On December 17, 2009, President Barack Hussein Obama placed the sovereignty of the United States of America subordinate to the authority of the international police organization known as INTERPOL, granting the organization full immunity to operate within the United States. They and their offices cannot be searched. Their files cannot be subpoenaed.
Here's the deal, prior to how it was supposed to work before 17 December: All law enforcement agencies operating within the United States were, in some way, subordinate to the Attorney General of the United States, and the Department of Justice. By signing this executive order, the Administration has allowed an organization to enforce international laws on American citizens. They do not need a warrant from a US court to search or seize property or persons, they do not need to ensure that your civil rights are inviolate, they do not need the permission of the United States to extradite. In effect, this executive order has stripped you of the government's protection from foreign powers. (So much for providing for the common defense.)
Yes, I am sure that INTERPOL is staffed with nothing but well-meaning altruists who would never, ever overstep their authority (which is now greater than any other law enforcement agency in the United States) and they would never act in their own interests, and they would never, ever, have someone in their organization who would abuse their new-found authority.
Right?
Foreigners can now execute their laws in our country without any oversight. Little things like Due Process, the 6th Amendment, warrants, and stuff like that do not apply to them. They cannot be searched. They cannot be taxed. They do not answer to the Attorney General, the President, Congress, or the Supreme Court. The International Criminal Court, which President Bush decided could NOT try American citizens, because it would place their decision outside and above US Courts and sovereignty, runs Interpol. They now have the right to operate their police force freely within our borders.
Yes, I know, the ICC would never do anything like issue an arrest warrant for a US citizen and extradite him for trial. One of the most basic principles of international law is that a state cannot be bound by a treaty to which it is not a party. Further, long-standing international legal norms hold that a state cannot be bound to legal assertions that it has specifically rejected. The ICC, however, directly contravenes these norms and precedents of international law; it claims jurisdiction to prosecute and imprison citizens of countries that are not party to the Rome Statute and, more shockingly, over those who have specifically rejected the court's jurisdiction.
Both the Clinton administration and the Bush administration concluded that the ICC is a seriously flawed institution that the United States should not join. However, because of the ICC's unprecedented claims of jurisdiction, the United States has had to take unusual steps to protect its citizens and military personnel, including negotiating a network of nonsurrender agreements (or Article 98 agreements, after the section of the Rome Statute that permits such arrangements) with as many countries as possible. Countries that sign such agreements with the United States promise, in effect, not to surrender U.S. nationals to the ICC without the consent of the U.S. government.
America pursued Article 98 agreements out of concern that the ICC could be used as a tool by those opposed to its foreign policy to make political statements through ICC prosecutions. Supporters of the ICC claim there are protections in the ICC treaty to prevent abuse of the court -- after all, the court can only intervene in cases committed within the territory or involving a citizen of an ICC party, and then only if that country proves unwilling or unable, in the judgment of the court, to investigate and prosecute alleged crimes.
Unscrupulous individuals and groups will seek to misuse the ICC for politically motivated attacks, as demonstrated by those urging the court to indict Bush administration officials for alleged crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan. In the first two years of the ICC, more than 100 charges against U.S. citizens were submitted to the court. While the ICC chief prosecutor declined to pursue these cases, there is no assurance that future cases will be similarly resolved.
Because of its lack of checks to prevent it from being misused, the ICC represents a dangerous temptation for those with political axes to grind. This is a lesson currently being learned by Israel. Despite the fact that Israel is not a party to the Rome Statute, (and therefore, supposedly NOT under ICC Jurisdiction) the ICC prosecutor is exploring ways to prosecute Israeli commanders for alleged war crimes committed during the recent actions in Gaza.
Palestinian lawyers argue that Palestine can request ICC jurisdiction as the de facto sovereign even though it is not an internationally recognized state. This is a political twofer for the Palestinians: Pressure is applied to Israel over alleged war crimes while excluding Hamas's incitement of the military action (as well as its war crimes against Israeli civilians) and, at the same time, momentum is increased for Palestinian statehood without the need to make compromises with Israel.
The Administration authorized a foreign-controlled police force (we are not members of the ICC) to operate within the United States, has given them the same protections under our laws as we do diplomats, and given them the authority to act without regard to our laws, customs, or oversight.
From Threatswatch: "Ultimately, a detailed verbal explanation is due the American public from the President of the United States detailing why an international law enforcement arm assisting a court we are not a signatory to has been elevated above our Constitution upon our soil."--Chuck
No comments:
Post a Comment