Attacking Our Courts.

Through its proposed subsidiary, the International Criminal Court, the United Nations is plotting the ultimate subversion: The destruction of the American judiciary system.

Pearl Harbor, the terrorist attack on America -- some events change our lives so much that their dates (December 7, 1941, September 11, 2001) get fixed in our memories. But how about December 31, 2000? On that date, David Scheffer, President Clinton's ambassador for the International Criminal Court, signed the ICC Treaty for the United States -- an incredibly radical but largely unnoticed act.

Yet if the American people allow the U.S. Senate to ratify this treaty, December 31, 2000 will mark the beginning of a revolution in our judicial and constitutional system. An International Criminal Court is needed, its proponents claim, in order to address crimes against humanity, war crimes, genocide, and aggression. Ostensibly to accomplish this mission, the ICC treaty brazenly claims jurisdiction over every individual on the planet -- even if the individual is a citizen of a country that refuses to ratify the treaty. Once established, the ICC would undermine our nation's independence, overthrow our most important judicial traditions, and put at risk the freedom of every American. The proposed court, warned Professor Charles Rice of the Notre Dame University School of Law, "repudiates the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Declaration of Independence and cancels the 4th of July." Indeed; and this gloomy assessment may be the good news.

An Anti-American Court

In the Declaration of Independence, our colonist forefathers took King George, ruler of the British Empire, to task for subjecting them to "jurisdiction foreign to [their] constitutions and unacknowledged by [their] laws;" depriving them of the "benefits of trial by jury;" and transporting them "beyond the Seas to be tried for pretended offenses." Prohibitions against such abuses were later spelled out in the first 10 amendments (the Bill of Rights) to our Constitution.

The proposed ICC would deny Americans these rights. The ICC would arraign Americans before judges from authoritarian or even murderous regimes that hate America and Americans. This is particularly frightening since an ICC decision cannot be appealed except to the same ICC court. The tribunal is its own prosecutor, court, jury, and appeal body -- a concentration of power completely foreign to the American system. It virtually ensures that individual rights will be disregarded.

The ICC would recognize no right to a trial by jury and certainly no right to a speedy trial. And there is no provision for bail. By contrast, under federal law, a defendant has the right to be brought to trial within 70 days. The ICC statute provides no such guarantee. The prosecutor for the Yugoslav Tribunal, cited by many ICC proponents as a model for their court, has argued that five years is a reasonable time for a defendant to wait in prison for a trial.

Disturbingly, those unfortunate enough to be jailed prior to an ICC trial may be incarcerated based on accusations made by militant non-governmental organizations (NGOs), among whose ranks are numbered such radical and politically partisan groups as Earth First!, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, and the ACLU. An American citizen could be accused by one of these organizations of violating an ambiguous UN "law." The hapless citizen would then be indicted, extradited, tried, and convicted by foreign prosecutors and judges. Once convicted, he could be sent to an undisclosed prison anywhere in the world, all at the ICC's discretion.

Certainly, the idea of handing over American citizens for "crimes" committed in this country to a politicized UN court could not be more appalling. It may, in fact, seem inconceivable. There is, however, a precedent. America's leaders have already participated in just such a betrayal.

During the 1994 Rwandan genocide, an elderly Rwandan pastor fled to Texas to live with his son. In late 1996, the FBI arrested the pastor, Elizaphan Ntakirutimana, on a UN warrant. After examining the warrant, federal judge Marcel Notzon noted that the evidence consisted largely of hearsay testimony by anonymous witnesses not under oath. Moreover, none of the witnesses claimed to have seen the pastor actually commit a crime. Accordingly, Judge Notzon ruled that the warrant did not meet the test of "probable cause" required for criminal prosecution in our court system.

But Judge Notzon went further:

I question whether we are acting to subordinate U.S. sovereignty to the United Nations. I am particularly bothered by the potential harm of depriving this man of his freedom.... Little by little, we are losing the guarantees of those individual freedoms each time we give up a bit of our freedoms. It makes me, the grandfather of five little girls, worry about the future.

Although Judge Notzon refused the extradition, the Clinton administration found an appellate judge willing to cooperate. In early 2000, the United States extradited Ntakirutimana to Tanzania to face trial before a UN tribunal.

According to the March 31, 2000 issue of Newsweek, "State Department officials said they were pleased by Ntakirutimana's extradition. They hope the case has set a legal precedent that will make the process smoother in similar situations."

Busy Americans who want to believe that someone is looking out for their interests may be tempted to relax now that a Republican whom the media label a conservative has replaced Bill Clinton. But that would be a dangerous mistake. As his ambassador for war crimes issues, Bush selected Pierre-Richard Prosper. An American attorney, Prosper served as lead prosecutor at the UN's tribunal for Rwanda. It was Prosper who launched the effort to extradite pastor Ntakirutimana.

Social Engineering

In order to persuade nations to agree to the revolutionary ICC scheme, its architects initially limited their focus to the four "core crimes." But the leaders at the Rome conference promised the radical NGOs that more crimes would be added later. In fact, if the ICC architects have their way, little would remain outside the international court's sphere of authority.

Brigham Young University law professor Richard G. Wilkins warns that "the ICC's broadly defined 'crimes' will become, not the bane of mass murderers, but the boon of modern social engineers...." Notre Dame's Charles Rice agrees that the ICC system would have the ability and incentive to reach in and rework a nation's social, moral, family, and community standards to conform to UN dictates.

One new "crime against humanity" being seriously discussed in UN circles -- enforced pregnancy -- would have a profound impact on the abortion issue. What this means is that nations that prohibit abortion could be accused of "enforcing pregnancy" -- i.e., forcing women to have children against their will. Professor Wilkins, who strangely does not reject involvement with the UN, foresees that "if the drive to create the UN's International Criminal Court (ICC) succeeds, opposition to abortion may be criminalized on a global scale, and 'private actors' -- presumably including parents -- may be arraigned for violations of the UN-defined 'best interests' of children." This is not at all far-fetched. Those involved in drafting the treaty have made it quite clear to their revolutionary supporters that the ICC will provide the means for enforcing UN "norms" on the rest of the world.

What are some of those norms? UN commissions have attacked restrictions on immigration, the right to own land, the death penalty, and the rights of parents to decide the size of their families, to raise their children in their own religion, and to control the education of their children. According to Dr. Srdja Trifkovic, a former commentator for Radio Free Europe who has studied UN "world law" in action, the UN concept of hate crimes provides a blank check to gradually criminalize not only activities but also certain political and cultural values and outlooks. Religious opposition to homosexuality would be considered a human rights violation. Traditional religions would also come under attack for regarding man as having a special moral purpose superior to plants and animals.

From the zeal of the ICC proponents, it is clear that the opportunity to enforce thought control will eventually lead to the criminalization of opposition to the UN's agenda.

Extending the ICC Reach

However ambitious may be the goals of the ICC and its backers, the threat still seems removed and vague, at least for Americans. Unfortunately, Americans won't have to be accused directly by the UN court to become victims of its social engineering and control. Most of the impact of the international court will come, however, not from the number of cases it tries, but from the mere threat of its authority.

When confronted with concerns that Americans might be prosecuted b the international court, ICC proponents argued that Americans would not have to worry because of a new principle they have invented with the fancy name of "complementarity." Under this "principle," the ICC would not assume jurisdiction as long as the U.S. justice system prosecutes -- to the satisfaction of the ICC.

But this is no protection at all. Instead complementarity points to an even more serious threat -- the corrupting and remolding of American courts and law to conform to UN politics. The message is: prosecute nationally or risk international prosecution. ICC proponents clearly are counting on co-opting the legal systems of individual nations to help carry out the UN agenda. That is how they plan to extend the reach and impact of the ICC.

The Fix Is In

To know what to expect from an ICC, it is essential to recognize who is behind the drive and where our leaders really stand. As William F. Jasper points out in his brilliant new expose The United Nations Exposed, if you want to find out who is pulling the strings behind these UN schemes, follow the money. Applying that principle to the ICC's proponents, he finds the same globalist forces that have controlled America's foreign policy since World War II, particularly the Council on Foreign Relations.

Most alarming is Mr. Jasper's revelation that many of our top officials -- together with their allies in the Establishment media, foundations, and think tanks -- are actually leading the whole movement to subject the United States to international jurisdiction under the ICC. While our nation's globalists are convinced of the need and desirability of the ICC, they know that American citizens would be unlikely to embrace the court. As a result, there has been little public debate about the ICC. This must change -- and the ICC and its claimed jurisdiction must be rejected -- if the essence of America is to be protected and preserved for future generations.