US on Wrong Side of History (Mega Barf Alert)

It is the reflex America-must-be-in-charge- or-we-don’t-do-it mentality of the neo-conservatives who wield so much influence in Washington combined with the anti-internationalism of the Christian right

Of all the many ironies in President George Bush’s decision to remove America from membership of the treaty establishing an International Criminal Court - its own adherence to the supremacy of law, its enthusiastic initiating of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and its primary role in setting up the ad hoc international court that is now trying Milosevic - none is more to the fore than the swapping of roles between an imperial Britain and an idealistic United States. In the short space of fifty-eight years there has been a total role reversal.

Winston Churchill believed that there was only one fit punishment for the Nazi war leaders - to execute the top fifty the moment they were captured. Anthony Eden, his foreign secretary, observed that the "guilt of such individuals as Himmler is so black that they fall outside and go beyond the scope of any judicial process". But the US Secretary for War Henry Stimson felt very differently. He wrote to Roosevelt: "The very punishment of these men in a dignified manner consistent with the advance of civilization will have a greater effect on posterity." Roosevelt himself seemed ambiguous but when Truman took over the US presidency, he made it clear he wanted the Nuremberg court established quickly and agreed with Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, whom he nominated as chief prosecutor, that anything else than a fair international trial "would not sit easily on the American conscience or be remembered by our children with pride."

No wonder that when the Bush administration announced on Monday that it no longer saw itself bound by its signature of the treaty establishing an International Criminal Court, Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch could observe, "The administration is putting itself on the wrong side of history."

The Bush administration announced on Monday that it no longer saw itself bound by its signature of the treaty

Yet it cannot be rational legal principles that have turned Bush against the treaty so vehemently and led it once again to cross swords with its faithful ally, Britain. It is the reflex America-must-be-in-charge- or-we-don’t-do-it mentality of the neo-conservatives who wield so much influence in Washington combined with the anti-internationalism of the Christian right who give the impression that they believe that the US is the sole virtuous country in a very dark world. The truth is, in the negotiations in Rome to write the treaty in 1998, the US rammed through almost every change it wanted. Its goal, it made clear, was to make more than doubly sure that no American soldiers could ever come to trial before the court. So pleased is much of the world at having got the treaty written and now recently winning the 60 ratifications necessary for the court to begin work - which it will on July 1 - that it has tended to play down just how much harm the American negotiators did to the treaty in Rome. Most importantly, the US successfully wrote into the treaty provisions that in effect mean that nobody occupying a position of current political or military power in any state is likely to be put on trial unless they invade another state and commit war crimes on its territory. Thus, since also the court cannot act retrospectively, it cannot seek to arrest Saddam Hussein, as long as from now on he keeps his army at home. As Geoffrey Robertson has written in his masterful book Crimes Against Humanity, "the class of criminal most likely to be arraigned at The Hague comprises persons who commit barbaric crimes in a cause that has utterly failed, in a country which decides to surrender them because it lacks the facilities to try them itself. Otherwise the court will become a kind of "permanent ad hoc" tribunal dependent on references from the Security Council to instigate countries like former Yugoslavia and Rwanda where none of the combatants have superpower support."

Thus the chances of Ariel Sharon, the prime minister of Israel ever being charged are zero whatever he decides to do and however brutally he does it as long as Israel maintains US political support.

The only silver lining on Monday’s decision was the announcement by Pierre-Richard Prosper, the US ambassador-at-large for war crimes, that contrary to what had been feared, the US will not launch a campaign against the treaty by penalizing countries that had signed up and, most important, that the US would be willing to consider sending cases to the court through the UN Security Council (perhaps Osama Bin Laden, following a future atrocity, a case that might be considered too hot to handle for a US court?)

This is just as well. Otherwise the US would be in danger of ending up behaving like Churchill wanted to: Putting against a wall those fifty it consider bad enough to deserve having the trigger pulled. This would be a different America from the one presided over by Truman who, contemptuous of the British position, said that he believed in the "beneficent power of law and the wisdom of judges."

Another example of the strange alliance being fformed by leftist and Islamic obscurantism. If there is serious fighting with Iraq expect this sort of fecal matter to flood the lame stram print and electronic media.

Of all the many ironies in President George Bush’s decision to remove America from membership of the treaty establishing an International Criminal Court - its own adherence to the supremacy of law,

This statement demonstrates that the author has no idea what the laws are. First, the Court bypasses the Security Council, to which the powers it claims are given, so from the U.N. side it is illegal. As to the U.S. side, it cedes authority without having been confirmed by the Senate - and cedes it to such an extent that it likely would have to be a Constitutional Amendment as well.

No wonder that when the Bush administration announced on Monday that it no longer saw itself bound by its signature of the treaty establishing an International Criminal Court,

The President' signature is one step above meaningless. He holds no authority to "sign" in the sense that it is a bond to anything. His signature is little more than that of a clerk signing off that this draft is ready to be submitted for review.

It's not so strange- Iraq has long had ties with the former USSR and so, with its ideology. Fellow travelers are not hard to find in America or abroad even with the USSR no longer around to inspire them. And the friendship thing extends to Cuba's relationship with Iraq.

I don't feel like contributing today. ~~~ Wait until you see "Unable to locate server"
I don't have money. ~~~ Help with the fundraiser. Bump the threads, ping your FRiends.
There's plenty of time to donate. ~~~ Bill collectors don't see it that way.
I don't know where to contribute. ~~~ Credit card, mail: FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 , Paypal: JimRob@psnw.com
I've got too many other things to do first. ~~~ Don't we all?
I can't contribute much, what's five dollars. ~~~ If everyone contributed one dollar a month, we'd never have a fundraiser again.
The dog ate my credit card. ~~~ Shoot the dog.
Just let me finish freeping. ~~~ BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Don't wait until it's too late. Do it today. Do it now! Free Republic is funded solely by us. It's up to us to keep it running. Do your part, contribute if you can. Bump the fundraising threads. Help keep this place alive!

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.