World Court Wants Jurisdiction Over Every Country—Even U.S.
The International Criminal Court is now a reality, as expected (AFP, April 15, 2002), and Congress is fighting its claim to jurisdiction over the United States despite the Senate’s overwhelming refusal to ratify.
One of the first cases suggested for the ICC, which will open July 1, is that Israeli leaders be investigated for war crimes because of the invasion and brutal occupation of Palestinian territories. Mohammad Barakeh, an Arab member of the Israeli parliament, accused his government of “serious violations of human rights.” He named specifically Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Defense Minister Binyamin Ben-Eliezer.
While President Bush and the administration have strongly condemned the ICC and its claim to global jurisdiction—even over countries not party to the treaty —Congress is acting to protect America’s sovereignty and citizens from the new tribunal.
President Clinton had signed the treaty in the midst of pardoning felons during his last days in the White House but, on a test vote, the Senate rejected the court 99-0. Senate ratification is necessary before the United States is legally subject to the ICC.
ICC advocates had proclaimed in advance that, when the required 60 nations signed on to make the court a reality, it would have jurisdiction over all nations on Earth, including non-signatories. They went over the top with a total of 66 at a United Nations signing ceremony April 11.
Even before that, internationalists argued that Clinton’s signature bound America to the court. This has prompted a call in Congress for “un-signing” the treaty, which would be unprecedented.
“I think that signing a treaty that could turn around and bite you is wrong,” said Rep. Bob Barr (R-Ga.). He is among those who urged the State Department and President Bush to “un-sign” the treaty.
On the day the ICC became a reality, Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.) launched a counter-offensive by introducing legislation repudiating ICC jurisdiction over Americans with his “American Servicemember and Citizen Protection Act” (H. Con. Res. 23). It also urges rescinding the Clinton signature.
“The ICC is completely illegitimate, even under the UN’s own charter,” Paul said. “The charter gives neither the UN General Assembly nor any other UN agency lawmaking authority. In other words, there cannot be UN ‘laws’ and there is no valid law authorizing the establishment of the ICC. The ratification of the ICC treaty, whether by 60 nations or 1000, does nothing to give the court any legal authority whatsoever”
The “more important point, however, is that the ICC cannot exercise legitimate jurisdiction over American citizens,” Paul said. “The Senate has not ratified the treaty, as required by our Constitution.”
Like Sen. Jesse Helms (R-N.C.) and others who have proposed similar measures, Paul expressed concern that Americans would be seized and tried for “war crimes” before the ICC while on UN “peacekeeping missions” or in anti-terrorist actions overseas. Variations of the Helms bill are already pending in the Senate and House.
All also object to surrendering national sovereignty to a global criminal court. Under the Constitution, the Supreme Court is the highest arbiter for the United States.
FIGHTING TAX CUTS
President Bush has called on Congress to make permanent the tax cuts passed last year, which would expire in 10 years.
Bush chose tax deadline day—April 15—to urge Congress to correct a “quirk in the law” that would allow the latest tax cuts to expire.
“That doesn’t make much sense,” Bush told taxpayers at a food-processing plant in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. “For the good of the working people of America, for the good of families, for the good of small businesses, for the good of farmers and ranchers, we need to make the tax-relief plan permanent in the tax code.”
Congress passed the president’s tax-relief proposal last summer but opponents used a technical rule in the Senate that would revoke the legislation on Jan. 1, 2011. That, Republicans argue, will amount to a massive tax increase that will send shock waves through the economy.
But House Democrats defeated the Republicans’ laundry list of tax cuts offered as the April 15 filing deadline loomed, arguing that the legislation would actually undo some campaign finance regulations.
But Democrats have created an issue that will haunt them in the November elections by defeating new protections for taxpayers included in the bill, Republicans said.
Although lawmakers traditionally toady to angry voters in the days before the filing deadline with taxpayer-friendly legislation, the Taxpayer Protection and IRS Accountability Act failed 219-2205 on April 10. Because of procedural rules governing the bill on the floor, it would have required two-thirds of the House vote to pass. (See page 6 for the roll call to find out how your congressman voted.)
There were 25 Republicans who voted against the bill, 15 Democrats who supported it and one Republican voted present.
Democrats said that by bringing the bill up under the two-thirds rule, which also prevented amendments, Republicans showed they were just looking for an issue.
“It’s a legislative attempt to create 30-second [television ad] spots to defeat Democrats,” said House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt (D-Mo.). “The other thing that comes out of this, and we intend to say this in the election, is Republican leadership, and a majority of Republicans are not for campaign finance reform.”
Republicans wanted to make earlier tax cuts permanent, allow the IRS to waive penalties for first-time violators who have a history of compliance, reform the way interest is applied to estimated tax payments and penalties and give taxpayers more time to challenge a levy the IRS imposes on an account.
It would also have made it a firing offense for an IRS employee to browse, unauthorized, through taxpayer records.
Democrats seized on the part that applied to “527 organizations,” named after the section of the tax code that applies to them, to defeat the legislation. These are organizations formed by political committees and candidates that, until recently, were not required to disclose fund-raising information but which ran ads in federal elections.
In 2000, Congress passed legislation requiring that 527s disclose officers, donations and expenditures. But state and local parties, both Republican and Democrat, were surprised to learn they were affected. Some argued that they already file the information with state officials.
Republicans said that the legislation would merely correct that double reporting.
Backers of the campaign finance law passed recently said there are other ways to correct the problem of overburdened organizations. “Why is it so difficult for there to be a compromise?” asked Rep. Christopher Shays (R-Conn.). He was a chief sponsor of the campaign finance reform law.
Sen Mitch McConnell (R-Ky,), an outspoken foe of the law on First Amendment grounds, announced that more plaintiffs have joined his suit challenging its constitutionality. Among them are the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Right to Life Committee and the Christian Coalition.
The broad ideological range of the groups is natural, said Floyd Abrams, a prominent First Amendment lawyer who is joining Kenneth Starr as a lead attorney.
“The reason so many of us who may have some disagreements on some issues come together so easily on this issue is that this is a wholly nonpartisan, non-ideological issue,” Abrams said.
americanfreepress.net |
