|
However, when our conquering heroes come home, rather than victory parades,
they may face criminal prosecution and they may find themselves tried for war
crimes by judges from the very countries they just defeated. This is the
reality of the United Nations' International Criminal Court (ICC).
UN propaganda sells the vision of the ICC as a tool for bringing
international criminals like bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and Libya's Qadhafi to
justice. The truth is, the court is more likely to be used as a tool for
those criminals, against the United States. In a letter to President Bush,
Senator Jesse Helms said, "instead of helping the United States go after real
war criminals and terrorists, the International Criminal Court has the
unbridled power to intimidate our military people and other citizens with
bogus, politicized prosecutions. Similar creations of the United Nations have
shown this to be inevitable."
Unlike any other treaty in history, the UN International Criminal Court
ignores national laws and declares jurisdiction over all nations, whether
they have ratified it or not. Once 60 nations sign on, the ICC becomes
international law. The ICC defines as a war crime, any attack by our soldiers
with knowledge that inescapable collateral deaths or injuries "to civilians
or damage to civilian objects or wide-spread, long-term damage to the natural
environment... would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and
direct overall military advantage anticipated." In other words, you can have
a war, but don't break anything, don't hurt civilians, or harm the
environment.
It is impossible for the military to comply with those restrictions and still
achieve its mission. Bombs go awry. Civilians get in the way. Intelligence
agents make mistakes and target the wrong buildings. In the early days of the
war on terrorism, with little intelligence on the ground, US bombs mistakenly
fell into a residential neighborhood and killed civilians. A Cruise missile
strayed from its target and may have killed some UN operatives who were
working to clear mines. Several civilians were killed in an Afghan village
during bombing runs. Are the US soldiers who are responsible for these
actions to be prosecuted by the ICC?
Would the ICC have prosecuted the airmen on board the US planes that dropped
atomic bombs on Japan in World War II? That act which ended the war fits the
definition of a war crime under the ICC treaty. Keep in mind, those bombs
were dropped in order to save thousands of American lives because the United
States knew the Japanese were prepared to stand to the last man to ward off
an invasion. Civilians were killed, but many more lives were saved by the
action. Under the UN's ICC rules, the Americans would have been treated as
the villains, not the Japanese.
Consider too, that the Taliban used innocent civilians as human shields
against US bombs. Saddam Hussein used the same tactic in the Gulf War. Under
ICC rules, these cowards would get away with such a tactic as a helpless US
military would be forced to stand by, waiting for their targets to stand away
from women's skirts.
War is not a video game and it's not an Olympic event. War is hell. Innocent
people die. In a dastardly sneak attack on September 11th, an estimated 4,000
of them were Americans. More will die if the US has its hands tied by the
United Nations' International Criminal Court.
The International Criminal Court represents even greater threats to American
sovereignty and Constitutionally guaranteed liberties. Unlike the American
system of justice, the ICC would not perform trials by juries of peers; would
not guarantee bail; and would not grant prisoners the right to face their
accusers. The United States judicial system would not be permitted to
intervene on behalf of American citizens.
More frightening is the manner in which the UN will choose the eighteen
judges who will each serve for nine-year terms. They will be elected by a
two-thirds vote of the nations that ratify the court. This was the same
process used to oust the United States last Spring from its long-held seat on
the United Nations Human Rights Commission. The United States would hold one
vote against the likes of Cuba, Iraq, Iran, Libya and Syria, the very nations
that now protect and even foster terrorists. Will the court elect a judge
from Red China, where American rights aren't just foreign, but represent the
enemy? It doesn't take a genius to see the direction the UN's court will
take when American soldiers stand on trial.
There is one more important point that must not be overlooked concerning the
overwhelming power that the ICC will hold. The Court can prosecute anyone who
violates UN treaties, including environmental agreements like the
Biodiversity Treaty and those covering World Heritage Sites. This one
provision makes the ICC a direct threat to ALL American citizens. A case in
point was the Crown Butte Gold Mine that was shut down by UN intervention in
1997. Crown Butte was located on private property, miles from Yellowstone
National Park. Yellowstone was designated by the UN to be a World Heritage
Site. The UN determined that the mine was a direct threat to Yellowstone and
declared it the first ever "endangered" World Heritage Site. Had there been
an International Criminal Court in place, there is little doubt that the
Crown Butte owners would have been put on trial for violating a UN treaty.
The UN needs only twenty-two more nations to ratify the Court in order for it
to become international law. Senator Helms is leading the fight to keep
America out of it. Calling it the "International Kangaroo Court," last year,
Helms introduced the American Service Members' Protection Act (S.857) to
exempt American soldiers and leaders from ICC prosecution. Congress has
refused to act on the bill. Last month, in the wake of the terrorist attacks
and the war in Afghanistan, Helms tried to attach the bill to the Defense
Authorization Act, but the Senate failed to act on the amendment.
Senator Helms' bill would: prohibit use of taxpayer funding for the ICC;
prohibit the sharing of classified information; restrict the US role in UN
peacekeeping missions unless the UN specifically exempts US troops from
prosecution; blocks US aid to allies unless they too sign accords to shield
US troops on their soil from ICC prosecution; and authorizes any necessary
actions to free US soldiers improperly handed over to the ICC. President
Bush has endorsed S.857. It's even being supported by the State Department.
Yet the US Senate, led by Majority Leader Tom Daschle, has refused to enact
the bill and protect American soldiers as they fight the war on terrorism.
Terrorists have murdered our people and disrupted our lives. They've forced
us to put soldiers in our airports and around bridges. We have military
planes guarding our borders and air space. We're afraid to use our mail
system. We are being frightened into surrendering our liberties in exchange
for security. Their hatred of America's freedoms is forcing us to live in
fear. For their violence against us, they deserve to die.
This is not the time for muddle-headed international bureaucrats to call for
debates and resolutions. It's not the time to allow those with an
anti-American agenda to stop us from freeing ourselves from the terrorist
threat. This is not the time to encumber our soldiers as they try to rid the
world of these murderers. This is not the time to pretend that the United
Nations has any relevance in the drive for peace, justice and security.
This is the time for America to stand for its own self-interest, to declare
its sovereignty and to reject any initiative that tries to block our way. The
UN's International Criminal Court is a dangerous and powerful tool for those
who seek to weaken the independence of the United States.
Senator Daschle and the rest of Congress have a duty to protect the US
Constitution from attack by the UN's ICC. It must be rejected by the US at
all costs. Senator Helms' American Service Members Protection Act is a major
step in the right direction. Once the United States refuses to participate,
the ICC will prove to be another useless UN folly.
Tom DeWeese is the publisher/editor of The DeWeese Report and president of
the American Policy Center, a Warrenton, Virginia grass-roots think tank. The
Center maintains an Internet site at www.americanpolicy.org.
Published by permission.
|