Skip to comments.Interview with Fred Gedrich of Freedom Alliance (Long, but interesting)
Posted on 06/30/2004 4:45:18 PM PDT by notforhire
Interview conducted by freelance writer, Kerry L. Marsala, with Fred Gedrich-the Freedom Alliances senior policy analyst responsible for monitoring and reporting on UN activities and national security issues. Mr. Gedrich speaks frankly about how the United States sovereignties are in constant danger and how there are those who are trying to whittle away at our independence. The establishment of the International Criminal Court system has been a source of contention between those states who desire us to ratify the statue and for those of us who don't wish to be a part of the ICC. With our recent withdraw from negotiations, Mr. Gedrich explains why events are taking place as they are now and what our future possibly will hold for our military serving abroad.
Marsala: Can you explain, Mr. Gedrich, the function of the ICC?
Gedrich: The primary purpose of the International Criminal Court is to bring to justice persons responsible for the most egregious war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide. The Court entered into force July 1, 2002 - and only crimes committed after that date are prosecutable.
Marsala: Who are the chief ICC supporters?
Gedrich: Chief ICC supporters are the UN, European Union, World Federalist Association, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, left-wing news media, and people like Ted Turner and the Democrat presidential candidate, John Kerry, among others.
As witnessed in War on Terror statements, these institutions, and people would attempt to use the Court and the UN to control U.S. foreign policy, national security decisions, and military affairs by subjecting U.S. military members and leaders to unjust arrest and prosecution.
Marsala: How many judges sit on the ICC?
Gedrich: The Hague-based Court has 18 judges and a prosecutor selected by the nations, which are states party to the 1998 ICC Treaty (Rome Statute). Proponents would like the Court to assert global jurisdiction - even on individuals in countries that are not states party to the Treaty.
Marsala: How many countries have actually signed the Statute?
Gedrich: 139 countries, including the U.S. signed the Statute, by the December 2000 deadline. To date, only 94 of 191 UN nations have become states party to the Treaty. Collectively, these 94 countries represent less than 1/4 of the world's 6.2 billion population. China, India, and Japan haven't signed or ratified the Treaty. Russia, United States and Israel signed the Treaty, but like many others decided not to ratify it.
Marsala: Former President Clinton authorized the U.S. signature prior to leaving office, so why did President Bush decide against its ratification?
Gedrich: Yes, President Clinton authorized U.S. signature in the waning days of his administration. But, Clinton did advise the next President not to send it to Senate for ratification unless significant Treaty flaws, which infringe on U.S. sovereignty and constitutional due process protections (such as trial by jury and protection against double jeopardy), were corrected.
The U.S. tried for nearly four years to resolve, through negotiations with Treaty officials. President Bush and the vast majority of congressional legislators were also concerned that the Court was not rooted in the same democratic principles as our country. As well, they wouldn't be accountable to anyone, and based on the hyperbole surrounding its birth, it could be used as a political instrument by U.S. international foes.
Marsala: At this point what did the Bush Administration do?
Gedrich: After the ICC negotiations failed in the Spring of 2002, President Bush wisely withdrew the U.S. from the Treaty and the U.S. House and Senate overwhelmingly passed the bipartisan anti-International Criminal Court legislation (the American Service Members Protection Act) which the President immediately signed into law. This was put into place to further protect American soldiers and leaders from the unjust grip of the Court.
It shouldn't go unnoticed that presumptive Democrat nominee, John Kerry, voted against the American Service Members Protection Act.
Marsala: Why did the United States delegation break off negotiations to extend the proposed arrangements with the Security Council?
Gedrich: The U.S. simply didn't have the votes in the UN Security Council, to get the resolution passed. Adversaries of the U.S. in the War on Terror undoubtedly used the Abu Ghraib prison scandal as leverage to prevent the U.S. from getting the necessary votes.
Marsala: Will there possibly be speculation from the states that have signed the treaty with the ICC, that the only reason the United States halted negotiations, is because of the events surrounding Abu Ghraib?
Gedrich: Foes of the United States will certainly attempt to use the Abu Ghraib prison scandal for many reasons, including domestic political opportunism, illustrated by the likes of Al Gore, Ted Kennedy and John Kerry. Others like UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, billionaire Democrat George Soros, and left-wing groups like MoveOn.Org, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch, seek to buttress their own biased views. Claiming the U.S. is a greater threat to international peace and security than the terrorists who purposely kill and maim innocent men, women, and children.
Marsala: Will the United States keep themselves from participating in UN Peacekeeping missions altogether?
Gedrich: The U.S. will closely review every proposed peacekeeping mission and determine whether it's in the U.S. national security interest to participate.
Marsala: Since the United States is the largest financial contributor to the UN, what will become of the UN Peacekeeping missions?
Gedrich: U.S. peacekeepers represent a relatively small portion of UN peacekeepers. However, the UN peacekeeping mission cannot survive without U.S. support and funding. The U.S. Department of State estimated that the U.S. provided nearly $1 billion for UN peacekeeping in 2002.
Marsala: What will be the ramifications of our resolution withdraw? Does this place those in the U.S. Military serving abroad in danger? Can they now be brought to trial more than once, if they are accused and travel abroad anytime?
Gedrich: The U.S. has the finest system of juris prudence in the world. Anyone accused of a crime, like the perpetrators of the scandalous activities in Abu Ghraib prison, are quickly brought to justice - but more importantly, the protections accorded to the accused by the U.S. Constitution, not the UN Charter, or the provisions of the ICC Statute. The supporters of the Court would like everyone to believe that it will not interfere in situations where national courts have adjudicated the issue.
However, a problem arises when global ideologues disagree with decisions reached by American criminal or military courts (i.e., when someone is exonerated). In cases like those, the ICC prosecutor could possibly issue a warrant and expose an American to double jeopardy. If the Court and any country are foolish enough to do that, the U.S. President has the authority under the American Service Member Protection Act, to rescue that American.
Marsala: You state that an U.S. President has the authority under the American Service Member Protection Act to rescue an arrested American, but how would we execute such a plan?
Gedrich: If the ICC issued a warrant for the arrest of any American, that American could be picked up and delivered to the Hague if traveling through a country that is states party to the Treaty (i.e., France, Germany, and Belgium). Unless, the U.S. has a bilateral immunity agreement with that country.
Marsala: Since the American delegation withdrew negotiations of extension for one more year, will it affect our proposal of staying in Iraq to help establish their government till 2005?
Gedrich: It will not effect our decision to stay in Iraq. Iraq isn't part of the Treaty, but it will not deter U.S. critics in the War on Terror from alleging the U.S. is responsible for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide.
It shouldn't be overlooked that immediately after the horrible 9/11 attacks on the U.S., Court proponents quickly demonstrated their anti-American views. The ICC Coalition warned the U.S. that "indiscriminate" military retaliation is "illegal." The UN Human Rights Commission expressed deep concern over the U.S. adoption of anti-terrorist and national security laws. The Human Rights Watch, Reporters Without Borders, and International Federation for Human Rights ranked the U.S. as the world's "worst" human rights abuser.
Amnesty International accused the U.S. of harboring "torturers," and the European Parliament criticized the U.S. for "international law violations" and "mistreating" captured Taliban and al Qaeda terrorists.
Marsala: How will the White House pursue bilateral arrangements on future US troop deployments and avoid the Security Council altogether?
Gedrich: The U.S. State Department, Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security John Bolton has negotiated 90 bilateral immunity agreements - and more are in process.
It's interesting to note that it's taken the ICC six years to get 94 countries to ratify the Treaty. It's taken the U.S. State Department only two years to get 90 countries to side with the U.S. and agree to not allow the ICC to have jurisdiction over Americans.
When the ICC entered into force in 2002, the U.S. obtained UN Security Council approval, in 2002 and 2003, which prevented the ICC from prosecuting U.S. peacekeepers. The concern by U.S. officials was the political operatives in the Court could levy frivolous charges against U.S. peacekeepers as they were deployed around the world on various humanitarian and peacekeeping missions. The U.S. also began to forge immunity agreements with individual UN member countries promising to not send any U.S. peacekeepers to the ICC for prosecution.
Marsala: Overall, Mr. Gedrich, what are your speculations on the push for global government and its desire to erode America's independence?
Gedrich: The ICC is the "crown jewel" of those who believe in global governance. The most ardent supporters of the Court (many who subscribe to Marxist/Leninist ideology) generally detest the U.S. standing as the freest, wealthiest, and most powerful nation in the world. They'd clearly use the Court to neutralize U.S. world power and prestige. Global Court supporters have already mounted a direct attack on the U.S. to exercise its sovereign right to defend itself from further terror attacks. Claiming any action without UN approval is "illegitimate" and aforementioned statements on how the U.S. is going about prosecuting the War on Terror and defending itself is clear proof of what they seek to do.
Marsala: Finally, what action can the American people take, to help fight against those who are pushing for a 'one world government'? How can the common working classes of America make a difference in protecting our rights and freedoms?
Gedrich: America is like Ronald Reagan often said, "the shining city on a hill." It's the land of hope and opportunity - to go along with unparalleled freedom, democracy, respect for human rights, and the rule of law embodied in the Declaration of Independence and U.S. Constitution.
Throughout our history, America has opened its doors to others. Despite what may be claimed, America is the most generous nation on the planet. Generally the world's masses, if given the opportunity, would immigrate to the U.S. in an instant.
Conversely, many U.S. critics have another view. They look to the UN, and the Global Court, as mankind's salvation. Americans should be wary; the UN is a morally bankrupt corrupt institution. It not only houses and tolerates some of the world's most sinister forces like, the "Butchers of Beijing, Castro's Cuba, and Mugabe's Zimbabwe, it elevates them to important positions within the UN system. This last year the terrorist state of Syria had a Security Council seat and one of the world's worst human rights abusers, Gadhafi's Libya, chaired the UN Human Rights Commission.
For example, it has failed to keep the peace or protect human rights. It wouldn't act against Saddam Hussein even though he had the blood of an estimated 1.5 million people on his hands. The UN apparently allowed the largest humanitarian program in its history to turn into elaborate bribes and kickback schemes, costing suffering Iraqis $10 billion of much-needed food and medicine. It stood by as hundreds of thousands of Rwandans were slaughtered - and allowed the terrorist sponsoring state of Sudan to get appointed to its third consecutive term on the UN Human Rights Commission, even though that country is responsible for the genocide of 1 million Sudanese Christians.
Even more shockingly, as mankind faces its gravest threat from the scourge of global terror, the UN cannot even agree on what a definition of terrorism is. Many UN members would have you believe the killers of innocent men, women, and children are nothing more than "freedom fighters" or "insurgents."
Americans could greatly help protect their rights and freedoms by staying abreast of the issues and putting pressure on elected representatives in Washington, DC. They should demand their congressional legislators and appropriators make substantial cuts in the annual UN regular budget and peacekeeping assessments, because that anti-American body is clearly not doing its job. And it clearly does not have the best interests of the American people at heart.
Americans can also refer to the Freedom Alliance website at www.freedomalliance.org to find out more about the UN challenges to U.S. sovereignty and the U.S. Constitution.
Kerry L. Marsala
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Kerry L. Marsala writes for AmeriConservative; Arizona Conservative; Opinion Editorials; The Rant; Assistant Editor of the GOPUSA/Arizona; Canada Free Press; and is a contributor to; Independent Newspapers; Canadian Free Press; Sarah's Seed Woman's Journal; A. M. Siriano; amgoodnews.com; The Washington Dispatch; The Alberta Weekly; Conservative Battle Line; Focus Magazine and The Truth Magazine; GopUsa; Men's News Daily. Writing about cultural, social and political ideologies by using a bit of satire every now and again helps keep her grey cells stirring. Her philosophy remains that no matter the event, you can always find a bit of humor or the human element of hope somewhere amongst the cracks. Email: cnuseeme(at)cox.net.
Gedrich: When they get the nerve to prosecute us.
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.