Washington Post vs. International Law

WSJ.com ^ | 23 June, 2002 | Staff

[brityank]

We've never liked the idea of the International Criminal Court, and we like it even less having seen what happened earlier this month to the Washington Post.

The United Nations tribunal investigating war crimes in the Balkans ruled that retired Post reporter Jonathan Randal, who is American, can be forced to testify about what he saw in Bosnia in 1993. If he doesn't comply, the court can instruct the French police to pick up Mr. Randal in Paris, where he now lives.

[brityank]

The Post's editorial board has supported the International Criminal Court, but maybe this real world experience will prove to be educational.

Ha !!
Graham's Crackers and Bradlee's Buffoons give truth to the old saw: "Never lose your ignorance; you can never regain it."

[brityank]

The court sees itself as free of the constraints that courts within a national judicial system must observe.

Pity that doesn't apply to Morrow and the 9^th Circuit.
That said, since Randall is in France, I don't see how he can expect to use the infamous US 'Shield Laws' or his self-perceived elite position to constrain the courts outside of our laws and constitution.

[kattracks]

The Post's editorial board has supported the International Criminal Court

BTTT

[piasa]

This is about as ironic as it can get.

[bmwcyle]

Mr. Randal in Paris, where he now lives

Liberals can never see past their selfish noses even when it bits them in the butt.

[Gaston]

In the ruling, they made clear the court "is not bound by the laws and judicial pronouncements of any State."

Translation: There is no law but our law.

[philman_36]

Liberals can never see past their selfish noses even when it bits them in the butt.
Is that a word play on "straight from the horse's mouth"?

[bmwcyle]

They are bridled by their own stupidity.

[Right_in_Virginia]

"The Post's editorial board has supported the International Criminal Court, but maybe this real world experience will prove to be educational."

Hmmm...I guess we're about to find out what's more important to the editorial board at The Washington Post:---bashing President Bush as a "unilateralist"----or protecting their own.

[philman_36]

I was hoping for a play on words.
I was going to say that it was an especially witty play on words.
Bits in their butts/horse's mouth! LOL

[Maceman]

I don't see how he can expect to use the infamous US 'Shield Laws' or his self-perceived elite position to constrain the courts outside of our laws and constitution.

The ICC is not constrained by any laws or constitution. It has no legal standing to do anything, regardless of how many countries have signed on to it.

[brityank]

I wasn't just referring to the ICC, but all other courts; Randal and the WcomPost are in a French court arguing US law. The ICC have requested the French hold and turn him over.