We’ve been talking about treaties and the probable subordination of American sovereignty to a miserably corrupt, unelected global elite should the Hildebeest gain the presidency. Last week we covered the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, or the ICCPR, and the Arms Trade Treaty.
The last two treaties I would expect to see a hard push for, should the Left retain the Oval Office, are – as previously mentioned – The Rome Statute which set up the International Criminal Court, and Additional Protocol I to Geneva Convention IV.
We’ll start with the ICC. So what is the ICC, what does it purport to do, what does it actually do, and does Hillary think we should join it?
The ICC is a permanent court set up to try cases of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and crimes of aggression. It has no statute of limitations, except for its original inception date, to restrain it. It asserts something like universal jurisdiction. To date, it appears to exist solely for the purpose of trying Africans, though this would appear to be unofficial, while officially it can try anyone over whom it can assert jurisdiction.
As for Clinton, it is very hard to say what she really thinks. She has taken both sides, to some extent. For example, during the 2008 primaries she was reported as saying that, “Consistent with my overall policy of reintroducing the United States to the world, I will as President evaluate the record of Court, and reassess how we can best engage with this institution and hold the worst abusers of human rights to account.”1 That’s about as non-committal a position as someone might take. On the other hand, in Nairobi, the next year, she said, “This is a great regret that we are not a signatory.”2 On the other hand, one could very easily take the later statement, in Nairobi, as her evaluation of the ICC during the previous primary. In other words, she’s for it. Who knows, she might even be for it if there were no money or power in it for her. It’s hard to imagine any Clinton, of course, feeling that way, but anything’s possible.
Moreover, on the other, other hand, this woman – quite possibly the most corrupt and self-serving Secretary of State in American history – has no obvious morals and no apparent principled positions.3 She will play to her base to increase her own power or do whatever gets her control of the most money, or both at the same time, where possible. For God’s sake, she lined the pockets of her “charitable foundation” – which is to say her money laundering machine, which is to say lined her own pockets – by selling national level influence and diplomatic and legal indulgences.4 We can, therefore, safely presume that, whatever her lack of morals or principles, she can be at least bribed into supporting our entry into the ICC.
“So what’s wrong with that?” some sensitive and caring soul might ask. “After all, is there something we should be afraid of? Some crimes we are committing? And besides,” that questioner might point out, “hasn’t the ICC been the very model of restraint and probity since inception?”
I’ve answered this in an afterword to one of my books.5 The really short version is that the ICC, for countries that have adopted it or countries and movements that lack the power to resist it, is unlimited power placed in the hands not just of unelected bureaucrats, but unelected judicial bureaucrats, which is even worse. The ICC, should we ratify the Rome Statute, which is to say make the Rome Statute federal law via the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, can drag our soldiers before it, totally cutting out our own judiciary. Who do you think our soldiers will obey, if it comes to it, the nation which sold them out to an international scam or the scam which threatens them with prison? Right; to adopt the Rome Statute means to give up our armed forces, which means to give up our national sovereignty. Sovereignty, you know, isn’t so much a matter of law with practical implications, but a matter of fact with legal ones. No armed forces, no national defense, no sovereignty.
But it’s worse than that. There is no practical or principled reason for the ICC to stop with soldiers. Did George W. Bush’s soldiers commit a crime in Iraq? (Or is it alleged in international progressive circles that they did, as with Spanish Judge Santiago Pedraz’s attempt to extradite and try three Americans?6) Did American courts then try Bush for his crimes? No? Clearly that would be a matter for the ICC.
So, your vote for president? No matter; if the ICC thought he could and should be prosecuted for doing his duty to the United States, they would have the power to arrest and try him (or her). As with soldiers, where would a president’s loyalty be then, to the country that elected him and does not generally speaking try presidents, even if impeached or about to be, or to the group that will send him to prison. And, as we’ve seen with Chile’s Pinochet, the International Community Of The Ever So Caring And Sensitive, ICOTESCAS, can wait to ruin the politician’s late life, which will tend to deter politicians in the present. And if it’s all utterly groundless anyway? So what; the punishment is in the process.
It is, I agree, a fascinating approach to the normal rule around the world of one man, one vote, once. We vote the Hildebeest into office, she is bribed into getting the Rome Statute ratified, and we never cast a meaningful vote again because our wishes and votes would come second to the wishes of a group of unelected jurists in Europe. It’s also an interesting take on Orwell’s “Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past.”7 How’s that? The ICC having control in the present can prosecute, as the Spanish did with Pinochet, for past conduct, hence can control future conduct from people who would prefer not to be prosecuted in the still further future.
For a little taste of the scope of the universal jurisdiction – for what happens when the rule of law turns lawless – try this:https://www.globalpolicy.org/international-justice/universal-jurisdiction-6-31.html.
Our subordination to the ICC would hardly be as effective in ruining us as it would be if we also took up Protocol Additional I to Geneva Convention IV.8 This interesting piece was pushed through, in 1977, by the late Soviet Union, at a time when guerrilla warfare looked to be a way to conquer the world from the west. The protocol has never had any other purpose but to disadvantage the west and, especially, the United States. It seeks to do so in at least five ways, of which I’ll cover only a fraction.
For example, Article 35 commands:
2. It is prohibited to employ weapons, projectiles and material and methods of warfare of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering.
3. It is prohibited to employ methods or means of warfare which are intended, or may be expected, to cause widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment.
So, let us imagine an artillery barrage somewhere on an enemy dug in, without overhead cover, in the blessed rain forest. By customary laws of war, we may reasonably use both artillery or aerially delivered high explosives, to clear out the intertwined trees, and incendiaries – white phosphorus, say, or Napalm-By-Another-Name9 – to attack said enemy. In doing so, we would be, should a few international lawyers decide so, in violation of both those subsections. That wouldn’t be a problem as long as we retain our sovereignty. When that sovereignty is gone, there is no protection for our soldiers doing their jobs nor for our national command authority, doing his.
Then there’s Article 44, which allows guerrillas and terrorists to sleep safely in their beds except when actively moving to or carrying out an attack. Yes, it might well be a war crime to attack them by air or artillery if they’re simply resting in a base camp.
Oh, and he’s protected if you capture him, too, never mind if he ever met the requirements for lawful combatancy.
Note that more than ninety percent of what is contained in the Protocol Additional is unobjectionable. Indeed, it is so unobjectionable that it already appears in the pertinent Geneva Convention. So why put it in there? Camouflage, and nothing but; it attempts to hide the protocol’s true purpose. Which is also, one suspects, precisely why the ICC has been so restrained. It’s camouflage, a lure, a way to sucker us in.
And if the Hildebeest gains the White House, we shall be well and truly suckered in as she sells us out to the next group of high bidders.
P.S. Donald, your number one foreign policy goal ought to be the utter ruination and destruction of the International Criminal Court. And remember, it cannot be counted as dead until you have driven a stake through its heart.
Next week: a lighter touch, Lieutenant Reilly and the Needle.
1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_the_International_Criminal_Court Yes, yes; it’s a wiki site, which is inherently iffy. Wiki cites to another apparently internationalist group, but getting to that proved problematic.
3 By the way, if you folks think I detest the bitch, here’s what some progressives think of her: http://usuncut.com/politics/hillary-clinton-foreign-policy-record/
5 http://www.tomkratman.com/Rantyelloweyes.html. Yes, read it.
9 MK 77s
Photo by Earl Gibson III/Getty Images
Tom Kratman is a retired infantry lieutenant colonel, recovering attorney, and science fiction and military fiction writer. His latest novel, The Rods and the Axe, is available from Amazon.com for $9.99 for the Kindle version, or $25 for the hardback. A political refugee and defector from the People’s Republic of Massachusetts, he makes his home in Blacksburg, Virginia. He holds the non-exclusive military and foreign affairs portfolio for EveryJoe. Tom’s books can be ordered through baen.com.
Note: If you follow the retail links in this post and make purchases on the site(s), Defy Media may receive a share of the proceeds from your sale through the retailer’s affiliate program.
Don’t miss Tom Kratman’s other Lines of Departure columns. Click through the gallery below to read more.
Social JusticeDon't miss this three-part series on our social justice armed forces.
Photo by zabelin/Getty Images
Women in the MilitaryShould women be required to register for the draft? Step right up, ladies!
Photo by Getty Images
The KurdsTom Kratman sounds off on our gallant allies, the Kurds, and other fairy tales.
Photo by John Moore/Getty Images
Sorry RodneyTom Kratman explores Islam and why we just can't get along. Read Part I, II and III of this series.
Photo by Retrovizor/Getty Images
Service Guarantees CitizenshipRead this three-part series from Tom Kratman, inspired by Starship Troopers: Part I, II and III.
Photo by Marko Marcello/Getty Images
ImmigrationTom Kratman explores why immigration doesn't work like it used to.
Gun-Free ZonesTom Kratman discusses military gun-free zones and the ill-logic of the Left.
Dear GermanyRead this open letter to Germany regarding the "refugee" crisis.
Photo by Adam Berry/Getty Images