Impartial justice against Americans by the UN?
Jack Kelly
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.
newsandopinion.com |
