Volume 3, Number 3 -- May 20, 1998
THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT IS COMING TO YOUR HOUSE
If you think there are problems with our justice system, you ain't seen nothing yet!
The propaganda is that this will be a court to prosecute "war criminals" such as those in Bosnia or even Iraq, perhaps. That's how they sell their poisoned ideas to the public. Just as they sold the idea of the United Nations as our only hope for a peaceful world in a nuclear age.
Do not be deceived! The real reason for an International Criminal Court is to give legal authority to a global court that will then oversee the implementation of global laws affecting everyone on earth.
One UN Independent Expert on Human Rights has said:
"The whole reason we need an international court is that national courts have not done enough, particularly to protect the rights of the woman and girl child. The court must be able to receive complaints from a variety of sources; from individuals and from NGOs. The role of the court is not to protect the sovereignty of the state, but to protect victims."
This court will have no protection guarantees like those in our Constitution. There will be no guarantee of a trial by a jury of one's peers, nor will there be an appeal to a higher authority.
The judges on this court will not be elected, nor even appointed by elected officials, and they will not be bound by any national laws.
Our Global Neighborhood, the report of the UN-funded Commission on Global Governance, recommends the court prosecute violations of international law, stating that "...the very essence of global governance is the capacity of the international community to ensure compliance with the rules of society" (p. 326)
The rules of society they are talking about are not the rules we have established for our American society, but the rules as propounded by the many UN Conferences, Conventions and Treaties. We have enumerated a number of those rules in earlier newsletters.
Bill Clinton, who has been working for the UN more than for the United States ever since he took office, has made it known that his administration fully supports the creation of the ICC, but then, there is nothing that has come out of the United Nations that he has not supported.
In spite of the fact that the U.S. Senate failed to ratify the UN Treaty on Biodiversity, Clinton has implemented many of its provisions through executive orders or executive instructions to bureaucracies. He has shown a total disdain for the Constitution and its provision for the separation of powers.
Of even greater concern should be the fact that the Congress has done nothing to prevent Clinton's usurpation of power. Its recent voice vote to pay the UN "debt" and "forgive" the debt owed to the U.S. by the UN for "peacekeeping" efforts is further evidence of Congressional complicity in support of the UN. They avoided a role-call vote on this so the public cannot hold individual congressmen accountable. Such a vote had to have been orchestrated by Gingrich and the so-called "Republican" leadership.
To try to give you a little better idea of the seriousness of the formation of the International Criminal Court we would like to explore with you some of the provisions of the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The idea here is to help show you the kind of mind-set that is so prevalent throughout the UN philosophy.
A reading of Part I of this Covenant would lead one to believe that it is similar to our own Bill of Rights, but when one gets into main elements of the document one soon realizes that there could hardly be a greater difference.
Our Constitution provides that a person's home and property may not be searched without a warrant and that a warrant may not be issued without probable cause. (Fourth Amendment)
The ICCPR does not address this issue.
Our Constitution provides that one accused of a crime has the right to a trial by an impartial jury from the state and district where the crime was committed. (Sixth Amendment)
The ICCPR states in Part III, Article 9: "3. Anyone arrested or detained on a criminal charge shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release. It shall not be the general rule that persons awaiting trial shall be detained in custody, but release may be subject to guarantees to appear for trial, at any other stage of the judicial proceedings, and, should occasion arise, for execution of the judgement."4. Anyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings before a court, in order that that court may decide without delay on the lawfulness of his detention and order his release if the detention is not lawful."
[There is no provision for a jury trial!]
Our Constitution says, in Article 1 of the Bill of Rights: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
The ICCPR states, in Part III, Article 18: "1. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. ..."3. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others."
Article 19: "2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.
"3. The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary:
" (a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others;
" (b) For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals."
Article 20: "1. Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.
"2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law." [This could be the preacher's right to preach that homosexuality is sin, or that Jesus is the one way to salvation.]
Article 21: "The right of peaceful assembly shall be recognized. No restrictions may be placed on the exercise of this right other than those imposed in conformity with the law and which are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, public order (ordre public), the protection of public health or morals or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."
[As you can see, in one breath they give you a right, in the next they give the state the right to take away or alter that right. For the UN and those advocating "our global neighborhood" the state is the ultimate authority and individuals are simply resources to be used by the state!]
Our Constitution does not go into any rights for children. We have a number of statutes on the books (of recent vintage) that do serve to protect children from exploitation and abuse.
Article 24 of Part II of the ICCPR states: "1. Every child shall have, without any discrimination as to race, colour, sex, language, religion, national or social origin, property or birth, the right to such measures of protection as are required by his status as a minor, on the part of his family, society and the State."2. Every child shall be registered immediately after birth and shall have a name."
When we consider some of the rights enumerated for children in the Treaty on the Rights of the Child, we can easily envision parents being taken to trial for infringing on those rights. This has already happened in England, a country that has ratified the treaty.
Registration of children right after birth is now a requirement in the United States -- if one wishes to claim the child as an exemption for tax purposes. We see this as compliance with the UN mandate in the ICCPR.
If asked, most Americans are totally unaware of the many, many laws on our books that are there because we are attempting to comply with UN dictates.
One example of this: Bilingual education in our government school system.
Article 27 of Part III of the ICCPR states: "In those States in which ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities exist persons belonging to such minorities shall not be denied the right, in community with the other members of their group, to enjoy their own culture, to profess and practise their own religion, or to use their own language."
We believe strongly in human rights -- as they are put forth by our Constitution and as they have historically been practiced in the United States. We have a system that has not always given equal rights to all its citizens, but one that has been amenable to change to correct abuses. We think that is as it should be. We do not believe some tribunal of elitists should be empowered to impose its vision of human rights on the world. Yet, that is essentially what Part IV of the ICCPR is all about.
Part IV, Article 28: "1. There shall be established a Human Rights Committee (hereafter referred to in the present Covenant as the Committee). It shall consist of eighteen members and shall carry out the functions hereinafter provided."2. The Committee shall be composed of nationals of the States Parties to the present Covenant who shall be persons of high moral character and recognized competence in the field of human rights, consideration being given to the usefulness of the participation of some persons having legal experience.
"3. The members of the Committee shall be elected and shall serve in their personal capacity."
Article 29 tells us how they are to be elected: 1. The members of the Committee shall be elected by secret ballot from a list of persons possessing the qualifications prescribed in article 28 and nominated for the purpose by the States Parties to the present Covenant." [This secret ballot will not be Americans voting, but members of the States Parties to the Convention. In other words, the U. S. would have one vote, and no more than one person from any state (country) could sit on the committee. This is covered in Article 30.]
"2. Each State Party to the present Covenant may nominate not more than two persons. These persons shall be nationals of the nominating State."
You may or may not be aware of the fact that we have already had a representative of the United Nations come to America for the purpose of investigating our use of capital punishment. While we Americans may legitimately disagree among ourselves as to whether or not we want capital punishment or what methods we wish to employ, we on the Alabama Committee to Get US Out of the United Nations do not think it appropriate for some UN official to examine our system and rule on it.
For the moment, any such ruling would have no force of law behind it, but if we have an International Criminal Court and we sign on as a States Party, that court might very well have a say in how our Criminal Justice System operates.
Anyone who examines the United Nations and its activities over the last 50 years must know that it is a socialist organization. Any government it heads up will be a socialist government. If you like the way the former Soviet Union, Cambodia (under Pol Pot), Red China or present day Cuba run their legal systems, then perhaps you would be in favor of an International Criminal Court. But if you think the people should have a say in the way their justice system operates, you will want no part of any such international system!
PLEASE URGE YOUR SENATORS AND CONGRESSMEN TO DO ALL WITHIN THEIR POWER TO KEEP US FROM PARTICIPATION IN THIS SYSTEM OF TOTAL INJUSTICE!