WSJ: 'Justice' for Terrorists -- Another reason for the US to steer clear of global courts

Wall Street Journal ^ | May 18, 2005 | Editorial

[OESY]

Abdullah Ocalan isn't exactly a household name in America. But he's more notorious even than Osama bin Laden in Turkey, where his Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) waged a terrorist and guerrilla war that cost an estimated 37,000 lives. Last week, incredibly, the European Court of Human Rights ordered that he be given a new trial.

For Americans, this verdict should serve as yet another warning about the dangers of joining permanent multilateral legal institutions such as the International Criminal Court. ICC backers claim that the court can be trusted to exercise its authority with prudence and discretion. But the Ocalan verdict is only the latest example of the European court's frequent overreaching.

It has ruled, for example, that British law permitting the spanking of children somehow violates the European Convention on Human Rights' prohibition against "torture" and "degrading treatment." Obviously the Convention -- drafted in the aftermath of World War II -- was intended to limit the systematic abuses of governments, not the disciplinary discretion of parents. But the tendency of judges over time is to amass whatever power they can get away with, a danger all the more pronounced in any legal system not directly accountable to national governments....

The ruling by the European Court of Human Rights has three main due process objections to the Ocalan trial: a military judge was present for part of the proceedings; Ocalan didn't get quite as much access to his lawyers as he wanted; and there was a delay in bringing him before a judge after his capture (as if he had no clue what the charges might be). These are essentially frivolous reasons for ordering retrial, since no serious person could imagine the possibility of a different result.

...And Europe wonders why the U.S. doesn't always take its opinions... seriously.

[The_Victor]

It has ruled, for example, that British law permitting the spanking of children somehow violates the European Convention on Human Rights' prohibition against "torture" and "degrading treatment." Obviously the Convention -- drafted in the aftermath of World War II -- was intended to limit the systematic abuses of governments, not the disciplinary discretion of parents. But the tendency of judges over time is to amass whatever power they can get away with, a danger all the more pronounced in any legal system not directly accountable to national governments....

And we thought we had a problem with activist judges....

[26lemoncharlie]

Undermining the US Constitution. I certainly hope and pray that the TWITS in Washington are thinking of joining this rediculous organization. If the go against the American Peoples wishes, and join this Kngaroo Court, the US Revolution was for not!!

We, Americans, who believe in the US Constitution , will have to demand that they do not enter into any agreement with any foreign government or representative body that would jepordize the rights guranteed by the US Constitution.

If they do, then it is Civil War! Or the Second American Revolution, AMII. Time to get the muskets cleaned and ready I Guess.

[libstripper]

The really sinister thing about this, and the ICC, is there's no real limit to the ICC's jurisdiction. So far all the argument has been about American soldiers and officials possibly being prosecuted , an entirely proper point. However, if British law permitting spanking can be overturned, what about American law allowing the use of lethal force in self defense and thee Second Amendment? A really horrible scenario that could occur is if the ICC were ever adopted by the U.S., one of us could legally and legitimately kill a home invader who needed killing and be prosecuted before the ICC because no American court with jurisdiction would allow the prosecution.

[Canard]

"It has ruled, for example, that British law permitting the spanking of children somehow violates the European Convention on Human Rights' prohibition against "torture" and "degrading treatment."

I'm not exactly sure what that means, this has been recently legislated by the UK Parliament and I'm not aware that that legislation had been challenged, so I'm not sure what 'activist judges' have to do with it either.

There was a case several years ago that the European Court ruled on, but that was with regard to a specific case (which involved a boy being hit with a cane, rather than 'smacked').