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.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: MSI who wrote (266526)	6/24/2002 6:17:00 PM
From: gao seng	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

How does this support your idiotic rant against Bush? Bush is undoing a lot of stupid Bill Clinton's totalitarianist crap, like the World Criminal Court that Clinton thought was such a good idea. Now we find that the WCC is not that friendly toward the idea of a free press. It’s time for our government to declare it’s intent to protect all American citizens and institutions from the talons of this organization. opinionjournal.com Washington Post vs. International Law A new world-wide criminal court endangers the free press. Sunday, June 23, 2002 12:01 a.m. EDT 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. As the Post's lawyers argued at The Hague, the ruling sets a dangerous precedent and puts journalists who cover wars at greater risks. Journalists bear public witnesses to conflicts. If they come to be seen as future prosecution witnesses, they might become victims of a tyrant's second thoughts about allowing an important witness to stay alive. Reporters' future access to troubled areas, and thus their ability to publicize wrongdoing, might be undermined by this ruling. But more important, the court's reasoning highlights an inherent problem with the International Criminal Court, which opens its doors on July 1. Unchecked by democratic institutions of a sovereign state, these tribunals can and often are forced to make up the rules as they go along. They might ignore such niceties of American jurisprudence as, say, the First Amendment. That's one reason the Bush Administration refuses to support it. In this case, Mr. Randal challenged a subpoena to testify in the case of a Bosnian Serb politician charged with genocide and crimes against humanity. Mr. Randal had quoted the accused as advocating the expulsion of non-Serbs from northwest Bosnia. The "ethnic cleansing" campaign went into full swing a few months later. Court insiders say Mr. Randal's testimony isn't crucial to the case as many journalists who covered Bosnia have testified voluntarily. Mr. Randal was the first exception, and the judges were clearly piqued that someone dared question their authority. In the ruling, they made clear the court "is not bound by the laws and judicial pronouncements of any State." That's precisely our point. The court sees itself as free of the constraints that courts within a national judicial system must observe. That's also what the International Criminal Court is asserting for itself. The Post's editorial board has supported the International Criminal Court, but maybe this real world experience will prove to be educational.