to European self-conceptions.

One has to be clear that joining the EU, just like joining the ICC, means submission under the jurisdiction of the body or statute so joined. The EU has no coercive authority. In order for the EU to work, it is completely dependent on law and respect for the law and its court rulings in the member states. An independent court, the European Court of Justice (ECJ), is in the EU the means of choice to enforce adherence to European law irrespective of domestic and utilitarian political considerations.

While the principle of   pacta sunt servanda   obliges states to adhere to their treaty obligations, courts assure it irrespective of domestic political convenience or expediency. In that light, the ICJ is something rather natural, and 'just another court' with a special responsibility.

Timing of US withdrawal from the ICC

The US withdrawal from the ICC didn't just happen one day. It took place in a political environment, namely th US Global War on Terror. For context I propose this brief, simplified time line:

• The US left the ICC on May 7, 2002.
  
  
• US attorney general Alberto 'I don't recall' Gonzales signed (it was prepared by Jay Bybee) the memo "Standards of Conduct for Interrogation under 18 U.S.C. sections 2340-2340A" on August 1, 2002. This is the first of the torture memos.
  
  
• The CIA used waterboarding on Abu Zubaydah 83 times in August 2002.

In terms of timing the US ICC exit happened about just when America's torture program was gathering steam. Shamed be he who thinks ill of it.

Musing on motives

Both the ICC exit and the BIA leave the strong impression of a comprehensive strategy to pre-emptively deal with the predictable effects of what they knew would be judged to be violations of international law - things like torture.

Coming back to the initial point that ICC jurisdiction is meant to be a surrogate for national jurisdiction - all parties to the convention have obliged themselves, as they have under various previous treaties, to prosecute torturers and war criminals.

For me, it suggests a simple reasoning on part of the Bushmen; they had the US leave the ICC because

1. they did want to engage in the activities the ICC is tasked with prosecuting (namely torture),
2. it didn't want to prosecute that and
3. they certainly didn't want the ICC to fill in in their stead.

The preparation of a legal defence from the onset underlines that.

It also indicates that the Bushmen knew full well that their assertions were not just a 'different (novel) reading of the law' on their part but that the own legal reasoning was flawed and predictably unpersuasive beyond the US, and secondly and more importantly, it suggests full intent about it.

PS: The Clinton and Obama administration's attitudes towards the ICC

In fairness to the Bushmen, American ambivalence about the ICC predates the Bush administration. The Clinton administration before them had an ambivalent attitude also, and was also pretty much unwilling to accept a court which's jurisdiction was independent of the UN Security Council (read: in which the US wouldn't have a veto). However, they chose to engage in the negotiations to shape it to become more palatable to US interests. And doing that, the US didn't hesitate in throwing their weight around, threatening repeatedly to leave the negotiations if they wouldn't get their way.

In light of that it is nothing short of duplicitous that Clinton signed the Rome Statute at the 11th hour, only to then recommend that the Senate not ratify the treaty. Try reconciling that with the idea of pacta sunt servanda.

http://www.iccnow.org/documents/USClintonSigning31Dec00.pdf [PDF]

I see the attitudes in the Obama administration as a return to Clinton's approach and as a cut with the hostility of the Bushmen.

The Obama Administration has stated its intent to cooperate with the ICC and started to reengage the ICC. They will do that without committing themselves to anything. The Obama Administration has made no formal policy decision yet on the ICC or the status of the BIAs. Likewise the Obama administration has not stated an intention to rejoin the Rome Statute or submit the treaty to Senate ratification. With a Republican controlled congress that is unlikely to change in the next two years.

 Links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_the_International_Criminal_Court

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_the_International_Criminal_Court#Article_98_Agreements

http://www.amicc.org/docs/Scheffer%20Article98.pdf [PDF]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Protection_Act

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture_Memos

Comments

[Aka]

sir,
if US governments (present and future) aren't ready to follow the rulings of ICC or if they are hoping not to follow a unfavorable ruling, then US should not join ICC.

That would just create a embarrassing situation if US choose the ignore ICC after joining it.

[confusedponderer]

The point is that, since the US want to protect Israel, and that is established US policy, they cannot choose to ignore the ICC. Revived US interest is IMO due to Palestine potentially joining the ICC.

The US 'being there without being a member' can shape outcomes in that regard in ways an absent US cannot. IMO that's what the Obamaites will try.

There is latent deterrent in the mere the existence of the ICC and the sope of its subsidiary jurisdiction. Call it a 'court in being'.

The point that the Palestinians want to enter and that the US maneuver to shape the court suggest that there now is a view in DC that the ICC cannot be ignored.

And inded: It isn't really as if attacking and raiding a NATO ally over an American in the dock at the Hague (seat of the ICC) is a viable option for people other than raving lunatics in the mold of Dick Cheney and John Bolton.

Also, considering the US torture program, American actors engaged in the program are likewise exposed to the court. If they travel abroad into ICC-land they risk getting arrested.

Here the same reasoning about US options applies.

The US is not happy about the ICC. Bush, with particular fervour, blocked the court totally. IMO Obama will try the same, albeit in a 'clever and smart' way that just doesn't look as coarse without much difference in substance.

[crf]

Honi soit qui mal y pense

Wouldn't that be a great motto to place in wrought iron at the gates into Gitmo?

[confusedponderer]

What about "the truth shall make you free"? That's meant to be more orwellian than cynical.

For one it is part of a CIA motto - and is it not apt for an interrogation & torture facility?

[William R. Cumming]

P.L> A great post and very informative. The ICC IMO is part of the anticipated fallout from the post-WWII Nuremberg Trials. The writings of Teleford Taylor are relevant.

And if memory lapses try watching now [perhaps again] JUDGEMENT AT NUREMBERG with Maxmillian Schell and Spencer Tracey [1961]! Of all the German FRG officers I met while on active duty in the FRG from 1968-1970 none had seen it.

But there was a mandatory formation every July in FRG military units commorating the July 1944 attempt to assassinate Hitler.

[BabelFish]

How about 'To you who enter this house of lamentations, abandon all hope!' Self generated but, given the history of Gitmo prisoners, it feels right.

[kao_hsien_chih]

I think the problems associated with ICC is threefold:

First, no matter what the legalists might insist, ICC is, like all judiciaries, a fundamentally political body that operates on the basis of the interactions among its members. From the US perspective, this quickly becomes a "damned if you do, damned if you don't situation," as reflected in CP's point above. If US does not join in, we shall have no (direct) influence in its inner workings because we are not a member. If US does join in, our influence will be limited because we shall be only one member among many in a body that putatively operates on the basis of equality among its members (unlike, say, IMF or UN that allow some members to be "special"--and we have trouble enough with UN given our disputes with other "special" members.)

Second, for what it is worth, ICC is an organization that is respected among many people in many parts of the world. Its actions and decisions, whether one likes them or not (I personally don't--it strikes me as a sort of "colonialist" body that seeks to impose self-important Western interverntionist morality where it doesn't belong.) While US or Israel, having no formal legal obligations to it (as non state-parties), cannot simply ignore them if we want to keep using the rhetoric of self-important Western interventionist morality, as Clinton, GWB, and Obama have been eager to.

Third, related to both problems above, is that we are not really trusted by many people around the world. We might say that it's their problem and none of our business, but it does matter if we do keep insisting on using the lingo of self-important Western interventionist morality to justify our actions, but we don't subscribe to the international consensus on what this self-important Western interventionist morality is, embodied in the workings of the ICC. We wind up being a rogue superpower, with our actions justified only by our self-claimed sense of morality, which often seems erratic and overly convenient, and power, which cannot be readily checked.

The solution to all these might just be to quit the pretense of bothering with this self-important Western interventionist morality. Let the world be what it is and keep doing what it does and not try to impose "western" values on them. If we have nothing to do with such nonsense, we have no obligation to give pretense of paying it even de forma lip service through ICC or whatever. But our "internationalist" leaders love such things and we have trouble ridding ourselves of such entanglements.

[confusedponderer]

"Important for this post is that ICC jurisdiction is by definition a surrogate for national jurisdiction."

As clarification: Assuming the US had an interest in living up to their treaty obligations under the convention against torture (CAT), they could just prosecute the culprits in the Bush administration for their crimes.

The Bushmen were just unwilling to prosecute themselves into jail, denying loudly if implausibly that whatever they did was not criminal (and many Americans continue to believe them).

It is felt by the Obamaites to not be politically feasible to prosecute the Bushmen since then the R's would go full bore bonkers.

So, it is by now abundandly clear to even the really slow kids that the US is unwilling to prosecute the acts of torture that took place during the Bush era.

It is only because of this circumstance that the ICC's surrogate jurisdiction kicks in and that the ICC may accept cases involving some of the culprits.

i.e. the US had it in their hand to avoid that from happening, but to do so they'd had to eat crow domestically, and they are unwilling to do that.

[confusedponderer]

On the other hand, what's the problem of committing the US to maxims like 'we don't torture' and lend out surrogate jurisdiction for such cases to an international court just to show they are serious about it?

The US pushes such agreements with various commitments and international courts on the world every forthnight when it gets to matters of trade.

[Charles I]

Surely a huge elephant in the room is the drone campaign.

[confusedponderer]

Sure. It is a serial violation of national sovereighty of the targeted states.

The US (yes we can!) in this are blissfully oblivious the the fact that the precedent they are so setting will not only be emulated by others, but may be used against the US itself.

It's mindless and shortsighted.

[turcopolier]

Dr. Michael Brenner comments:

"This is an out of context comment re. Paris. There is some pertinent information that has come my way that seems worth sharing - and I was unsure when we might get back to the subject.

I've had the opportunity to speak to two very knowledgeable people in France who have first-hand or reliable second-hand information about what went down two weeks ago and the background.

1. As to the supposed intelligence failure. The Kourachi brothers were on a short list of potential terrorists that earned them close attention. They were tracked 24/7 for three years. The reason for its discontinuance last spring was due to an administrative foul-up. The organization set-up there involves close working relationships between national intelligence agencies and local ones. The Paris prefecture is supposedly top-notch. It dates back to Louis XIV and Colbert). The Paris people collaborate routinely with the police of the ring of near suburbs that surround Paris - meeting face-to-face. Last spring the Kourachis moved from the 19th arrondisement to one of those suburbs. The Paris authorities informed the police there of the monitoring record up to the date they left and the fact that they were not physically active back in their old haunts. The responsibility for surveillance was passed to the suburb authorities who somehow never picked it up - i.e. no decision was ever taken by anyone to discontinue surveillance. The number of people under 24/7 surveillance is in the dozens or scores.

What happened with Coulibaly is less clear.

2. Kourachi's invitation/stay in Yemen. French intelligence was well aware of the visit. Their estimate, then and now, is that Kourachi did not pass muster with AQAP. This judgment is based on past experience. If volunteers (especially from Europe) are seen as ill-suited for the rigors awaiting them (drugs, personality, physical attributes), they are sent back home with the admonition that it is Allah's wish that they do some mayhem there. No instructions, no direct help. They French believe that Kourachi was one of these. They put him under surveillance nonetheless. As to the alleged Awlaki connection, a farcical story concocted by the American intelligence agencies to justify assassinating Awlaki.

3. Kourachi, like most second generation Algerian immigrants, - could speak only some pidgin Arabic which does not even rise to the level of kitchen Arabic. The French colonial authorities did such a good job of deArabizing the population that even his parents' knowledge of Arabic was most likely imperfect - a sort of Arabic-French "creole." So to communicate with anyone in Yemen he would have needed an interpreter.

4. Further incidents of this nature are possible - that depends not on new laws or procedures but the avoidance of mishaps.

5. French prisons are the main long-term problems since they are incubators of Islamist radicals. Penal officials are lax in dealing with the situation because the Islamists impose order in the prisons, keep drugs under control, and reduce the level of manifest psychiatric behavioral problems. That must change but probably won't.

An excellent essay by Alain Chouet on the terrorist threat in Europe can be found at
http://www.robert-schuman.eu/en/doc/questions-d-europe/qe-339-en.pdf

Chouet is former head of counter-terrorism at France intelligence agency DGSE and their senior Middle East analyst"

[robt willmann]

Off topic, but there appears to be some "kinetic" action going on in Yemen, as people popped some caps at the presidential palace; allegations are it is Houthi folks doing it--

http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/19/world/yemen-palace-clashes/index.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/yemen/11355168/Yemen-crisis-Who-are-the-Houthi-rebels.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/yemen-coup-houthi-rebels-seize-state-media/

[LeaNder]

"The responsibility for surveillance was passed to the suburb authorities who somehow never picked it up"

Sounds about real to me. I can vividly imagine the dialogs in the place. 24/7, Staff, Shift, Planning. ... They did this for 3 years and nothing interesting showed up?

[LeaNder]

kao_hsien_chih, I responded pessimist too, when I first encountered a firm international law perspective on Mondoweiss. Initially I only admired his patience, his voice of reason among a lot of white noise. It felt most of it was "love's labor's lost". ...

http://mondoweiss.net/profile/hostage

Yes, no doubt, the professionals that wrote the torture memos were all promoted into their respective jobs. Weren't they? I am a little hesitant about at least one European ICC prosecutor too. You never seem to be able to get a real feeling below polished surfaces. And if there was smoke, there must have been fire. Minor people don't have a voice, they fade into oblivion.

In the end his voice of reason convinced me. After all there is a developing international law frame. And that is pretty transparent. It won't go away. And strictly PR is helpless in that realm. Ok, if you look at it, like Pat did here. Isn't what now is called: "incriminating evidence" in the Shaffer case similar to what Pat comparable to what he calls: "strong impression of a comprehensive strategy to pre-emptively deal with" here?

I have to admit, that I only looked closer into the Yugoslav war, when I was served "Operation Horsehoe", or Serbia's intentions: genocide.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Horseshoe

Our politicians couldn't keep their faces as straight as the narrative suggested, it felt. Before that I didn't want to listen, how could I dare to be able to differ between the propaganda of either side? Later I met witnesses for the trials, the victims, and they were hyper-paranoid, I can tell you. If I recall correctly, 'only' two American soldiers died. ... Superior precision (thus more humanitarian) bombing war tools air power took care of that.

David Habakukk linked to an article by one of the larger security-power-chess-gamers on visit in Russia, maybe on Adam Silverman's thread. Visibly this type of expert vision is void of victims. Collateral damage. Although, his futurology no doubt contains a high dose of "national interest" as perceived or suggested by their branch the larger security industry. Or American power as they see it now and then. Why?

The trauma of the kid of survivors? Yes, I looked the author up. The only thing he seems to deeply enjoy is America's power. The save heaven? While apparently it does not matter much if Europe disintegrates into little ethnic or political enclaves. "Serves them right, those antisemites over there?"

But the larger picture that arose in between his lines, reminded me of a rather naive but ardent Israel supporter, much less bright than Hostage, the former US soldier, mentioned above, the supporter of International Law.

Israel, the purely emotional, in-no-way-hawkish-supporter* wrote, offered his own future made up (it felt at the time) vision too:

In the end the different ethnicities will all follow Israel's approach. His case in point was, you guessed it, Yugoslavia. Well, he could have chosen the Czechs and the Slovaks too. In both cases there are historical roots. But one didn't need war.

* What I found interesting: Some of his best friends apparently are settlers. They can't be all bad. In fact as a hippie, he once wanted to settle with his friends land along the West-Coast somewhere, I forget, too. No, I am pretty sure it was Oregon. In any case in the US it didn't work, but his friends, the settlers in Judea and Samaria raise organic vegetables. Honestly, would Palestinians do that? Would they honestly treat the land so well?

International law: goosesteps in the right direction.

[The Beaver]

There is a book coming out today: Guantanamo Diary.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/19/-sp-guantanamo-diary-team-realized-about-lose-mind-chakrabarti

The Guardian has been publishing some bits and pieces since Jan 16, 2015:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/16/guantanamo-diary-a-classified-handwritten-manuscript

[Aka]

confusedponderer,
I missed that point. Also forgot the fact that US (policy makers)care lot (even more than they care about US in some instances) about Israel.

[Charles I]

Seems to have boiled over after this:

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2014/12/houthis-killed-yemen-suicide-bombing-2014123195624881154.html

[Charles I]

You all know me as bleeding heart legalistic type, but I almost posted something to this effect yesterday.

Ya know can ya really blame the pathetic leaders of the guardians of freedom and democracy, world's policeman, the indispensable state, vanguard of the GWOT, benefactor to all mankind, etc, etc, for imagining they can and should seek to establish a big warm all-embracing SOFA immunity covering all its exceptional citizens all over the world? What is the point of empire if not to benefit the Citizen? Wtf are we dying for? We owe no allegiance to any life, limb or law but our own and our God's.

Not that that's how to win friends and influence people in the long run.

[Charles I]

"The number of people under 24/7 surveillance is in the dozens or scores."

So apparently the Paris Prefecture were keeping up other with other files.

The guy who attacked our Parliament last year was on a some radars, but there simply are not enough resources - dozens of agents per 24/7 target - to cover them all all the time.

Our RCMP talking head appeared and stated that hundreds of officers tasked to mafia, drug, and major frauds basically abandoned those fields to attempt to investigate and manage known threats, numbered at about 90 or so people. They wouldn't say how many 24/7 ops they do.

Tho hundreds of thousands were still charged with simple possession here last year.

Police up here never tire of simultaneously bemoaning staffing/cash shortages combined with the documentary labor intensity democratic justice requires for the Record. Apparently particularly so in the intelligence field where onerous legal punctiliousness is sold as balancing opacity and unaccountability. CSIS recorded over hundreds and hundreds of hours of wiretaps investigating the Air India Bombing that killed over 300 Canadians decades ago because, they said at the time, they couldn't afford more tape. It was a fairly big kerfuffle.

On the other hand, 3600 Canadians kill themselves yearly, 2400 go out in car accidents, that's about 70 and 40 deaths respectively per week, week in week out, year in year out.

[kao_hsien_chih]

Charles I, CP,

In some sense, that is how things have usually been and what we would prefer things to be in the US of A: wanting to abide by no law or morality other than our own. As long as we insist on mucking around with moralistic crusades around the world, we cannot stay in the world where we owe, as say, no allegiance to any law other than our own. The folly of the Bushmen was that they felt that they could have their crusades without having to abide by "international" moral supervision. Obamaites would rather continue the moralistic crusades under "international" supervision (although they would still like to be the ones writing the international code of conduct themselves, according to their own beliefs--in some sense, even more ambitious than the Bushmen.) rather than quit the whole nonsense so that we can abide only by our own laws and morality, which, I think, a majority of Americans would prefer.