Impartial justice against Americans by the UN?

Cheyenne

Ms. Smarty Pantsless
Joined
Apr 18, 2000
Posts
59,553
Jack Kelly
Jewish World Review May 13, 2002 / 2 Sivan, 5762
http://www.newsandopinion.com/0502/jkelly.html

http://www.NewsAndOpinion.com

The same day a suicide bomber killed 16 teenagers and old women in a pool hall in a Tel Aviv suburb, the United Nations voted 74-4 to condemn Israel for a "massacre" which even the
Palestinian Authority now acknowledges didn't occur at the Jenin refugee camp.

The UN vote underscores the wisdom of President Bush in withdrawing, the day before, U.S. support for a treaty which would subject U.S. soldiers to the same sort of fair and impartial justice that the UN dispenses toward Israel. A treaty drafted in Rome in 1998 would create an international criminal court under the auspices of the United Nations. It would be like the war crimes tribunal that currently is trying former Serb dictator Slobodan Milosevic for war crimes. But it would be permanent, and would have a broader mandate.

The 60 nations required have ratified the treaty, so it will go into effect in two months. But the lack of U.S participation will stunt its growth and limit its influence.

That's good, because in a breathtaking departure from the norms of international law, the Rome treaty asserts the right to extend its jurisdiction over nationals of countries which did not sign or ratify the treaty. In other words, the authors of the Rome treaty claim the right to try Americans without the protections of the U.S. Constitution, and without the assent of the United States government.

The new court will be a panel of judges from different countries. It is not bound by the Bill of Rights. The accused have no right to subpoena witnesses, no right to confront accusers, no right to a public trial, no right to a trial by jury. Conviction would be by a simple majority if the justices hearing the case. The vote would be in secret. Testimony could be taken in secret, trials conducted in secret. The accused would have no right of appeal.

The section on war crimes would permit soldiers -including U.S. soldiers - to be tried for attacking civilians, attacking undefended places, for causing "excessive" incidental death or injury.

The war crimes section also creates such vague new "crimes" as "violating the dignity of an individual," and causing "excessive damage to the environment."

UN Secretary General Kofi Annan has hailed the treaty as "a giant step forward in the march toward universal human rights and the rule of law." The Clinton administration originally refused to sign the Rome treaty because it was so inimical to our standards of justice and so potentially hostile to our national interests. But on December 31, 2000, between pardoning Marc Rich and packing up White House furniture for the move to Chappaqua, Clinton signed.

A treaty must be ratified be a two-thirds vote in the Senate in order for the United States to become a party to it. In expressing his strong opposition to the International Criminal Court, President Bush said he will not send it to the Senate for ratification.

I think Bush should have sent the treaty to the Senate, with a recommendation that it be rejected. The vote against it likely would have been overwhelming, and the world should see that opposition to this imperial overreach by the United Nations is not limited to the present administration.

Bush's rejection of the Rome treaty has been condemned by the usual suspects:

"Today's action by the Bush administration is myopic in the extreme," said William Schulz, executive director of Amnesty International USA. "Driven by unfounded fears of phantom prosecutions, the United States has hit a new nadir of isolationism and exceptionalism."

"There is a certain irony in the fact that the United States, which tends to extraterritorially apply its laws rather widely, is not willing to participate in a truly international consensus," said Canadian foreign minister Bill Graham.

But when the international consensus is wrong, the United States must stand against it. We are not like the Muslim nations, where homosexuals are stoned, and women treated like cattle. We are not like the nations of continental Europe, where anti-Jewish tracts can be read by the light of burning synagogues. We must speak up for liberty, democracy and human rights, even if no one else will.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
While I'm posting this for discussion purposes, I will also say that I agree that the U.S. should not ratify this treaty.
 
I not only agree that they should not sign the treaty...

But get out of the UN and let it fold.




The next big world club should simply have some membership standards...
 
I have a lot of contempt for the UN. The organization is damn near useless most times. Nato's not that much better. (shhh)
 
I agree with the rejection of the treaty.

But I also agree with the statement by the Canadian Foriegn Minister. We, as Americans, are all to quick to project our justice system on other countries. This is, in effect, meddling in their internal affairs. While at the same time crying 'foul' when they attempt to meddle in ours.

We just can't have it both ways.

Ishmael
 
> "The section on war crimes would permit soldiers -including U.S. soldiers - to be tried for attacking civilians, attacking undefended places, for causing "excessive" incidental death or injury. "

That's such an American thing to do. Why note "including US soldiers" there? Are US soldiers different from other soldiers? Is it a surprise that US soldiers should be subject to the same laws as other soliders?

> "The war crimes section also creates such vague new "crimes" as "violating the dignity of an individual," and causing "excessive damage to the environment." "

These are hardly vague crimes. They relate back to the second Gulf War. Saddam Hussian flooding the guly with oil reserves is an example of "excessive damage to the enviroment".

The situtation in the Middle East isn't an easy one. I think the American efforts to provide a middle ground would only be helped if they stopped selling tanks to only one side.
 
Yeah, but the side that we sell the tanks to likes us...

We meddle too much, agreed.

Stick closer to home. Beware foreign entanglements. And no, I do not mean isolationism. Just less world police'n'emism...
 
SINthysist said:
Yeah, but the side that we sell the tanks to likes us...

We meddle too much, agreed.

Stick closer to home. Beware foreign entanglements. And no, I do not mean isolationism. Just less world police'n'emism...

No. No. More world police'n'emism. I'm not anti-American. I'm pro American. That said, only Americans see America as the "Policeman of the World". Normally it's a pain in the neck to try and get America involved in anything at all. Your previous post about wanting to pull out of the UN, I think, sums up a common feeling in the US.

It's not America. It's US TV, it just doesn't really paint a fair world picture.

I was watching CNN the other night, they said it was a miracle that Sierra Leonie had held free and fair elections and then left it at that. No mention was made that the UK and UN troops had gone in to peacekeep and then train the local army.

19/20 times America doesn't want anything to do with any action that has their troops on someone else's soil. It's other UN troops that go in and play policemen - Bosina, Cyprus, East Timor, etc.
 
SINthysist said:
Have you seen the thanks we get for the 1/20?

True.
It shouldn't be done for the thanks. It should be done for the peace.

Mind you, that's the easy thing to say. Knowing what to do - that's the tricky bit.
 
Peace would have been achieved in 1945 or 46.

Why we didn't run the board shows a strength of character that we have never been given proper credit for...
 
Ishmael said:
I agree with the rejection of the treaty.

But I also agree with the statement by the Canadian Foriegn Minister. We, as Americans, are all to quick to project our justice system on other countries. This is, in effect, meddling in their internal affairs. While at the same time crying 'foul' when they attempt to meddle in ours.

We just can't have it both ways.

Ishmael

Good point. We do tend to meddle, don't we?
 
Back
Top