Posted on 12/14/2004 12:04:53 PM PST by RWR8189
This week, Congress will send legislation to President Bush denying economic assistance to any foreign government that refuses to protect U.S. troops, government personnel, and civilians from arbitrary arrest and prosecution before the United Nations International Criminal Court (ICC). While nearly 100 nations have signed "non surrender" agreements with the U.S., many refuse to do so.
The United States is not a party to the ICC and does not recognize its jurisdiction. Even so, the court can currently arrest and prosecute our troops and personnel operating in U.N. peacekeeping missions if the host nation is a member of the ICC, accepts its jurisdiction voluntarily, or is directed by the U.N. Security Council.
Consider: A U.N. report issued last week called for the Security Council to refer suspected cases of war crimes to the ICC. Almost simultaneously, war crimes charges were filed in a German court against Defense Secretary Rumsfeld for prison abuses at Abu Graib in Iraq. A German human rights group argued, under the much abused and misunderstood concept of "universal jurisdiction," that any citizen or group can file a claim against any world leader who may be guilty of committing crimes against humanity. Can anyone reasonably believe that more such cases are not soon to follow?
Although the Clinton Administration helped negotiate the terms and scope of the ICC, and even signed the treaty that created it in 1998, it was never submitted to the Senate for ratification. On May 6, 2002, the Bush Administration formally renounced any commitment to join the ICC or recognize its jurisdiction, citing fundamental structural flaws that would allow the court to undermine the role of the U.N. Security Council in maintaining international peace and security, as well as concerns over unchecked prosecutorial power and efforts to assert jurisdiction over citizens of states that have not ratified the treaty.
Congress then overwhelmingly passed the American Servicemembers' Protection Act, which spelled out strong objections to the ICC and prohibited any level of U.S. government cooperation with it. The legislation also required the Administration to pursue measures to protect Americans from the Court's reach.
It is no secret that the majority of U.N. peacekeeping operations are conducted in countries that are non-democratic and whose leaders are hostile to U.S. policies. Leaving our leaders, troops, and personnel vulnerable to arrest and use as political pawns would be a colossal mistake and one the President was right to avoid. But given the likelihood that the United States will be called upon to send troops to future U.N. peacekeeping missions, it is critical that additional steps be taken now to create more concrete and permanent protections.
First, Congress and the Administration should conduct a review of where U.S. troops and personnel are operating as peacekeepers, and determine whether their continued deployment is an appropriate use of our resources in the ongoing war against terrorism. The Administration must insist on "non-surrender" agreements with host countries to prevent any Americans from being turned over to the ICC. No troops or personnel should be committed to any mission without such protection.
Second, Congress must reaffirm its own commitment to protecting American citizens by passing a joint resolution calling on the U.N. Security Council to pass a permanent resolution providing immunity for U.S. troops and government personnel, and if necessary, exercise our veto over any resolution offered that would involve the utilization of U.S. resources.
Such provisions should not be interpreted as placing Americans overseas above the rule of law. The government will continue to hold all of our citizens, including our troops, to the highest standards of accountability. But at the same time we must recognize the unique nature of our position in the world, and the historical tendency of non-democratic leaders to use international institutions purely to score political points against the United States. Ceding criminal authority to an unaccountable and politicized ICC would hardly advance peace and security in today's world.
Every day our troops and personnel work around the globe to wage the war on terror and to secure freedom for not only our citizens, but countless others. Just as it is our duty to provide them with the tools they need, it is our solemn responsibility to protect them from being used as political pawns by despots and dictators.
Senator Kyl is chairman of the U.S. Senate Republican Policy Committee and the Judiciary Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology and Homeland Security.
Positively, under no circumstances should our troops come under the jurisdiction of a world court. Talk about a lynching!!
***The 6th amendment in our Bill of Rights says it all. Since when has a panel of 3 European judges been a jury of ANY American's peers?***
ABSOLUTELY!
Thank God neither Gore nor Kerry got elected.
A DC politician making sense--rare!
I pity the poor bastards or bastard-country that arrests a U.S. citizen under the ICC guidelines. Our "current" President won't take it kindly . . . and he tends to follow up his beliefs with action.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.