The Trail: A Daily Diary of Campaign 2008

Archives

The Debates

Distinctions With a Difference in Nevada

John Edwards
John Edwards at the Jan. 15 Democratic debate in Las Vegas. (Getty Images)

By Peter Slevin
LAS VEGAS -- The top three Democrats managed to be both civil and pointed in a two-hour discussion that proved meatier and more accessible than many of the public forums that preceded it. Seated around a table, rather than standing, the principal survivors of Iowa and New Hampshire were determined to give no ground.

Each had more time than usual to make their arguments and occasionally challenge one another, thanks to the absence of the three competitors who dropped out of the race -- and the sponsors' decision not to include Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich, who has barely registered in polls or the voting results thus far.

Former senator John Edwards, lagging in fundraising and the polls, and frustrated by the attention given to the two front-runners, probably valued the airtime more than either of the other two. He took the edge off his perpetual fighter pose while trying to draw distinctions, particularly with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.

"We just have to keep pushing," Jonathan Prince, a senior Edwards adviser, said afterward, adding that he does not expect the race to end soon. "No one is on the road to 50 percent of the delegates, by any stretch."

Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama continued to move carefully away from the increasingly messy sniping over race that had overtaken other issues in recent days. Several times Tuesday night, one credited the other, with Clinton saying the Democrats are a "family" that needs to stick together.

Yet each made clear, in tone and substance, that essential parts of their campaign messages and their approaches to a prospective presidency are markedly different. In the fight for delegates in Nevada, South Carolina and the big states beyond, they know that praise and studied niceties will take them only so far.

Posted at 12:26 AM ET on Jan 16, 2008  | Category:  The Debates
Share This: Technorati talk bubble Technorati | Tag in Del.icio.us | Digg This
Previous: About That S.C. Memo | Next: Richard Viguerie Goes Online for Paul


Add 44 to Your Site
Be the first to know when there's a new installment of The Trail. This widget is easy to add to your Web site, and it will update every time there's a new entry on The Trail.
Get This Widget >>


Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



A rare opportunity to hear John Edwards speak on the issues, due to the virtual lack of media coverage.
John Edwards, please.
In the Media.
John Edwards, Please.
as President

Posted by: lesliegeddes | January 18, 2008 7:32 PM

I heard Dennis Kucinich on the radio last night (I think it was Air America). They chopped up the debate so that he could respond as if he was a participant. It was interesting, though he wasted much of his time with ad hominem attacks on NBC.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | January 17, 2008 12:39 PM

Does anyone else think that John Edwards looks like the Anti-Christ in this photo?

Posted by: JakeD | January 17, 2008 12:28 AM

I am outraged as an American and a Progressive with MSNBC for excluding Dennis Kucinich from last night's debate. It was a mistake and a blow to democracy.
This political cartoon says it best:
http://tpzoo.wordpress.com/2008/01/16/2644/

Posted by: fluter.harpsong | January 17, 2008 12:13 AM

Until the question to her last night, I didn't realize Senator Clinton had brought up the terrorist attacks in the UK in this race. Interesting that when she was asked directly, she wouldn't say that Sen. Obama was unprepared to handle similar attacks in the U.S. on 'Day One,' but what else are we to make of her statements?

I am far more comfortable with Obama's judgment in such a situation than Clinton's. Clinton didn't even read the intelligence reports before the Iraq vote. Not too long ago (Feb 2005) she was saying Iraq was going quite well. I don't think this is the kind of experience we need in the White House.

Posted by: wesfromGA | January 16, 2008 5:26 PM

"I think the best comment of the night came from Senator Clinton: "President Bush is over in the Gulf now begging the Saudis and others to drop the price of oil. How pathetic."
- Yes, that was a nice quip.
If only Clinton had put our money where her mouth is and Voted against Bush's Iraq Invasion when it MATTERED... maybe then would her words actually mean something.

Posted by: PulSamsara | January 16, 2008 4:53 PM

My respect for Senator Obama just grows and grows!

The national media, which has yet again bought into the Clinton spin, keeps spreading the idea that the Clintons' own missteps and racial innuendos are somehow Obama's fault and that is patently ludicrous to me - and in spite of it all, Obama maintains a dignity and calm that is PRECISELY what I want in a president.

Whomever gets elected to the position of our president is going to be GUARANTEED to face personal slights and provocations, both foreign and domestic.

Senator Obama has proven to me - in his continual and consistent classy performance in the face of both subtle and overt attacks from the Clintons - that he will neither over-react nor get overwrought in the face of what is surely ahead for our future president.

Senator Clinton, on the other hand, has demonstrated a range of responses (in the face of far LESS provocation) consisting of icy and haughty to angry and weepy.

The press pretends to see her as "regal" but "regal" isn't brittle. Arrogance is brittle. (And Clinton is clearly brittle)

And, imho, a fragile "ice princess" president just ISN'T what this nation needs.

Posted by: miraclestudies | January 16, 2008 4:00 PM

In the Photo of Edwards,

Is that Lip-Stick he has on?

LOL! ;~)

Posted by: rat-the | January 16, 2008 1:55 PM

MSNBC's exclusion of Dennis Kucinich from the debate is only sightly more criminal than the Washington Post's refusal to cover him as often as they cover "the leading candidates". There is only ONE poll that matters: that's where you and I vote. Just because the media is incapable of considering more than two or three candidates in a race, doesn't mean we are as well. By filtering their reporting, and making such determinations as "electable" or "viable" before we've had a chance to decide for ourselves limits our choices and destroys our democracy. The system is broken, and the biased, limited media reporting and debates are a major part of it.

Posted by: fredwerner | January 16, 2008 1:45 PM

What is the story on Sen. Obama getting a chance to ask a question of his opponents ? Did he get to ask one or did they skip his turn ? It didn't seem fair.

Posted by: EDYL31 | January 16, 2008 10:53 AM

They didn't skip him, he addressed his question to Edwards.

Posted by: pmorlan1 | January 16, 2008 12:58 PM

Thanks Peter Slevin for including Edwards in your piece. I hope you continue to do so i future coverage.


Of course Edwards is still attacking Hillary.

He hopes/thinks Obama will win the nomination, so he is running to be Obama's veep candidate. (No matter what he says Edwards will not win the nomination.)

The job of the veep candidate is to attack the other team while the prexy guy remains above the fray. Edwards is attacking Hillary for Obama's benefit.


It smells like Obama and Edwards have a secret deal. If Obama wins and picks Edwards as veep we know for sure!

Posted by: wj_phillips | January 16, 2008 10:23 AM

To wj_phillips - what I smell is a Clinton supporter trying to get Edwards out of the race by spinning this silly fairytale about him helping Obama so he can be VP. No one believes this but Hillary supporters.

With regard to Edwards attacking Hillary. Only Hillary supporters think that by drawing distinctions with Senator Clinton Edwards is attacking her. Do you really expect Senator Edwards to sit there and let Senator Clinton say whatever she wants regardless of whether it's the truth? Come on. Hillary supporters think Edwards is attacking because he's so good at scoring points by merely telling the truth.

Posted by: pmorlan1 | January 16, 2008 12:55 PM

What is the story on Sen. Obama getting a chance to ask a question of his opponents ? Did he get to ask one or did they skip his turn ? It didn't seem fair.

Posted by: EDYL31 | January 16, 2008 10:53 AM

Looks like sthree is getting desperate to use such a stupid article to support a silly claim.


No wonder so many claim our school system is failing.

Posted by: wj_phillips | January 16, 2008 10:27 AM

Of course Edwards is still attacking Hillary.

He hopes/thinks Obama will win the nomination, so he is running to be Obama's veep candidate. (No matter what he says Edwards will not win the nomination.)

The job of the veep candidate is to attack the other team while the prexy guy remains above the fray. Edwards is attacking Hillary for Obama's benefit.


It smells like Obama and Edwards have a secret deal. If Obama wins and picks Edwards as veep we know for sure!

Posted by: wj_phillips | January 16, 2008 10:23 AM

Vote for change; VOTE FOR BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA!

Posted by: meldupree | January 16, 2008 10:16 AM

Look at the polls in SC of blacks supporting Obama versus whites supporting Hillary. Clearly race enters into the contest. But if Blacks vote for Obama because he is black it is not racist but whites voting for Hillary because she is white is Racist. This Nation needs to get away from double standards on race and get away from being so PC correct that serious problems cannot even be discussed and possibly helped without everyone being labeled racist!

For my money all of the candidates will say or do anything to get elected with the exception of Ron Paul where you agree or not with his positions. He is the only one that puts principles, the Constitution and rule of law above money and votes. The rest are party-bound Prostitutes paid by the special interests, swirling and partying, amidst the rubble of their own malfeasance - taking this Nation right down in the gutter with them.

Posted by: american1 | January 16, 2008 10:12 AM

Each time Sen. Clinton touts her experience, the following comes to mind:

From Norman Chad column, aka Couch Slouch, December 17, 2007, Washington Post http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/16/AR2007121601807.html:
Q. If Hillary Clinton is qualified for the White House because she watched her husband be governor and president for 20 years, why haven't the Atlanta Falcons offered their quarterback job to Deanna Favre?

Posted by: sthree | January 16, 2008 10:09 AM

sorry brian_wood, but Hillary is clearly insinuating that Obama is unready when she talks about who will be ready "on day one" --Else why bring it up again and again? Sure, it's up to the voters to decide who is ready and who has experience, but that's her argument --she believes her experience trumps the other candidates. She also uses scare tactics (i.e., her comments on Britain's new prime minister) and was rightly called on that point in last night's debate.

It remmains to be seen how the 'experince' argument will play in the long run. Bush Sr. argued his experience trumped Bill Clinton's in '92, but that didn't earn him a second term --clearly experience isn't everything.

Posted by: max | January 16, 2008 9:42 AM

Re: Mawt

Show some basic courtesy when posting. All of that could have been pasted in a URL.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | January 16, 2008 9:34 AM

I'm glad that both campaigns are stepping away from the race issue, and I hope that the events of the past few days do not have a permanent negative effect on the Democrats' chances in November.

I do think Obama's campaign is being held to a higher standard on the question of race, because the fact is that the Clinton campaign absolutely has been trying to subtly play racial issues, but Obama has been catching most of the flak for it. Obama's campaign needs to stay above the fray, though, and I hope whoever drafted up that memo was fired. To his credit, Obama condemned it. Did Hillary condemn the deplorable comments made by Robert Johnson, though? Because that was the lowest attack of this whole ordeal.

Meanwhile, I thought Obama did a great job in the debate last night. He has the most sensible energy plan, I like his plan for providing the opportunity for college education to American students, as well as his strategy to improve oversight over banks so that we can start to get out of the mortgage crisis.

In short, Barack Obama is the best choice for America. He has a vision that will keep us moving forward, rather than trying to rehash old ideas, and he will bring the country together. YES WE CAN! GO OBAMA!

Posted by: ASinMoCo | January 16, 2008 9:32 AM

the clinton's repositioning is making my mind go numb...i don't have anything good to say, which is surely what they want.

i stood up strong against the terrorist scare machine but was handily smacked down by the clinton mind freak.

Posted by: edvanrensyahoocom | January 16, 2008 8:51 AM

I find it funny that Senator Clinton is criticized for not making the case for her opponents to be President. She has been asked on several occasions if Senators Obama and Edwards are qualified to be President. It's not her job to make the argument to the voters for her opponents. That responsibility falls on Senators Obama and Edwards - not on the Clinton campaign. When Senator Clinton talks about her qualifications to be President and the need to be ready day one, she is not diminishing her opponents nor is she using the scare tactics of President Bush. She is simply making the case for her candidacy; her opponents need to do the same for themselves.

Posted by: brian_wood | January 16, 2008 8:07 AM

How is this not a treaty subject to ratification by the senate? If it is not a treaty, why would a future president be bound by it? If it is not a treaty, the introduction by Hillary of her bill concedes that the Bush-Cheney administration can destroy one more part of our constitution-senate ratification of treaties. If it is not a treaty, Hillary is grandstanding as well as helping Bush destroy our constitution.

Posted by: pjdykman | January 16, 2008 5:58 AM

the more I hear Edwards, the more I'm voting for him. First I was for Hillary, now I see clear the person I want in the White House is Edwards.

Posted by: HORNET12 | January 16, 2008 4:28 AM

Anyone who supports the Born Again, Faith Based, Pro Life Lying War Criminal Mass Murderer Serial Killer in Chief and the VP of Torture should never be in the WH. Anyone who supports wasting a couple of trillion dollars of taxpayers funds in Illegal Invasions of Sovereign States should never be our leader. If one had any courage, one would call for the Axis of Evil to be indicted for War Crimes. People who support Mission Accomplished is equally culpable in the thousands of murders.

Who Would Jesus Kill?

http://www.costofwar.com

http://www.un.org/law/icc/statute/99_corr/2.htm

PART 2. JURISDICTION, ADMISSIBILITY AND APPLICABLE LAW

Article 5
Crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court
1. The jurisdiction of the Court shall be limited to the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole. The Court has jurisdiction in accordance with this Statute with respect to the following crimes:

(a) The crime of genocide;
(b) Crimes against humanity;

(c) War crimes;

(d) The crime of aggression.


2. The Court shall exercise jurisdiction over the crime of aggression once a provision is adopted in accordance with articles 121 and 123 defining the crime and setting out the conditions under which the Court shall exercise jurisdiction with respect to this crime. Such a provision shall be consistent with the relevant provisions of the Charter of the United Nations.

Article 6
Genocide
For the purpose of this Statute, "genocide" means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.


Article 7
Crimes against humanity
1. For the purpose of this Statute, "crime against humanity" means any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack:

(a) Murder;
(b) Extermination;

(c) Enslavement;

(d) Deportation or forcible transfer of population;

(e) Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law;

(f) Torture;

(g) Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity;

(h) Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender as defined in paragraph 3, or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law, in connection with any act referred to in this paragraph or any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court;

(i) Enforced disappearance of persons;

(j) The crime of apartheid;

(k) Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.


2. For the purpose of paragraph 1:
(a) "Attack directed against any civilian population" means a course of conduct involving the multiple commission of acts referred to in paragraph 1 against any civilian population, pursuant to or in furtherance of a State or organizational policy to commit such attack;
(b) "Extermination" includes the intentional infliction of conditions of life, inter alia the deprivation of access to food and medicine, calculated to bring about the destruction of part of a population;

(c) "Enslavement" means the exercise of any or all of the powers attaching to the right of ownership over a person and includes the exercise of such power in the course of trafficking in persons, in particular women and children;

(d) "Deportation or forcible transfer of population" means forced displacement of the persons concerned by expulsion or other coercive acts from the area in which they are lawfully present, without grounds permitted under international law;

(e) "Torture" means the intentional infliction of severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, upon a person in the custody or under the control of the accused; except that torture shall not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions;

(f) "Forced pregnancy" means the unlawful confinement of a woman forcibly made pregnant, with the intent of affecting the ethnic composition of any population or carrying out other grave violations of international law. This definition shall not in any way be interpreted as affecting national laws relating to pregnancy;

(g) "Persecution" means the intentional and severe deprivation of fundamental rights contrary to international law by reason of the identity of the group or collectivity;

(h) "The crime of apartheid" means inhumane acts of a character similar to those referred to in paragraph 1, committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime;

(i) "Enforced disappearance of persons" means the arrest, detention or abduction of persons by, or with the authorization, support or acquiescence of, a State or a political organization, followed by a refusal to acknowledge that deprivation of freedom or to give information on the fate or whereabouts of those persons, with the intention of removing them from the protection of the law for a prolonged period of time.


3. For the purpose of this Statute, it is understood that the term "gender" refers to the two sexes, male and female, within the context of society. The term "gender" does not indicate any meaning different from the above.


Article 8
War crimes

1. The Court shall have jurisdiction in respect of war crimes in particular when committed as part of a plan or policy or as part of a large-scale commission of such crimes.

2. For the purpose of this Statute, "war crimes" means:
(a) Grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, namely, any of the following acts against persons or property protected under the provisions of the relevant Geneva Convention:
(i) Wilful killing;
(ii) Torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments;

(iii) Wilfully causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or health;

(iv) Extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly;

(v) Compelling a prisoner of war or other protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile Power;

(vi) Wilfully depriving a prisoner of war or other protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial;

(vii) Unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement;

(viii) Taking of hostages.

(b) Other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in international armed conflict, within the established framework of international law, namely, any of the following acts:
(i) Intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such or against individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities;
(ii) Intentionally directing attacks against civilian objects, that is, objects which are not military objectives;

(iii) Intentionally directing attacks against personnel, installations, material, units or vehicles involved in a humanitarian assistance or peacekeeping mission in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, as long as they are entitled to the protection given to civilians or civilian objects under the international law of armed conflict;

(iv) Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated;

(v) Attacking or bombarding, by whatever means, towns, villages, dwellings or buildings which are undefended and which are not military objectives;

(vi) Killing or wounding a combatant who, having laid down his arms or having no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion;

(vii) Making improper use of a flag of truce, of the flag or of the military insignia and uniform of the enemy or of the United Nations, as well as of the distinctive emblems of the Geneva Conventions, resulting in death or serious personal injury;

(viii) The transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies, or the deportation or transfer of all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory;

(ix) Intentionally directing attacks against buildings dedicated to religion, education, art, science or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not military objectives;

(x) Subjecting persons who are in the power of an adverse party to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind which are neither justified by the medical, dental or hospital treatment of the person concerned nor carried out in his or her interest, and which cause death to or seriously endanger the health of such person or persons;

(xi) Killing or wounding treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army;

(xii) Declaring that no quarter will be given;

(xiii) Destroying or seizing the enemy's property unless such destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of war;

(xiv) Declaring abolished, suspended or inadmissible in a court of law the rights and actions of the nationals of the hostile party;

(xv) Compelling the nationals of the hostile party to take part in the operations of war directed against their own country, even if they were in the belligerent's service before the commencement of the war;

(xvi) Pillaging a town or place, even when taken by assault;

(xvii) Employing poison or poisoned weapons;

(xviii) Employing asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases, and all analogous liquids, materials or devices;

(xix) Employing bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core or is pierced with incisions;

(xx) Employing weapons, projectiles and material and methods of warfare which are of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering or which are inherently indiscriminate in violation of the international law of armed conflict, provided that such weapons, projectiles and material and methods of warfare are the subject of a comprehensive prohibition and are included in an annex to this Statute, by an amendment in accordance with the relevant provisions set forth in articles 121 and 123;

(xxi) Committing outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;

(xxii) Committing rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, as defined in article 7, paragraph 2 (f), enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence also constituting a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions;

(xxiii) Utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations;

(xxiv) Intentionally directing attacks against buildings, material, medical units and transport, and personnel using the distinctive emblems of the Geneva Conventions in conformity with international law;

(xxv) Intentionally using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare by depriving them of objects indispensable to their survival, including wilfully impeding relief supplies as provided for under the Geneva Conventions;

(xxvi) Conscripting or enlisting children under the age of fifteen years into the national armed forces or using them to participate actively in hostilities.

(c) In the case of an armed conflict not of an international character, serious violations of article 3 common to the four Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, namely, any of the following acts committed against persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention or any other cause:

(i) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(ii) Committing outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;

(iii) Taking of hostages;

(iv) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgement pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all judicial guarantees which are generally recognized as indispensable.

(d) Paragraph 2 (c) applies to armed conflicts not of an international character and thus does not apply to situations of internal disturbances and tensions, such as riots, isolated and sporadic acts of violence or other acts of a similar nature.
(e) Other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in armed conflicts not of an international character, within the established framework of international law, namely, any of the following acts:

(i) Intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such or against individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities;
(ii) Intentionally directing attacks against buildings, material, medical units and transport, and personnel using the distinctive emblems of the Geneva Conventions in conformity with international law;

(iii) Intentionally directing attacks against personnel, installations, material, units or vehicles involved in a humanitarian assistance or peacekeeping mission in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, as long as they are entitled to the protection given to civilians or civilian objects under the international law of armed conflict;

(iv) Intentionally directing attacks against buildings dedicated to religion, education, art, science or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not military objectives;

(v) Pillaging a town or place, even when taken by assault;

(vi) Committing rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, as defined in article 7, paragraph 2 (f), enforced sterilization, and any other form of sexual violence also constituting a serious violation of article 3 common to the four Geneva Conventions;

(vii) Conscripting or enlisting children under the age of fifteen years into armed forces or groups or using them to participate actively in hostilities;

(viii) Ordering the displacement of the civilian population for reasons related to the conflict, unless the security of the civilians involved or imperative military reasons so demand;

(ix) Killing or wounding treacherously a combatant adversary;

(x) Declaring that no quarter will be given;

(xi) Subjecting persons who are in the power of another party to the conflict to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind which are neither justified by the medical, dental or hospital treatment of the person concerned nor carried out in his or her interest, and which cause death to or seriously endanger the health of such person or persons;

(xii) Destroying or seizing the property of an adversary unless such destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of the conflict;

(f) Paragraph 2 (e) applies to armed conflicts not of an international character and thus does not apply to situations of internal disturbances and tensions, such as riots, isolated and sporadic acts of violence or other acts of a similar nature. It applies to armed conflicts that take place in the territory of a State when there is protracted armed conflict between governmental authorities and organized armed groups or between such groups.

3. Nothing in paragraph 2 (c) and (e) shall affect the responsibility of a Government to maintain or re-establish law and order in the State or to defend the unity and territorial integrity of the State, by all legitimate means.


Article 9
Elements of Crimes

1. Elements of Crimes shall assist the Court in the interpretation and application of articles 6, 7 and 8. They shall be adopted by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Assembly of States Parties.
2. Amendments to the Elements of Crimes may be proposed by:

(a) Any State Party;
(b) The judges acting by an absolute majority;

(c) The Prosecutor.


Such amendments shall be adopted by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Assembly of States Parties.

3. The Elements of Crimes and amendments thereto shall be consistent with this Statute.


Article 10

Nothing in this Part shall be interpreted as limiting or prejudicing in any way existing or developing rules of international law for purposes other than this Statute.


Article 11
Jurisdiction ratione temporis

1. The Court has jurisdiction only with respect to crimes committed after the entry into force of this Statute.

2. If a State becomes a Party to this Statute after its entry into force, the Court may exercise its jurisdiction only with respect to crimes committed after the entry into force of this Statute for that State, unless that State has made a declaration under article 12, paragraph 3.

Article 12
Preconditions to the exercise of jurisdiction

1. A State which becomes a Party to this Statute thereby accepts the jurisdiction of the Court with respect to the crimes referred to in article 5.

2. In the case of article 13, paragraph (a) or (c), the Court may exercise its jurisdiction if one or more of the following States are Parties to this Statute or have accepted the jurisdiction of the Court in accordance with paragraph 3:
(a) The State on the territory of which the conduct in question occurred or, if the crime was committed on board a vessel or aircraft, the State of registration of that vessel or aircraft;
(b) The State of which the person accused of the crime is a national.

3. If the acceptance of a State which is not a Party to this Statute is required under paragraph 2, that State may, by declaration lodged with the Registrar, accept the exercise of jurisdiction by the Court with respect to the crime in question. The accepting State shall cooperate with the Court without any delay or exception in accordance with Part 9.


Article 13
Exercise of jurisdiction

The Court may exercise its jurisdiction with respect to a crime referred to in article 5 in accordance with the provisions of this Statute if:
(a) A situation in which one or more of such crimes appears to have been committed is referred to the Prosecutor by a State Party in accordance with article 14;
(b) A situation in which one or more of such crimes appears to have been committed is referred to the Prosecutor by the Security Council acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations; or

(c) The Prosecutor has initiated an investigation in respect of such a crime in accordance with article 15.



Article 14
Referral of a situation by a State Party

1. A State Party may refer to the Prosecutor a situation in which one or more crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court appear to have been committed requesting the Prosecutor to investigate the situation for the purpose of determining whether one or more specific persons should be charged with the commission of such crimes.

2. As far as possible, a referral shall specify the relevant circumstances and be accompanied by such supporting documentation as is available to the State referring the situation.

Article 15
Prosecutor
1. The Prosecutor may initiate investigations proprio motu on the basis of information on crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court.

2. The Prosecutor shall analyse the seriousness of the information received. For this purpose, he or she may seek additional information from States, organs of the United Nations, intergovernmental or non-governmental organizations, or other reliable sources that he or she deems appropriate, and may receive written or oral testimony at the seat of the Court.

3. If the Prosecutor concludes that there is a reasonable basis to proceed with an investigation, he or she shall submit to the Pre-Trial Chamber a request for authorization of an investigation, together with any supporting material collected. Victims may make representations to the Pre-Trial Chamber, in accordance with the Rules of Procedure and Evidence.

4. If the Pre-Trial Chamber, upon examination of the request and the supporting material, considers that there is a reasonable basis to proceed with an investigation, and that the case appears to fall within the jurisdiction of the Court, it shall authorize the commencement of the investigation, without prejudice to subsequent determinations by the Court with regard to the jurisdiction and admissibility of a case.

5. The refusal of the Pre-Trial Chamber to authorize the investigation shall not preclude the presentation of a subsequent request by the Prosecutor based on new facts or evidence regarding the same situation.

6. If, after the preliminary examination referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2, the Prosecutor concludes that the information provided does not constitute a reasonable basis for an investigation, he or she shall inform those who provided the information. This shall not preclude the Prosecutor from considering further information submitted to him or her regarding the same situation in the light of new facts or evidence.

Article 16
Deferral of investigation or prosecution

No investigation or prosecution may be commenced or proceeded with under this Statute for a period of 12 months after the Security Council, in a resolution adopted under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, has requested the Court to that effect; that request may be renewed by the Council under the same conditions.


Article 17
Issues of admissibility

1. Having regard to paragraph 10 of the Preamble and article 1, the Court shall determine that a case is inadmissible where:
(a) The case is being investigated or prosecuted by a State which has jurisdiction over it, unless the State is unwilling or unable genuinely to carry out the investigation or prosecution;
(b) The case has been investigated by a State which has jurisdiction over it and the State has decided not to prosecute the person concerned, unless the decision resulted from the unwillingness or inability of the State genuinely to prosecute;

(c) The person concerned has already been tried for conduct which is the subject of the complaint, and a trial by the Court is not permitted under article 20, paragraph 3;

(d) The case is not of sufficient gravity to justify further action by the Court.

2. In order to determine unwillingness in a particular case, the Court shall consider, having regard to the principles of due process recognized by international law, whether one or more of the following exist, as applicable:
(a) The proceedings were or are being undertaken or the national decision was made for the purpose of shielding the person concerned from criminal responsibility for crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court referred to in article 5;
(b) There has been an unjustified delay in the proceedings which in the circumstances is inconsistent with an intent to bring the person concerned to justice;

(c) The proceedings were not or are not being conducted independently or impartially, and they were or are being conducted in a manner which, in the circumstances, is inconsistent with an intent to bring the person concerned to justice.


3. In order to determine inability in a particular case, the Court shall consider whether, due to a total or substantial collapse or unavailability of its national judicial system, the State is unable to obtain the accused or the necessary evidence and testimony or otherwise unable to carry out its proceedings.

Article 18
Preliminary rulings regarding admissibility

1. When a situation has been referred to the Court pursuant to article 13 (a) and the Prosecutor has determined that there would be a reasonable basis to commence an investigation, or the Prosecutor initiates an investigation pursuant to articles 13 (c) and 15, the Prosecutor shall notify all States Parties and those States which, taking into account the information available, would normally exercise jurisdiction over the crimes concerned. The Prosecutor may notify such States on a confidential basis and, where the Prosecutor believes it necessary to protect persons, prevent destruction of evidence or prevent the absconding of persons, may limit the scope of the information provided to States.
2. Within one month of receipt of that notification, a State may inform the Court that it is investigating or has investigated its nationals or others within its jurisdiction with respect to criminal acts which may constitute crimes referred to in article 5 and which relate to the information provided in the notification to States. At the request of that State, the Prosecutor shall defer to the State's investigation of those persons unless the Pre-Trial Chamber, on the application of the Prosecutor, decides to authorize the investigation.

3. The Prosecutor's deferral to a State's investigation shall be open to review by the Prosecutor six months after the date of deferral or at any time when there has been a significant change of circumstances based on the State's unwillingness or inability genuinely to carry out the investigation.

4. The State concerned or the Prosecutor may appeal to the Appeals Chamber against a ruling of the Pre-Trial Chamber, in accordance with article 82. The appeal may be heard on an expedited basis.

5. When the Prosecutor has deferred an investigation in accordance with paragraph 2, the Prosecutor may request that the State concerned periodically inform the Prosecutor of the progress of its investigations and any subsequent prosecutions. States Parties shall respond to such requests without undue delay.

6. Pending a ruling by the Pre-Trial Chamber, or at any time when the Prosecutor has deferred an investigation under this article, the Prosecutor may, on an exceptional basis, seek authority from the Pre-Trial Chamber to pursue necessary investigative steps for the purpose of preserving evidence where there is a unique opportunity to obtain important evidence or there is a significant risk that such evidence may not be subsequently available.

7. A State which has challenged a ruling of the Pre-Trial Chamber under this article may challenge the admissibility of a case under article 19 on the grounds of additional significant facts or significant change of circumstances.

Article 19
Challenges to the jurisdiction of the Court
or the admissibility of a case

1. The Court shall satisfy itself that it has jurisdiction in any case brought before it. The Court may, on its own motion, determine the admissibility of a case in accordance with article 17.

2. Challenges to the admissibility of a case on the grounds referred to in article 17 or challenges to the jurisdiction of the Court may be made by:
(a) An accused or a person for whom a warrant of arrest or a summons to appear has been issued under article 58;
(b) A State which has jurisdiction over a case, on the ground that it is investigating or prosecuting the case or has investigated or prosecuted; or

(c) A State from which acceptance of jurisdiction is required under article 12.


3. The Prosecutor may seek a ruling from the Court regarding a question of jurisdiction or admissibility. In proceedings with respect to jurisdiction or admissibility, those who have referred the situation under article 13, as well as victims, may also submit observations to the Court.

4. The admissibility of a case or the jurisdiction of the Court may be challenged only once by any person or State referred to in paragraph 2. The challenge shall take place prior to or at the commencement of the trial. In exceptional circumstances, the Court may grant leave for a challenge to be brought more than once or at a time later than the commencement of the trial. Challenges to the admissibility of a case, at the commencement of a trial, or subsequently with the leave of the Court, may be based only on article 17, paragraph 1 (c).

5. A State referred to in paragraph 2 (b) and (c) shall make a challenge at the earliest opportunity.

6. Prior to the confirmation of the charges, challenges to the admissibility of a case or challenges to the jurisdiction of the Court shall be referred to the Pre-Trial Chamber. After confirmation of the charges, they shall be referred to the Trial Chamber. Decisions with respect to jurisdiction or admissibility may be appealed to the Appeals Chamber in accordance with article 82.

7. If a challenge is made by a State referred to in paragraph 2 (b) or (c), the Prosecutor shall suspend the investigation until such time as the Court makes a determination in accordance with article 17.

8. Pending a ruling by the Court, the Prosecutor may seek authority from the Court:
(a) To pursue necessary investigative steps of the kind referred to in article 18, paragraph 6;
(b) To take a statement or testimony from a witness or complete the collection and examination of evidence which had begun prior to the making of the challenge; and

(c) In cooperation with the relevant States, to prevent the absconding of persons in respect of whom the Prosecutor has already requested a warrant of arrest under article 58.


9. The making of a challenge shall not affect the validity of any act performed by the Prosecutor or any order or warrant issued by the Court prior to the making of the challenge.

10. If the Court has decided that a case is inadmissible under article 17, the Prosecutor may submit a request for a review of the decision when he or she is fully satisfied that new facts have arisen which negate the basis on which the case had previously been found inadmissible under article 17.

11. If the Prosecutor, having regard to the matters referred to in article 17, defers an investigation, the Prosecutor may request that the relevant State make available to the Prosecutor information on the proceedings. That information shall, at the request of the State concerned, be confidential. If the Prosecutor thereafter decides to proceed with an investigation, he or she shall notify the State to which deferral of the proceedings has taken place.

Article 20
Ne bis in idem

1. Except as provided in this Statute, no person shall be tried before the Court with respect to conduct which formed the basis of crimes for which the person has been convicted or acquitted by the Court.
2. No person shall be tried by another court for a crime referred to in article 5 for which that person has already been convicted or acquitted by the Court.

3. No person who has been tried by another court for conduct also proscribed under article 6, 7 or 8 shall be tried by the Court with respect to the same conduct unless the proceedings in the other court:

(a) Were for the purpose of shielding the person concerned from criminal responsibility for crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court; or
(b) Otherwise were not conducted independently or impartially in accordance with the norms of due process recognized by international law and were conducted in a manner which, in the circumstances, was inconsistent with an intent to bring the person concerned to justice.


Article 21
Applicable law

1. The Court shall apply:
(a) In the first place, this Statute, Elements of Crimes and its Rules of Procedure and Evidence;
(b) In the second place, where appropriate, applicable treaties and the principles and rules of international law, including the established principles of the international law of armed conflict;

(c) Failing that, general principles of law derived by the Court from national laws of legal systems of the world including, as appropriate, the national laws of States that would normally exercise jurisdiction over the crime, provided that those principles are not inconsistent with this Statute and with international law and internationally recognized norms and standards.


2. The Court may apply principles and rules of law as interpreted in its previous decisions.

3. The application and interpretation of law pursuant to this article must be consistent with internationally recognized human rights, and be without any adverse distinction founded on grounds such as gender as defined in article 7, paragraph 3, age, race, colour, language, religion or belief, political or other opinion, national, ethnic or social origin, wealth, birth or other status.
________

Part 1 / Part 3

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iOAaMJrf7Lp4aoiCqxxIqIreQWkAD8U2KRR00

Posted by: mawt | January 16, 2008 3:56 AM

I am an Independent that has followed all this very closely. I would vote for Edwards if i had to. But Obama wins my vote hands down.........it's not even close.

I believe he has good judgment and is a uniter that can pull people together for solutions.

Clinton is like BUSH on steroids , she devides the country before she even gets the job.......sorry i will pass.

Obama is the only real chance for the Democrats to win the General Election.

He has my respect
He has my TRUST
He has my VOTE

I have always voted Democrat , but i would cross over to keep Clinton out of there , and the truth is Millions of American people will do the same.

I want a winner , and i see that in OBAMA.

Posted by: cakemanjb | January 16, 2008 3:53 AM

sen. clinton came in to the debate knowing she was innocent of charges that her comments this past week were racial in nature.

obama himself conceded that his campaign pushed this issue and was wrong!

Posted by: mikel1 | January 16, 2008 3:47 AM


Edwards clearly won the debate !!! Edwards put both of the other two to the test, and both failed miserably to recant dangerous nuclear power plants or pledge to withdraw the troops from Iraq.

What a thrill it will be to see Edwards overcome the two candidates being promoted so heavily by the mainstream media in Nevada. You should read up about the $7m fundraising drive THIS FRIDAY on dailykos.com - and BRING THE TROOPS BACK HOME AS SOON AS POSSIBLE WITH PRESIDENT JOHN EDWARDS.

Posted by: teamsrini | January 16, 2008 3:29 AM

I think the best comment of the night came from Senator Clinton: "President Bush is over in the Gulf now begging the Saudis and others to drop the price of oil. How pathetic."

Posted by: wp11232 | January 16, 2008 1:07 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 

© 2009 The Washington Post Company