A Global Court of Injustice
Monday, 08-Jan-01 18:55:32
24.14.28.77 writes:
A Global Court of Injustice
Dr. James Hirsen
Jan. 5, 2001
In July of 1998, 120 nations met in Rome and voted to
endorse an
international criminal court. According to its own terms,
when the
treaty is ratified by 60 nations, it will be capable of
exerting
universal jurisdiction over every human being on the
planet.
This type of criminal court has been on the wish list of
the United
Nations since 1947. When fully engaged, the court will be
able to
bring individuals from nations throughout the globe, who
are
accused of genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity,
aggression, and additional crimes that may be added in the
future, in
front of a panel of select judges.
Supporters of the court have made it clear in their
speeches and
preparatory writings that they intend to utilize the vast
power of
such an entity to enforce a host of treaty obligations,
including
human rights, economic and environmental provisions. If a
nation
does not care to participate, this does not mean that its
citizens are
exempt from the court's reach. The unusual language
contained in
this international initiative extends its jurisdiction to
individuals in
nations that did not opt to be a party to its terms.
On December 31, in the waning minutes of the year 2000, the
Clinton administration signed this treaty and sent a
message to the
entire world - the American system of criminal justice is
simply
inadequate. It does not accommodate a
"progressive" view toward
21st century international crime.
Although the stated purpose of the new brand of
international
tribunal is to deal with war criminals, these issues have
customarily
been addressed through ad hoc tribunals, usually set up for
specific
crimes and given prescribed authority. In this way the
scope of the
tribunal is limited, which provides a degree of protection
and respect
for the individual sovereignty of nations.
The very nature of the ICC is wholly inconsistent with
American
jurisprudence. It creates a one-stop judicial center, with
the
authority to apply its doctrine of justice to an amorphous
list of
criminal activity.
But we have a proud history in our nation. Unlike the ICC,
in
America we separate the functions of investigation,
prosecution,
trial and appeal to ensure fairness and avoid corruption.
Many of
the safeguards, for which countless courageous Americans
have
given their lives, are simply not present in the ICC
structure.
The U.S. justice system places the burden of proof on the
prosecutor. In our nation, we abide by the maxim of
innocent until
proven guilty. Not so under an international criminal
court.
Place yourself in this situation. You are unexpectedly
detained by
the newly instituted International Criminal Court. You find
yourself
in front of a jury, but not an impartial jury of your
peers. Rather,
you are staring into the eyes of a panel of appointed
bureaucrats.
The judicial officials hail from remote parts of the world,
countries
such as Iraq, China, Cuba and North Korea. They share
neither
your country's system of governance nor its notion of civil
liberties.
Instead, you stand before a group that epitomizes the
lowest
common denominator of criminal justice.
You are given no idea as to the length of time the process
will take.
The right to a speedy trial is not a consideration. After
all,
temporary tribunals, which were a preview of the ICC,
arrested and
imprisoned suspects for months and even years before any
judicial
proceedings began.
If convicted, your only right to appeal will be to the very
same court
that has rendered the conviction. And double jeopardy?
Being tried
for the same offense twice? Protection against such
violation is
nonexistent. If for some reason the prosecution loses its
case against
you, it is free to try again.
Will the court explain the nature of the charges? Will it
conceal the
identity of witnesses? It is within its province to do so.
The fear
inside you intensifies. It is warranted.
Hopefully, no citizen of the United States, or any other
country for
that matter, will have to endure this kind of monumental
legal
nightmare. Secretary of Defense William Cohen is on record
as
opposing the treaty. Incoming Secretary of Defense Donald
Rumsfeld shares the sentiment. And now Senator Jesse Helms
strives to rescue us from the misguided action of the
Clinton
administration when it signed the treaty. Senator Helms
promises
legislation to protect our citizens against global
prosecution. He
deserves our unqualified support and gratitude.
The judicial system in America, imperfect as it sometimes
may be,
is the envy of the world. As a people who profess to
cherish
freedom, we dare not rest until the signature on this
mockery of
justice is rescinded. The ICC must be boldly repudiated,
and the
United States should lead an effort among the nations of
the world
to reject this defective attempt to define down global
justice.
Semper Fi
Death Before Dishonor
Raymond "Mike" Clausen, Jr._MOH_31 Jan. '70
POB 991
Ponchatoula, LA. 70454
MOHbstrmc@i-55.com
504-386-6027
===========================================================================
American Patriot Friends Network (APFN)
http://www.apfn.org
APFN EMAIL LIST SUBSCRIBE/UNSUBSCRIBE IN SUBJECT LINE TO: apfn@apfn.org
APFN EGroups: http://www.egroups.com/subscribe.cgi/apfn
APFN CONTENTS: http://www.apfn.org/apfn/apfncont.htm
Without Justice, there is JUST_US!
APFN MSG BOARD: http://disc.server.com/Indices/149495.html
APFN Petition Page: Petitions to Abolish H-1B, IBT, Reclaim America.
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/petitions.htm
"It takes two to speak the truth: one to speak, and another to hear."
-Henry David ThoreauCourting Global Tyranny
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/international.htm
The Lawyers Secret Oath
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/secretoath.htm
American Patriot Friends
"....a network of net worker's..
E-Mail: apfn@apfn.org
E-Mail: Webmaster
Last updated 09/01/2004
