Monday, July 01, 2002
International Court Flak-A new International Criminal Court was set up; the US is emphatically not a signatory. Josh Claybourn has a good essay on the subject at his Hoosier Review "day blog." The problem I see with this is that is both too vague and too potent. Things that run against international political mores will become criminal offenses. The naming of the Axis of Evil alone caused EUnuchs "serious injury to mental health." That's stretching it, Mark. However, other geopolitical decisions or honest international commerce could become criminal offences. I look at some of the clauses that Claybourn and picture them being handled by a Euroweenie goon like the Spanish jurist who was out to get Pinochet. Not that Pinochet didn't deserve to be hauled into such a court, but I could easily see a Chompskyite prosecutor wanting to see Clinton tried for the high-altitude bombing of Serbia or Dubya tried for any number of perceived injustices with the War on Terror. Such prosecutions would be detrimental, allowing any aggrieved party to press charges against their enemies by claiming "serious injury to mental health" or "outrages upon personal dignity." The free market system is an outrage against personal dignity in the eyes of your typical IMF-protestor; being a member of the GOP could thus be a criminal offence with the right prosecutor. That might be a bit of a stretch, but not by much, as there seems to be few safeguards to keep an American oversees from being snagged by this court if they have fallen out of the good graces of the international poobahs. If this does in US participation in UN peacekeeping, I won't lose too much sleep. While I'm not in the black-helicopter crew, it may be time to abolish the UN or start a serious overhaul, as it is gradually becoming more and more malevolent.
Comments: Post a Comment