Globalists Give Birth to Criminal Court

Globalists Give Birth to Criminal Court

Chuck Noe, NewsMax.com
Friday, April 12, 2002

International Criminal Court, which claims the right to try U.S. servicemen and civilians on any number of vague charges, became a reality Thursday.

In a signing ceremony at U.N. headquarters in New York City, 10 nations ratified a 1998 Rome treaty creating the court. Fifty-six nations had already approved the scheme. Backers of the court claim they needed 60 nations for the treaty to take effect.

"The long-held dream of a permanent international criminal court will now be realized," U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said in a video conference from Rome.

"It is an extremely significant moment in world history, the achievement of this court," said David Scheffer, former ambassador at large for war crimes who led U.S. negotiations for the court under the Clinton administration.

The Bush administration boycotted the ceremony.

Canada, Australia and most of Europe and Latin America support creation of the court.

His Damage Never Ends

Although even he admitted the court was "flawed," Bill Clinton "nevertheless directed an envoy to sign the treaty, provoking outrage on Capitol Hill, where senators have vowed that the document would never be ratified," the Washington Times reported Thursday.

"Since that time, there has been a raging debate in the Bush administration over whether to formally withdraw the U.S. signature."

Exactly how the Bush administration will deal with the court is uncertain.

President Bush "is seriously considering withdrawing" Clinton's signature from the Rome treaty, "even though Clinton did not submit it to Congress for ratification," Reuters reported today.

According to the Associated Press, "the Bush administration said it was considering 'unsigning' the treaty to stress that it won't be bound by its provisions."

United Press International wrote, "An announcement by the Bush administration, known to be hostile to the court, on the position it formally will adopt has been held up by delay in an administration policy review of the court."

A State Department official told the Times: "We have made the decision that we will not be a part of this process. This day will come and go. What is clear is that we are prepared to take steps to protect our interests."

Michael Posner, executive director of a group that calls itself Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, said: "No American president in 200 years has unsigned a treaty, as far as we can find. It would also send a signal to other governments around the world that treaties they signed are unsignable."

Judge Andrew Napolitano, an analyst on Fox News Channel, said Bush could legally revoke Clinton's signature from the treaty.

'It Is Permanent'

The tribunal is expected to begin operation next year in The Hague, Netherlands.

"Nuremburg was a baby step. This is a major evolution," said Posner. "It is a global court. It has all the world's great legal traditions. It is permanent. It will change the way the world deals with human rights violators."

However, as the Washington Times noted, "Opponents of the treaty fear an independent tribunal, accountable to no one, could become an international 'Star Chamber' prosecuting U.S. servicemen and civilians for involvement in U.S. policy abroad."

Richard Dicker, director of international legal programs at Human Rights Watch, told the New York Times: `There has been such an active disinformation campaign about this court, and those who are behind this enjoy a real advantage in that they are describing an institution that does not yet exist.

"What they have done is describe it in the most nightmarish terms, with all kinds of scenarios of innocent Americans being persecuted by individuals from governments that are actively hostile to the United States."

Critics of the international court say anti-American nations and pressure groups could, for example, claim the U.S. campaign against terrorism in Afghanistan is a "war crime" because civilians have died.

Rep. Bob Barr, R-Ga., who has lobbied the president and the State Department to "unsign" the treaty, said, "I think that signing a treaty that could turn around and bite you in the rear end is wrong."

Except for the Washington Times and Fox News Channel, media coverage of this development was remarkably one-sided in a check of articles Thursday afternoon on the Internet. AP, Reuters, UPI, CBS and the New York Times all quoted multiple supporters of the court and failed to quote any opponents. CNN, MSNBC and ABC ran AP's version, with ABC using a link saying, "This Is the War Crimes Court the U.S. Didn't Want You to Have."

Reuters, a news service that refuses to refer to terrorists as terrorists, referred to "militant" U.S. opposition and gushed in a headline, "Dream of Global Criminal Court Becomes Reality."

How long it might take that "dream" to become a nightmare for Americans remains to be seen.

Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics:
Media Bias

Bush Administration

Clinton Scandals

United Nations

A product that might interest you:
Have an Opinion About This? Send an URGENT PriorityGram Today
Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News