Bump.
Posted on 07/05/2002 12:16:05 AM PDT by JohnHuang2
President Bush seems serious in his opposition to the International Criminal Court. The liberal media's response is particularly ignorant and one-sided, even for them.
Opposition to this institution of global governance no more signals tolerance for genocide or war crimes than opposition to the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty means support for nuclear war. In fact, going to the trouble of questioning or trying to improve the means may signal an even greater commitment to the ends.
President Clinton signed the treaty creating the ICC saying he would not recommend ratification until various "concerns about significant flaws" were addressed. That won't happen. The ICC's flaws are both central to the ICC as an institution and unalterably inconsistent with the principles underlying our form of government and our standards of liberty. It's the irresistible force meeting the immovable object and President Bush is right for walking away from this insoluble conflict.
The New York Times editorialized that "the Bush administration has withdrawn American support for the court." Such support never existed, at least not for the court that opened for business on July 1, and the only version even President Clinton would support will never exist. Under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, President Clinton's signature only obligated the United States to "refrain from acts which would defeat the object and purpose" of the treaty. Even that obligation no longer exists, the U.S. having "made its intention clear not to become a party to the treaty."
One of the principles central to America's founding was, as John Adams put it, that "power must never be trusted without a check." The ICC, in stark contrast, has completely unchecked power and those negotiating the treaty creating it rejected proposals for checks and balances.
The ICC prosecutor can initiate investigations on his own, and is not responsible or accountable to any elected body. He answers to no one but the court itself – even the United Nations Security Council, charged by the U.N. Charter with maintaining peace and security, is unable to check the ICC's excesses.
The ICC's jurisdiction is similarly unchecked and open-ended. The only thing worse than an unchecked, unaccountable prosecutor is one who can investigate and prosecute undefined crimes such as "aggression" or "inhumane acts." Remember those university "speech codes," the open-ended censorship policies prohibiting undesirable speech branded as "harassment"? The prevailing political culture supplied the ad hoc definition of what was to be censored. Similarly, the shifting winds of international political culture – already decidedly anti-American – will define this new crime of aggression.
The speech-code example applies more than you might think. The European Court of Justice has ruled that the European Union can prohibit criticism of its policies. Most Americans probably understand that the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech and press is a critical limitation on government power. We very well might see criticism of international policies, or of certain political views, added to the ICC treaty as crimes.
In addition to unchecked power, the ICC also undermines America's sovereignty in several ways. First, it claims jurisdiction over American citizens even though the United States has not ratified the treaty or otherwise consented to such jurisdiction. Second, the treaty allows ratifying states to opt out of additional crimes added in the future but non-ratifying states cannot. Third, the ICC itself determines when it should defer to prosecution in national courts; it need only decide that national courts are unable or unwilling to prosecute.
And in addition to unchecked power that undermines American sovereignty, the ICC uses procedures that safeguard rights and liberties far less than the U.S. Constitution. The ICC does not provide for trial by jury, guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment. The ICC does not provide the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. It lacks the right against self-incrimination offered by the Fifth Amendment. The experience of other international tribunals shows that other Sixth Amendment rights such as choosing appointed counsel, speedy trials, and confrontation of witnesses will also be ignored.
America provides the greatest degree of ordered liberty in the history of the planet for precisely these reasons. National sovereignty, a written Constitution, checked and balanced government power, guaranteed rights, and accountable government officials are all critical to the liberty we enjoy. The ICC undermines, ignores, or contradicts them all.
The liberal media, then, apparently believe that the fundamentals of freedom are expendable. President Bush does not. Who do you think is right?
Let 'em try to bring an American citizen to justice. Just try.
Bump.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.