- Ted Galen Carpenter is vice president for defense and
foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute. He is the editor of "NATO's
Empty Victory: A Postmortem on the Balkan War" and the author of "Beyond
NATO: Staying Out of Europe's Wars."
-
- Proponents of the new International Criminal Court are
again pressuring the United States to join that institution as it is about
to become operational. The latest salvo is an editorial in the Washington
Post urging the lame-duck Clinton administration to sign the treaty establishing
the Court before the signature-deadline passes on Dec. 31. The New York
Times editorial page has said the same and urged the administration to
forward the document to the Senate for ratification.
-
- The Post pressed the idea that America must take steps
to support the Courtósymbolically or practicallyóor risk
offending other nations. Typically, the Times focused on rebutting Pentagon
fears that, if the United States becomes a member, American military personnel
might someday be hauled before the Court and accused of war crimes. Dismissing
such concerns as misplaced, the Times (along with most ICC supporters)
pretends as though that is the only objection to the Court. In reality,
the Pentagon's fears are the least of the problems with the ICC.
-
- The Criminal Court is a horrific institution from the
standpoint of civil liberties. It would make a mockery of even the most
basic due process guarantees. We have already had a glimpse of the probable
abuses from the operation of the ICC's predecessors, the special war crimes
tribunals in the Balkans and Rwanda.
-
- Rights that Americans take for granted would be greatly
diluted or absent entirely in ICC trials. For example, there is no right
to a trial by an impartial jury. A verdict is rendered by majority vote
of a panel of appointed judges. Thus, a 3-2 vote could doom a defendant
to a lengthy prison termóin some cases even a life term.
-
- If that were not bad enough, someóperhaps allóof
the judges on a panel might come from countries where there is no concept
of an independent judiciary or a tradition of fair trials. A defendant
could even face jurists who were officials in regimes that were openly
biased against his government or political movement.
-
- It gets worse. There is no protection against double
jeopardy. If a defendant is acquitted of charges, the prosecutor's office
can appeal the verdict to an appellate body within the ICC. A hapless defendant
could be subjected to prosecution for the same offense again, and again,
and again.
-
- Nor is there any guarantee of either a speedy or a public
trial. The Court could hold indicted individuals for months or even years
before judicial proceedings get underway. The Yugoslavia war crimes tribunal
has held sessions behind closed doorsósupposedly to protect the
privacy of alleged victims of war crimes.
-
- Such nonpublic sessions underscore perhaps the worst
feature of the ICC.
-
- The right of defendants to confront their accusers is
highly conditional. The Court would have the authority to conceal the identity
of witnesses whenever it deemed that step to be appropriate.
-
- That is an especially pernicious dilution of due process
standards. Frequently, the ability to rebut testimony depends on knowledge
of the witness' identity and background. Such knowledge may yield important
clues about possible personal malice, a history of prevarication, or a
hidden financial or ideological agenda. Without that knowledge, cross-examination
must be conducted in an informational vacuum, and a defense attorney operates
at an impossible disadvantage.
-
- Most opponents of the Criminal Court in this country
stress that we should not want to risk having Americans tried before such
a tribunal. That is a valid but secondary point. People who value civil
liberties and due process of law should not want anyone tried before such
a tribunal.
-
- MainPage
http://www.rense.com
-
-
-
- This
Site Served by TheHostPros
|