Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : GET THE U.S. OUT of The U.N NOW! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tadsamillionaire who wrote (142)	5/30/2002 12:01:55 AM
From: calgal	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 411

John Hanley May 29, 2002 The International Criminal Court vs. America Critics were quick to pin the isolationist label on President Bush after he abandoned support of the International Criminal Court earlier this month. Senator Christopher Dodd, who supported creation of the U.N. sponsored global court, called the decision, "irresponsible, isolationist and contrary to our vital national interests.” Canadian Foreign Minister Bill Graham agreed, saying that rejecting the ICC proves the United States, “is not willing to participate in a truly international consensus.” Could it be that the charge of isolationism is becoming a bit too easy to throw around? All but the most narrow-minded among us believe that there is much to be learned from other cultures. This is why global trade, communication, and cooperation are so important for creating a stronger society here at home. But in pursuing this agenda it is equally important to not jump at every plan dreamed up by the U.N. and gilded with the label of “International”. Even the briefest study of the ICC reveals problems that could potentially damage American interests and compromise American principles. One problem stems from widespread confusion about what crimes the court would be able to try. As written, the terms of the ICC would give it authority over a broad range of offenses, including those of “aggression” and “outrages upon personal dignity.” Depending on the point of view, everything from capturing Osama bin Laden to soccer hooliganism could fall under this umbrella. Leaving these details unclear practically encourages manipulation, a problem that is compounded by a lack of ICC oversight from bodies such as the U.N. Security Council. The result: the ICC would fail to become a serious weapon against human rights abuse, serving instead as a pulpit for political frustration. Angry claims that the ICC would be above such pettiness conveniently overlook the reality of international forums. A year ago, the United States was removed from the U.N. Commission on Human Rights. Other commission members, including China, Cuba, Libya, and Sudan, have since allowed us to rejoin their lofty ranks. But the United States should not be blinded by gratitude for this and remember that the initial removal resulted from disapproval of policies – America’s rejection of the Kyoto protocol and pursuit of a national missile defense – that are beyond the scope of the commission. The argument dismissing politicization gets awfully watered down after contemplating a lecture on human rights from an official whose home office overlooks Tiananmen Square. Political embarrassments would be the least of U.S. worries if the ICC were ratified. Creating a court with jurisdiction over U.S. citizens, then subjecting them to foreign justice without the protections afforded by the Bill of Rights, might raise a constitutional issue or two. Every American is guaranteed the right to trial by a jury of their peers, the right to confront their accusers, and the right to a speedy trial. Justice dispensed by a foreign judge and jury would clearly violate these rights. If creation of this type of court is important enough to dismiss constitutional mandates, then proponents of the ICC should start their amendment campaign now. But before that campaign gets underway, ICC supporters should ask whether the court’s creation would end American isolationism, or actually increase it. From Bosnia to Afghanistan, U.S. troops abroad safeguard the lives and freedoms of millions of people – American and otherwise. If wielded as a political tool, the ICC might prosecute soldiers for doing their duty. Having American troops on trial would be one of the quickest ways to end support for U.S. involvement in areas where their presence is needed. While many outraged “internationalists” have condemned President Bush for turning his back on human rights, their comments have not considered the atrocities that would take place without American resolve around the world. Fortunately Bush is far from alone in recognizing the dangers of an empowered ICC. Congressional leaders in the House of Representatives have stood up for their constituents by passing an amendment to the defense-funding bill that would prohibit cooperation with the U.N. court. And although 66 countries have ratified creation of the court, these nations represent only one-sixth of the world’s population. Japan, India, and China are among the many opposed to the ICC, while Israel and Russia have taken America’s lead and withdrawn from the treaty entirely. The best of intentions - bringing justice to democracy’s worst enemies - may have sparked the idea of an ICC. The proposal has evolved, however, into something that would threaten the very ideals it seeks to protect. Critics who have proved quicker to condemn than to think should consider the Presidential Oath of Office, in which George W. Bush solemnly swore to preserve, protect, and defend the constitution of the United States. America is better off that he has not forgotten his job. ©2002 TownHall.com townhall.com