Volume CCXXXII, Number
23 July, 2002
Page 2 Volume CCXXXII, Number
23 July, 2002
Page 2|
SHE WOULD KNOW But there was Beverly Hills 90210's Shannen Doherty, G.O.P bad girl, enthusing about her trip to the White House that day (eat your heart out, Chloe Sevigny). [Presumably, Chloe would have preferred to eat– Copy Ed.][We don't need to go there – Ed.] Ms. Doherty said she couldn't have cared less about the White House itself –she wanted to see the stars who worked inside.
– The New York Observer, May 13, 2002 at 6. |
 | The hand-picked world-class professional prosecutorial staff of the new International Criminal Court (shown at a charging conference at left) has some worried that they may not give Israel and its allies a fair shake. |
|
George Bush and his gang of know-nothing unilateralists have uniformly and without exception or thought trashed every international institution and treaty they have run across since seizing power in 2001. Sooner or later, they were bound to hit on one that deserved what it got. Perhaps in part to teach the Bush louts a lesson, the drafters of the Statute of the International Criminal Court let loose on an unsuspecting world an "independent" (which is to say unchecked) tribunal empowered to arrest, try and imprison pretty much anyone they like as long as the victim's home country was foolish enough to ratify the damn thing to begin with. There's been a lot of patronizing claptrap emanating from the international wardheelers who will be living large at The Hague about the many "safeguards" that the Statute embodies to ensure that no innocent person or Henry Kissinger is hauled off in shackles to the Court. Let's take a look at these vaunted safeguards, shall we? Who gets to bring a case before this Tribunal? To make sure that this function is insulated from political accountability, the power is vested in the magnificently-entitled Prosecutor. Arts. 13-15. States Parties (that's Iraq to you) could ask the Prosecutor to investigate, but it is up to this Pooh-Bah to act . . . or not. What mortal could possibly exercise this terrifying discretion? Anyone who can corral a majority of the member states (including potentially over 100 Third World dictatorships) by secret ballot gets the nod for nine non-removable years. Art. 42. Fortunately, in case you were worried, the Syrian who is selected must be of "good moral character." Good thing W. didn't want the job. But the Prosecutor cannot slap on the cuffs himself. No, he must persuade the Pre-Trial Chamber to launch an investigation. Art. 15. His job is made easier by the absence of anyone representing the accused. Ibid. To see just how well this would work in practice, let us assume arguendo [Doesn't that just mean assuming? -- Copy Ed.] that the Syrian Prosecutor has reason to believe that Corporal Betty Golan, an enlisted woman in the Israel Defense Forces currently visiting her relatives in Brooklyn, has taken part in, oh, we'll let our imaginations run wild here, an attack on a Palestinian refugee camp in Jenin. (Of course, like any good Kantian, we must assume that all nation states have ratified the Rome Statute.) Our Prosecutor seeks to open an investigation into the activities of the IDF in Jenin. He applies to a single judge of the Pre-Trial Chamber who just happens to be, oh, Iranian, Art. 39(2)(b)(iii), accompanied by a few Palestinian "victims," Art. 15(4). Lo and behold, the investigation is commenced. |
|
At this point the apologists for this civil-law lynch mob will note that the crimes asserted must fall within the narrowly-drawn terms of Articles 5, 6, 7 or 8. Do you think that the Syrian prosecutor can persuade the Iranian judge that Betty might have caused serious mental harm to Palestinians? That's genocide! Art. 6(b). How about persecution of an identifiable group? That's a crime against humanity, at least when combined with the crime of "apartheid" or "severe deprivation of personal liberty." Art. 6. How about extensive destruction of property? That's a war crime! Art. 8(iv). Sounds like our prosecutor has lined up three cherries. Jackpot! After thorough investigation over coffee in the tax-free staff canteen, our Prosecutor then goes back to his friendly Iranian judge for an arrest warrant under Art. 58(1). The warrant is brought to the attention of the relevant authorities in the state where the suspect might be found, which is Brooklyn [Brooklyn's not a separate country; it's the United States – Copy Ed.][Ever been there? – Ed.] Now Uncle Sucker is obligated to arrest Corporal Betty, Art. 59, and to render her up to the Court for, uh, justice. The U.S. court cannot free Corporal Betty on the grounds that the Tribunal is a bloodthirsty band of third-world Jew haters aided and abetted by spineless European academics who prefer a cushy job in The Hague to two rooms and an unheated loo at All Souls'. Art. 58(4). The Rome Statute does give the United States a choice much admired by the Court's apologists: the U.S. could prosecute Betty on the same charges, Art. 17. Should the U.S. Attorney decide that service in the IDF is not a prosecutable war crime, the Court must respect that decision — unless the Iranian judge decides that the U.S. was "unwilling . . . genuinely to prosecute," Art. 17(1)(b). How do you think that one's going to come out? We could go on, but with Betty languishing in a jail cell in Holland, why bother? The point of this exercise was not to belittle the notion of war crimes or the crime of genocide – we'll let the Court do that. The point is that this powerful coercive machinery should be deployed only when there is an international consensus that matters in Bosnia or Rwanda have gotten out hand. That restraint would exist if the Court's jurisdiction were limited to matters referred to it by the Security Council. No, this Star Chamber can employ the full physical force of its member states to carry out the unreviewable caprice of a court elected by an assembly numerically dominated by undemocratic regimes. You'd think that these wretched dictatorships would too busy committing war crimes to sit in judgment of others, but apparently in Sierra Leone and Paraguay, two proud States Parties, you can disembowel your opposition all morning and still have time to choose a Prosecutor in the afternoon.
|
|