Posted on 06/22/2002 7:43:56 PM PDT by knighthawk
The United States is correct to oppose the UN's latest threat to the sovereign power of nations, the International Criminal Court. The Bush Administration is further justified in threatening to veto existing and future peacekeeping requests that come before the Security Council until U.S. nationals are given exemption from prosecution by the ICC, which will gavel-down on July 1. Without such an exemption, U.S. diplomats, soldiers and even tourists abroad would be vulnerable to attempted prosecutions that would be frivolous in content and malicious in intent. Certainly, there can be no serious no doubt that crusading European jurists and anti-U.S. activists would try to haul Americans before the ICC on trumped up charges of crimes against humanity.
The Americans' principal concerns are that the Court's definition of war crimes is overbroad and that standard rules of evidence and the presumption of innocence do not necessarily apply to proceedings. The Americans also rightly distrust the "universal jurisdiction" the court has claimed -- i.e. the right to prosecute the citizens of countries that have not signed the ICC's charter (such as the United States) and to prosecute crimes that allegedly took place in non-signatory countries. Ottawa supports the Court and, typically, has forgotten how offended it is by extra-territorial judicial reach when Canadian citizens are in jeopardy.
The ICC lists not only genocide as a crime against humanity, but also "severe damage to the environment"; ditto the bombing of a building dedicated to science, diplomacy or historical collections, such as a museum. Thus, a tree-hugger might lodge a complaint against a fast-food executive for allegedly defoliating the Amazon so the company can raise beef. The U.S. pilot who accidentally bombed the Chinese embassy during the Kosovo war could probably also be brought before the Court.
By attaching a quid pro quo to its approval of peacekeeping missions, the United States is taking one of the few courses open to it: The Security Council will have no direct jurisdiction or oversight role in the Court's operations.
Moreover, the underlying complaint is bona fide: The United States deserves the exemption it seeks. So should any other non-signatory nation that wants one. If nations want to band together to create an international court, that is fine. But participation should be voluntary, not coerced.
If people want on or off this list, please let me know.
 UN_List: for United Nations articles. Other Bump Lists at: Free Republic Bump List Register Don't forget:
|
My favorite!
Sometimes they get it right!
Freedom is not in the UN or ICC for America or any other country.
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.