ZGram - 8/10/2002 - "More yet on the ICC - the International
Criminal Court"
irimland@zundelsite.org
irimland@zundelsite.org
Sun, 11 Aug 2002 13:53:27 -0700
ZGram - Where Truth is Destiny
August 10, 2002
Good Morning from the Zundelsite:
Today two somewhat overlapping news articles, followed by Zundelsite comments:
[START]
Number 1: BBC News, Friday, 9 August, 2002, 21:31 GMT 22:31 UK
Norway and US clash over court
By Barnaby Mason
BBC diplomatic correspondent
Norway says it will reject a request by the United States to sign an
agreement not to hand over Americans to the International Criminal
Court, set up to try crimes against humanity.
Washington is trying to conclude bilateral agreements with as many
countries as possible to prevent what it says is the danger of
politically motivated prosecutions of American peacekeepers.
Norway has been a champion of human rights and regards the new
International Criminal Court as a milestone in international justice.
The Norwegian Foreign Minister, Jan Petersen, said the government
could not accept the United States request.
The Americans were exaggerating the problems with the court, he said,
and there were many safeguards to reduce the risk of its being abused.
The Bush administration says there is no effective mechanism to
prevent the politicised prosecution of American citizens.
And it condemns the court's assertion of jurisdiction over Americans
even though the United States has rejected the treaty setting it up.
Washington failed to get the UN Security Council to give its
peacekeepers blanket immunity.
Bilateral deals
So instead, it is trying to conclude deals under which individual
countries will undertake not to hand over Americans to the court.
Romania and Israel have already signed up.
Such agreements are permitted by a provision of the court's own treaty.
And according to American officials, this course of action was
actually suggested by some of the allies which opposed the United
States in the Security Council.
The Bush administration is now pressing European Union countries to
sign immunity agreements.
They will meet next month to try to agree on a co-ordinated response.
[END]
(Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2184203.stm )
=====
[START]
2. Bush uses force on supporters of global court
U.S. threatens to cut off military aid to nations that join
Saturday, August 10, 2002
By ELIZABETH BECKER
THE NEW YORK TIMES
WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration, making use of a provision of
the new anti-terrorism law, warned foreign diplomats this week that
their nations could lose all U.S. military assistance if they become
members of the International Criminal Court without pledging to
protect Americans serving in their countries from its reach.
The threat to withdraw military aid -- including education, training
as well as help financing the purchase of equipment and weaponry --
could be felt by almost every nation that has relations with the
United States, although the law exempts many of its closest allies.
The law gives the president authority to continue military aid if he
determines it is in the national interest.
This part of the new law, which passed Congress with broad bipartisan
support and was signed last week by President Bush, provides the
administration with its broadest and most coercive tool to keep
Americans out of the hands of the new court.
Written by Rep. Tom DeLay of Texas, the majority whip, the measure is
intended to force as many countries as possible to sign bilateral
agreements not to extradite Americans to the new court for trial,
according to a Republican congressional aide who worked on the
measure.
Romania and Israel have signed such agreements.
The Bush administration opposes the court, the world's first
permanent forum for trying individuals charged with genocide and
other crimes against humanity, on the ground that it could subject
Americans to politically motivated prosecutions abroad.
This week, the State Department invited foreign ambassadors in for
briefings to lay out U.S. opposition to the court and to warn them of
the prohibition against military aid to countries that are a party to
the treaty establishing the court.
"That is a fact under the law; it's right there in the law," said
Philip Reeker, a State Department spokesman. "The president welcomes
the law -- I can't underscore how important this is to us to protect
American service members."
Another provision in the law gives the president authority to free
members of the armed services or other Americans who are in the
court's custody by any "necessary and appropriate means," including
use of the military.
Nations that are members of NATO and other major allies -- including
Israel, Egypt, Australia, Japan and South Korea -- are exempted from
the military assistance prohibition. The Pentagon said the measure
could touch just about every other country on the globe.
"It is easier to list what countries do not receive U.S. military
assistance than those that do," said Lt. Cmdr. Barbara Burfeind of
the Navy, a Pentagon spokeswoman. "Virtually every country but Cuba,
Iraq, Iran and the other countries on the terrorist list receive some
military training or aid from us."
Jonathan Grella, a spokesman for DeLay, said, "This is just an
effective tool, and we have said numerous times that we have to do
whatever it takes to protect our service members from this rogue
court." The United States has about 9,000 peacekeepers stationed in
nine countries.
Military assistance programs that could be terminated include
international military education that brings foreign officers and
students here for professional military training and financing for
the purchase of U.S. weapons and services. The goal of military
assistance programs, the Pentagon says, is to "enable friends and
allies to acquire U.S. equipment, services and training for the
legitimate self-defense and multinational security efforts."
Threatening to end these programs appears heavy-handed even to some
of those who share the administration's concerns about the court.
James Steinberg, vice president of the Brookings Institution and
former security adviser to President Clinton, said he shared some of
the administration's concerns about the court. Yet, he added,
military assistance programs "reflect shared common interest between
the United States and foreign nations and should not be used as a
club to get these countries to sign agreements."
"It's a very awkward way to deal with allies," Steinberg said. "We
ought to be able to persuade them rather than coerce them. This has a
very heavy feel to it."
[END]
(Source: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/82153_court10.shtml )
3. ZUNDELSITE COMMENTS:
Please keep in mind that this International Court was approved by
over 100 nations - and now it has suddenly become a "rogue court"?
This is a very revealing development - for there has been a
precedent. The so-called "Nuremberg Tribunal", set up against the
Germans at the end of World War II, was clearly political in nature!
Remember that it had no safeguards whatsoever against the whims of
the Allied government! Its hand-picked judges and prosecutors relied
on ex post facto law! It ruled hearsay evidence and
untested-by-cross-examination affidavits permissible and legal!
Now that the shoe is on the other foot, the two powers - the Jewish
state and the US - suddenly don't want their soldiers subject to the
jurisdiction of an international court, which has far more safeguards
than the defeated Germans ever enjoyed in 1946-48!
Poor USA! Imagine having to rely on the war criminal Sharon
government endorsement and Dracula-law-practicing, semi-Marxist
Rumania! Some partners!
What a sad state of affairs indeed for once-proud America with its
Anglo-Saxon legal traditions, which were defiled so shamefully in the
post-war European kangaroo proceedings! How transparent can it get,
having to refuse to submit to international standards they themselves
championed for over 60 years!