Posted on 12/18/2001 5:24:14 AM PST by Stand Watch Listen
US marines, soldiers, sailors, and pilots are risking their lives fighting the terrorists who killed an estimated 4,000 innocent Americans on September 11th. They have been using massive firepower to rain destruction down on the hideouts of Osama bin Laden and those who help to hide him. Once the evil ones are destroyed in Afghanistan, the war theater will shift to other nations that aid and abet terrorists. This new, young generation of professional military are heroes in the tradition of the Doughboys of World War I and the GI's of World War II who also sought to vanquish evil from the face of the earth.
However, when our conquering heroes come home, rather than victory parades, they may face criminal prosecution and they may find themselves tried for war crimes by judges from the very countries they just defeated. This is the reality of the United Nations' International Criminal Court (ICC).
UN propaganda sells the vision of the ICC as a tool for bringing international criminals like bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and Libya's Qadhafi to justice. The truth is, the court is more likely to be used as a tool for those criminals, against the United States. In a letter to President Bush, Senator Jesse Helms said, "instead of helping the United States go after real war criminals and terrorists, the International Criminal Court has the unbridled power to intimidate our military people and other citizens with bogus, politicized prosecutions. Similar creations of the United Nations have shown this to be inevitable."
Unlike any other treaty in history, the UN International Criminal Court ignores national laws and declares jurisdiction over all nations, whether they have ratified it or not. Once 60 nations sign on, the ICC becomes international law. The ICC defines as a war crime, any attack by our soldiers with knowledge that inescapable collateral deaths or injuries "to civilians or damage to civilian objects or wide-spread, long-term damage to the natural environment... would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated." In other words, you can have a war, but don't break anything, don't hurt civilians, or harm the environment.
It is impossible for the military to comply with those restrictions and still achieve its mission. Bombs go awry. Civilians get in the way. Intelligence agents make mistakes and target the wrong buildings. In the early days of the war on terrorism, with little intelligence on the ground, US bombs mistakenly fell into a residential neighborhood and killed civilians. A Cruise missile strayed from its target and may have killed some UN operatives who were working to clear mines. Several civilians were killed in an Afghan village during bombing runs. Are the US soldiers who are responsible for these actions to be prosecuted by the ICC?
Would the ICC have prosecuted the airmen on board the US planes that dropped atomic bombs on Japan in World War II? That act which ended the war fits the definition of a war crime under the ICC treaty. Keep in mind, those bombs were dropped in order to save thousands of American lives because the United States knew the Japanese were prepared to stand to the last man to ward off an invasion. Civilians were killed, but many more lives were saved by the action. Under the UN's ICC rules, the Americans would have been treated as the villains, not the Japanese.
Consider too, that the Taliban used innocent civilians as human shields against US bombs. Saddam Hussein used the same tactic in the Gulf War. Under ICC rules, these cowards would get away with such a tactic as a helpless US military would be forced to stand by, waiting for their targets to stand away from women's skirts.
War is not a video game and it's not an Olympic event. War is hell. Innocent people die. In a dastardly sneak attack on September 11th, an estimated 4,000 of them were Americans. More will die if the US has its hands tied by the United Nations' International Criminal Court.
The International Criminal Court represents even greater threats to American sovereignty and Constitutionally guaranteed liberties. Unlike the American system of justice, the ICC would not perform trials by juries of peers; would not guarantee bail; and would not grant prisoners the right to face their accusers. The United States judicial system would not be permitted to intervene on behalf of American citizens.
More frightening is the manner in which the UN will choose the eighteen judges who will each serve for nine-year terms. They will be elected by a two-thirds vote of the nations that ratify the court. This was the same process used to oust the United States last Spring from its long-held seat on the United Nations Human Rights Commission. The United States would hold one vote against the likes of Cuba, Iraq, Iran, Libya and Syria, the very nations that now protect and even foster terrorists. Will the court elect a judge from Red China, where American rights aren't just foreign, but represent the enemy? It doesn't take a genius to see the direction the UN's court will take when American soldiers stand on trial.
There is one more important point that must not be overlooked concerning the overwhelming power that the ICC will hold. The Court can prosecute anyone who violates UN treaties, including environmental agreements like the Biodiversity Treaty and those covering World Heritage Sites. This one provision makes the ICC a direct threat to ALL American citizens. A case in point was the Crown Butte Gold Mine that was shut down by UN intervention in 1997. Crown Butte was located on private property, miles from Yellowstone National Park. Yellowstone was designated by the UN to be a World Heritage Site. The UN determined that the mine was a direct threat to Yellowstone and declared it the first ever "endangered" World Heritage Site. Had there been an International Criminal Court in place, there is little doubt that the Crown Butte owners would have been put on trial for violating a UN treaty.
The UN needs only twenty-two more nations to ratify the Court in order for it to become international law. Senator Helms is leading the fight to keep America out of it. Calling it the "International Kangaroo Court," last year, Helms introduced the American Service Members' Protection Act (S.857) to exempt American soldiers and leaders from ICC prosecution. Congress has refused to act on the bill. Last month, in the wake of the terrorist attacks and the war in Afghanistan, Helms tried to attach the bill to the Defense Authorization Act, but the Senate failed to act on the amendment.
Senator Helms' bill would: prohibit use of taxpayer funding for the ICC; prohibit the sharing of classified information; restrict the US role in UN peacekeeping missions unless the UN specifically exempts US troops from prosecution; blocks US aid to allies unless they too sign accords to shield US troops on their soil from ICC prosecution; and authorizes any necessary actions to free US soldiers improperly handed over to the ICC. President Bush has endorsed S.857. It's even being supported by the State Department. Yet the US Senate, led by Majority Leader Tom Daschle, has refused to enact the bill and protect American soldiers as they fight the war on terrorism.
Terrorists have murdered our people and disrupted our lives. They've forced us to put soldiers in our airports and around bridges. We have military planes guarding our borders and air space. We're afraid to use our mail system. We are being frightened into surrendering our liberties in exchange for security. Their hatred of America's freedoms is forcing us to live in fear. For their violence against us, they deserve to die.
This is not the time for muddle-headed international bureaucrats to call for debates and resolutions. It's not the time to allow those with an anti-American agenda to stop us from freeing ourselves from the terrorist threat. This is not the time to encumber our soldiers as they try to rid the world of these murderers. This is not the time to pretend that the United Nations has any relevance in the drive for peace, justice and security.
This is the time for America to stand for its own self-interest, to declare its sovereignty and to reject any initiative that tries to block our way. The UN's International Criminal Court is a dangerous and powerful tool for those who seek to weaken the independence of the United States.
Senator Daschle and the rest of Congress have a duty to protect the US Constitution from attack by the UN's ICC. It must be rejected by the US at all costs. Senator Helms' American Service Members Protection Act is a major step in the right direction. Once the United States refuses to participate, the ICC will prove to be another useless UN folly.
The White House and the rest of our elites seem to think that the ICC is fine for Europe, and will cut of foreign aid if they dont hand over ol' Slobadan, but not us. Why are they waiting to unsign the treaty?!
If there was ever an indication that we need to tell the UN to F' OFF, this is it.
Wake up America!
I might have missed it, but when does this horse---- come up for a vote. I know bastard Bill Clinton signed on to this his last day or so in office, but when is this being voted on in our Congress??
(Thanks for posting this SWL) BTTT
When ANY organization functions in a way counter to our sovereignty, then funding to that body should be halted.
This SHOULD include the so-called United Nations!
Time to take that UN and make it into something useful like condos! They make me want to barf! I'm outraged!
Thanks for the Ping Chase, never saw this one!
GET THE U.S. OUT OF THE UN,GET THE UN OUT OF THE U.S.!
Our sovereignty is not for sale to the highest bidder! Our soldiers and sailors will not be tried by foreign courts!
Here's something more important for you to fight against, rather than whether the South was right or not!
By Henry Lamb
While America slept through the night of July 17, 1998, the United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court created the final essential mechanism to establish global governance. By a vote of 120 to 7 (with 21 nations abstaining), the Conference adopted a new, international Statute which creates, for the first time in history, an international criminal court that has the power to enforce international law.
The new international Statute creates an Assembly of States Parties (ASP) consisting of one representative from each nation that ratifies the Statute. The Statute goes into effect 60 days after it is ratified by the 60th nation. The ASP will elect 18 judges who will serve 9-year terms. The judges will be divided into three Chambers: (1) a Pre-trial Chamber, consisting of "not less than six judges;" (2) a Trial Chamber, of not less than six judges; and (3) an Appeals Chamber, consisting of four judges and the Presidency. The Presidency consists of a President and two vice presidents elected by the judges. The function of the Pre-trial Chamber may be carried out by a panel of three judges assigned to a particular case, or by any one of the three. Pre-trial functions include ruling on jurisdictional matters, issuing warrants or subpoenas, determining issues of jurisdiction and admissibility, and the like. The Trial judges hear, and decide the cases brought before them -- without assistance from a jury.
The new Statute also creates an Office of the Prosecutor who is elected by the ASP for a 9-year term. The Prosecutor, a Deputy and their staff, are responsible for investigating and bringing to "justice" any person accused of an international crime: "the crime of genocide; crimes against humanity; war crimes; and the crime of aggression."
Crimes against humanity are defined to include: murder; extermination; enslavement; deportation or forcible transfer of populations "without grounds permitted under international law;" torture; rape; enforced prostitution; sexual slavery; forced pregnancy; enforced sterilization; persecution against any identifiable group; apartheid; and "other inhumane acts of a similar character."
Interestingly, genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes are each defined in a separate article of the Statute. Aggression, however, is not mentioned again, nor is it defined in the final document. In an addendum entitled "The Final Act," however, the Commission to Establish an International Criminal Court is directed to "prepare proposals for a provision on aggression, including the definition and elements of crimes of aggression and the conditions under which the International Criminal Court shall exercise its jurisdiction." The United States objected to this provision declaring that only the UN Security Council can act on matters of aggression under Article VII of the UN Charter.
State Parties that ratify the Statute "shall" cooperate with the Prosecutor; conform national laws to meet the requirements of the International Criminal Court; use national police powers and facilities to capture individuals; and confiscate property when directed to do so by the Prosecutor. Non-participating nations may enter into an ad hoc agreement to participate on a case-by-case basis. Non-cooperative states will be referred to the ASP and/or to the UN Security Council. There is no indication of what the ASP or the Security Council is expected to do in the event of non-cooperation by a State, whether a Party to the Statute or not.
Enforcement authority provides for sentences of up to 30 years for most crimes, and life in prison for the most severe crimes. The Court has the authority to confiscate assets of every kind. States Parties agree to use their law enforcement facilities to enforce the court's judgements, and to house, at the state's expense, the international criminals if so requested.
The United States insisted that the Prosecutor be limited by requiring the specific approval of any state in which an investigation would occur. The rest of the world scoffed at the suggestion. Then the U.S. proposed that the UN Security Council approve all investigations, a procedure that would allow the U.S. to use its veto power to block prosecution of American citizens. Again, the world scoffed. A compromise allows the UN Security Council to request a 12-month delay of any investigation. Accordingly, the U.S. cannot block an investigation of an American citizen. Its veto power could only block a request for a delay. An American on foreign soil, whether military or civilian, cannot be protected by the American government from investigation, arrest, detention, asset-confiscation, or conviction and imprisonment for any crime within the jurisdiction of the court.
The new court is to be financed through assessment of participating nations on the same basis of their assessment to the United Nations. The court has the power to confiscate property and assets of the accused, and to convert those assets to its own resources upon conviction. The court expressly accepts gifts and contributions from any nation, organization, corporation, or individual - a practice that is strictly forbidden by the UN Charter. The Court is directed to establish a "Trust Fund" from which to compensate "victims." The Court has ultimate power to set amounts for such compensation.
As a practical matter, the court will be operated by an 18-member "Bureau" chosen from among the ASP. The court will develop its own rules which must be approved by the ASP. The Statute may be amended only after seven years, by a two-thirds majority of the ASP. Although no record of the final vote was made, ABC News reported that the United States, joined China and Lybia among the seven nations that voted against the Statute.
It is much too early to speculate about what impact this court will have in the world or on America. From the reports received from observers in Rome, it is clear that many of the nations that voted for the court expect to use the court's power to prosecute America, and Americans for a wide range of "crimes against humanity." The official newspaper for the Conference, TerraViva, accused former President Bush of committing "the single worst blood bath of the war [against Iraq]." The NGO Coalition that formed to lobby for the court held a demonstration on the 4th of July in Rome that accused President Clinton of "genocide" because of the economic embargo against Iraq. The International Criminal Court now gives the world the legal instrument it needs to attack the United States for the crimes of success and prosperity.
Terror on the Horizon
By Henry Lamb ©
So far, President Bush has resisted the calls to consolidate our response to Sept. 11, under the authority of the United Nations. The attack was against the United States, and the United States should respond. Other nations that wish to help may do so, but only to the extent that their help fits into our strategy. Response decisions should be made in the Oval Office – not in the corridors of the United Nations.
So far, so good, but the pressure to turn over the war to the "international community" will continue to mount.
There are no less than 12 international treaties dealing with terrorism, and even more U.N. resolutions on the subject. The United Nations has an Office for Drug Control and Crime Prevention, with a staff of 350, in 22 offices around the world. Within this agency, there is a Terrorism Prevention Branch. If this agency has prevented any terrorism, it is not public knowledge – it certainly did not prevent the terror that struck the United States on Sept. 11.
The primary reason the United Nations is powerless to deal with terrorism is that it doesn't know what terrorism is. The United Nations has been unable to draw a definitive line between "terrorists" and "freedom fighters." When a car-bomb explodes on a busy street in Israel, much of the world sees it as the work of freedom fighters. The victims define it as an act of terrorism.
While every American recognized Sept. 11 as an act of terrorism, Osama bin Laden saw "God Almighty hit the United States ...," and his followers celebrated the "freedom fighters" in the streets.
The United States cannot allow the nation to get bogged down in this quagmire of indecision. We must maintain our own defense and our own right to rid the world of any and all who would plot to attack innocent civilians in America.
The United Nations has taken up the cause of terrorism with a new enthusiasm in the wake of Sept. 11. Kofi Annan has already called for a new "comprehensive" treaty on terrorism – a treaty to give the United Nations power to end global terrorism. This new initiative will attract many admirers and, sadly, many of those admirers will be Americans.
The United Nations already has in place the bureaucracy to implement the treaty. The new International Criminal Court (ICC) has now been ratified by 42 of the necessary 60 nations required for entry into force. The ICC will be authorized to prosecute "crimes against humanity," which is a vague term, to be defined by the court.
The world is very close to giving the United Nations the tools it needs to enforce its vision of global governance. This new treaty on terrorism could provide the public support the United Nations needs.
What's wrong with this scenario?
The majority of the members of the United Nations consider Israel's response to a Palestinian car-bomb to be an act of terrorism, not self-defense. The masses of protesters in Pakistan consider America's response attack on the Taliban to be an act of terrorism, not self-defense.
United States leadership in economic sanctions against Cuba, Iraq and Iran have repeatedly been called "crimes against humanity" by U.N. officials. America's standard of living – consuming 25 percent of the world's resources for only 5 percent of the world's population – has been cited repeatedly at U.N. meetings, as a "crime against humanity."
Make no mistake: The United Nations will target the United States the moment it has the power to do so, to bring the United States under its control. After all, it is our economic, social and foreign policies that are said to be the "injustice" that caused the Sept. 11 attacks. A new treaty on terrorism, a reinforced bureaucracy for the Prevention of Terrorism and a new International Criminal Court are major steps toward providing the United Nations with the power it needs.
The two remaining elements the United Nations needs to complete its global governance power grab are also quickly being assembled: a U.N. standing army and independent funding. Several nations have already committed troops to the United Nations.
Next March 18-22, in Monterey, Mexico, a world conference will assemble to hear the report of the High Level Panel on Financing for Development. This panel will recommend a Global Taxing Authority, a global tax on the foreign exchange of currency, a tax on the use of fossil fuels and a new U.N. Economic Security Council to oversee and implement the independent financing for the United Nations.
All of these pieces of global governance have been under construction for years. They are all coming together now. The events of Sept. 11, and America's response, will serve the same purpose World War II did in providing justification for creating an international authority to end war – or terrorism – as the case may be.
The United States is the only power on earth strong enough to prevent this terror on the horizon – this last step toward global governance. So far, President Bush has resisted the pressure. Whether or not the American people have the understanding – and the will – to stay the course of independence and freedom is the most important question our nation has ever faced. The answer will unfold over the next several months.
.
.
.
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.