Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

U.S. wise to oppose world court
ATLANTA JOURNAL ^ | 4/21/02 | David Davenport

Posted on 04/22/2002 6:29:21 AM PDT by Tumbleweed_Connection

They threw a party at the United Nations recently, but the United States did not attend. The hoopla, celebrated by 66 nations and hundreds of nongovernmental organizations, marked the birth of the new International Criminal Court, but the United States, by refusing to ratify the treaty creating the court, sent its regrets.

The establishment of a major world court without U.S. participation opens a new and troublesome chapter in international law and diplomacy.

Only a few years ago, the United States would have been expected to support the new court. Most of America's traditional allies, including Great Britain, Canada and its European friends, are key participants. The United States has been a major supporter of the temporary international criminal tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda (precursors of the permanent ICC) and was one of the nations helping to shape the new court.

But a funny thing happened on the way to the conception of the International Criminal Court. A group of "like-minded nations" became highly committed to a court with far more sweeping powers than ever before seen or envisioned, and, in the end, they hijacked the process, rushing past U.S. concerns. The Clinton administration was ambivalent, but the Bush administration has been steadfastly opposed, and rightly so.

There is plenty not to like about the ICC. Although the court's primary agenda is war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide, it also has jurisdiction over a new, undefined crime of "aggression." With troops stationed around the world, the U.S. military has reason to be concerned.

Instead of cases being referred to the court by the U.N. Security Council, an independent prosecutor will make those highly political decisions. Amazingly, the ICC purports to have jurisdiction over citizens of countries that do not participate in the court, an unprecedented expansion of international law.

Why should Americans care? For one thing, it is highly likely that Americans will be investigated or charged as criminal defendants. Government officials, military officers and soldiers -- even corporate executives -- are all possible targets. Another concern is that defendants cannot rely on the right to a jury trial, protection against unreasonable searches and many other protections afforded by the U.S. Constitution. With considerable anti-American sentiment attending the creation of the court, the ICC could easily become a forum for trying U.S. military and national policy as criminal matters.

In a larger sense, Americans should also be concerned that 66 nations, out of the nearly 200 in the world, have railroaded the formation of this court. Although its humanitarian purposes may be noble, a criminal court of universal jurisdiction created by one-third of the nations of the world, representing one-sixth of its population, constitutes a major power play. The party at the United Nations was not just about a court; it was also a celebration of small and medium-size nations and hundreds of nonprofit organizations attempting to level the playing field with the United States and other world powers.


TOPICS: Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: icc; worldcourt; worldly

1 posted on 04/22/2002 6:29:21 AM PDT by Tumbleweed_Connection
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection
The U.S. Constitution was designed to do, among the original 13 states, what this rump U.N. organization purports to do globally. Calling it a "court" doesn't give it soverign jurisdiction, and the U.S. government should never dignify this group even by discussing it. If an American is ever siezed under color of this group, the individual people who take such action will have to be treated by us as outlaws.

A RICO lawsuit in Federal court would be the appropriate initial response . . . and the UN building in NYC would be surety for payment of a RICO judgement.

2 posted on 04/22/2002 7:05:03 AM PDT by conservatism_IS_compassion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: conservatism_IS_compassion
But for a few thousand votes in Florida, this nightmare would've become reality for Americans.
3 posted on 04/22/2002 7:07:17 AM PDT by Eric in the Ozarks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Eric in the Ozarks
Yep, President Goron would have rammed the Kyota agreement down our throats, and he would have proudly signed and supported this POS UN travesty.

That would have just been the beginning of the end!

4 posted on 04/22/2002 7:13:59 AM PDT by Grampa Dave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Grampa Dave
Think about those near-misses. Then flash on what will probably be at least two Supreme Court vacancies in the near term.
5 posted on 04/22/2002 7:43:00 AM PDT by Eric in the Ozarks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Eric in the Ozarks
Bush can't even get his Federal Appelate justices approved. Why can't the Republicans dash and dis Daschle?
6 posted on 04/22/2002 7:47:07 AM PDT by Angelique
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Eric in the Ozarks
You are really trying to scare me aren't you!

Actually what you posted and my replies are the key points of my daily and nightly prayer where I say thank you Lord for our president!

7 posted on 04/22/2002 7:50:12 AM PDT by Grampa Dave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Angelique
The best way we can dash and dis the little Nazi Mullah, Shorty Da$$hole is to defeat every rat senator running for reelection in Bush Country.

We need control of the Senate to put little Nazi Mullah, Shorty Da$$hole in charge of counting paper clips in the senate until he is voted out of office.

8 posted on 04/22/2002 7:52:24 AM PDT by Grampa Dave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Angelique
That is the problem, it's no use having a Republican President nominating conservative Judges that...don't get confirmed.

I'm in favor of a commercial TV campaign, in Leahy and Kennedy's backyard, which lists all the rejected nominees and says 'But guess what, Leahy says this man is a racist'and then 'and this man too, is a racist, according to Senator Leahy. And this one. And this one. And this one. And this one'.

The 'good guys' could at least make an effort to get these people confirmed.

9 posted on 04/22/2002 7:53:50 AM PDT by Bagehot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Bagehot
'swhy the upcoming midterm elections are so important. We've gotta get rid of Carnahan, Wellstone, etc., to get the train back on track.
10 posted on 04/22/2002 8:11:08 AM PDT by Eric in the Ozarks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Bagehot
Well, Kennedy got away with murder, and Leahy gets away with lies. Why are Republicans so chicken? At least Cheney called it on MTP stating that Daschle was an obstructionist.
11 posted on 04/22/2002 8:49:41 AM PDT by Angelique
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson