The International Criminal Court --- a Threat to our Legacy of Freedom

Journal/Website: 
NewsMax.com
Article Type: 
Commentary
Published Date: 
Tuesday, July 2, 2002
Source: 
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/7/2/135708.shtml

On July 1, 2002, the International Criminal Court (ICC) of the United Nations opened its doors in The Hague, ready to hear, file and investigate complaints alleging human rights abuses, genocide and crimes against humanity on the part of any of its member nations whether signatories to the ICC treaty or not, including members of the globetrotting U.N. peacekeeping forces.

This is another step toward the final consummation of a polygamous, global marriage among the nations of the world under the all-seeing eye of the U.N. You may say the wedding of this unholy partnership took place on April 11, 2002, at a Faustian ceremony held at the U.N. in New York when 10 nations ratified the ICC treaty, going over the threshold of 60 nations arbitrarily set by the U.N. (out of the 190 U.N. member nations!).

The Rosemary's baby of this ungodly matrimony will be delivered only if and when the U.S. finally capitulates to international pressure and joins in the polyglot, global orgy.

Although the U.S. is not a signatory to the perversity of this treaty, U.S. personnel serving under the blue banner of the U.N. will be subject to the jurisdiction of that body, foreign to our Constitution. The U.N. insists the treaty is now in effect and has lambasted the United States for not jumping onto its bandwagon.

Among the executive decrees, unethical pardons and other paraphernalia signed by outgoing President Bill Clinton, there was also this radical document that was signed by a special ambassador, an ambassador appointed specifically to sign the ICC treaty.

Being a "treaty," the ICC would require consent by two-thirds of the U.S. Senate for ratification according to the U.S. Constitution. Apparently, the fact that the American people and their representatives were opposed to such an internationalist power grab didn't bother Mr. Clinton. He went ahead with his plan to submerge our national sovereignty under that of the U.N.

Last fall, a measure entitled The American Servicemembers Protection Act was passed by the U.S. House of Representatives by a vote of 282-137 and the Senate by 75­19 to protect American servicemen and servicewomen on foreign soil. In fact, it might have been because of these measures that President George W. Bush was persuaded to "unsign" the ICC treaty on May 6, 2002.

Yet much more needs to be done. The ICC claims jurisdiction over citizens all over the globe, including U.S. citizens accused of a politically motivated crime on foreign soil – again, whether the U.S. is a signatory to the treaty or not!

The ICC is a supranational power grab of behemoth proportions and a serious threat to our national sovereignty and the American way of life. The ICC, like the U.N. Charter, is another intricate part of the scaffold of world government as envisioned by the U.N. founders, including the traitor Alger Hiss, who presided as secretary-general at the 1945 U.N. founding conference in San Francisco. Their final objective: a socialist world government under the aegis of an all-powerful United Nations that no power on this Earth can challenge.

The ICC provides for foreign judges, who could very well be judges from Iraq, Iran, Syria, North Korea, Cuba, Libya, Sudan – all countries in good standing in the U.N. General Assembly (although these nations are all listed by the U.S. State Department as states that sponsor international terrorism)!

And these judges could arraign Americans accused of wrongdoing in foreign lands, seize them and try them by the ICC tribunals, which serve not only as court but also as prosecutor, jury, appeal entity and enforcer of the U.N. "law."

The protection afforded to Americans by our Bill of Rights would be of no use to Americans tried under this foreign jurisdiction. There would be no protection against "unreasonable searches and seizures" (Amendment IV); no right against self-incrimination or double jeopardy (Amendment V); no right "to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State … and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence" (Amendment VI), etc.

In fact, there would be essentially none of the protections afforded in our Bill of Rights – and the natural rights philosophy and English common law upon which our founding documents are based. It would indeed be a jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution.

Furthermore, if one considers that many "authorities" claim that the treaty power supersedes the Constitution of these United States, notwithstanding the formidable requirement of the U.S. Constitution (Article VI, paragraph 2), which reads "… and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land. …" Notice "under," meaning that no treaty is above the Constitution.

And nowhere in the U.S. Constitution or any of our founding documents is there any reference to granting a supranational organization, alien to our Constitution, authority over these United States of America.

Indeed, the first half of the cited paragraph reads: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof." Notice "made in Pursuance thereof," meaning in conformity with the United States.

Thus, if a proposed treaty violates the U.S. Constitution or any portion thereof, it should not be considered by officers of the U.S. who swear an oath to support and abide by the U.S. Constitution.(1) Indeed, "if the treaty power is unlimited then we don't have a Constitution," wrote Thomas Jefferson. Alexander Hamilton agreed and wrote, "a treaty cannot be made which alters the Constitution of the country or which infringes any express exceptions to the power of the Constitution of the United States."(2)

This is a good time to reject the ICC and, at the same time, get the United States out of the United Nations! The ICC is foreign to our Constitution, our Bill of Rights and the freedom legacy of our Founders. Let us then re-invoke our cherished Declaration of Independence.

Following the example of our Founding Fathers in 1776, the United States should now declare its independence from the U.N.! Indeed, in severing ties with England and King George III, we listed among our grievances:

"He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation. …

"For depriving us, in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:

"For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

"For abolishing the free System of English Laws … establishing therein an Arbitrary government. …

"For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments: …"(3)

I am deploring internationalism that submerges U.S. sovereignty, judicial or otherwise, under that of the U.N. Yet I am not urging stern isolationism.(4) We should have cordial relations and commerce with all civilized nations, but we don't have to get entangled in polyglot, foreign alliances that involve us detrimentally and subvert our jurisprudence, particularly with this infernal ICC treaty.

I am advocating that we heed the wisdom of our Founders. Thomas Jefferson wrote in his First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801: "Equal and exact justice to all men, of whatever state or persuasion, religious or political; peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none. …"

Once and for all, let us reject for good the ICC and its jurisdiction. Let us get the U.S. out of the U.N. and the U.N. out of New York!

References:

1. Caine CW. The Constitution – Plain and Simple. Treaties. Medical Sentinel 1997; 2(2):70-72. http://www.haciendapub.com.

2. Thomas Jefferson quoted from his Manual of Parliamentary Practice and Alexander Hamilton from The Federalist Papers cited by W.P. Hoar in Treaties versus the Constitution – Which Law Is Supreme. The New American 1995; 11(7):55.

3. The Declaration of Independence, 1776.

4. Faria MA Jr. Freedom and Security in the Age of Terrorism. NewsMax.com, Sept. 28, 2001.

Additional Sources

1. Noe C. Globalists give birth to criminal court. NewsMax.com, April 12, 2002; Grigg WN. Bush's ICC two-step. The New American, June 3, 2002; and McManus JF. Unsafe in any form. The New American, Sept. 24, 2001, www.thenewamerican.com.

Miguel A. Faria Jr., M.D. is the Editor-in-Chief of the Medical Sentinel, the journal of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, and author of Vandals at the Gates of Medicine (1995), Medical Warrior (1997) and Cuba in Revolution: Escape from a Lost Paradise (2002, www.haciendapub.com).

Your rating: None Average: 5 (1 vote)