Wes Vernon
Saturday, Jan. 6, 2001

The charges, moreover, don’t have to have any basis in fact. The servicemen and servicewomen in your town who put on that uniform to defend their country, on the assumption that the country will protect them, may find instead that their country is helpless to do anything about it.

As Eagle Forum President Phyllis Schlafly writes, "… Bill Clinton stuck his finger in the eye of all who care about American sovereignty and constitutional rights by signing the International Court Treaty on New Year’s Eve …"

There is a widespread assumption among the relatively few who even pay attention to this that, well, it won’t matter because the Senate hasn’t ratified this treaty. And there are so many senators opposed to it that it will never happen.

Wrong! You may have learned in school, if you attended school before history and civics became "social studies," that the U.S. is not committed to any treaty unless and until it is ratified by two-thirds of the United States Senate.

But national security specialists in Washington tell NewsMax.com that "international law" will not wait until the Senate elected by the American people decides to take this up.

The International Criminal Court (ICC) treaty that President Clinton signed sets up a tribunal with power to try individuals. This is not to be confused with the World Court, which has been around for a long time. That body is restricted to trying to settle disputes among nations. The new International Criminal Court, by contrast, can try individual citizens.

For starters, the Constitution and Bill of Rights protections would not apply here. U.S. service personnel stationed overseas would be at risk of prosecution on trivial or malicious charges. The ICC plans to prosecute war crimes, genocide or other "crimes against humanity" that have not been defined.

Moreover, the court claims jurisdiction over Americans even though the U.S. has not ratified the treaty. When Clinton signed the document, he acknowledged that it was flawed and lacked precise definitions or protections. That did not stop him from putting this monkey on the back of President-elect Bush.

You might say that, of course, the idea that "international law" trumps the Constitution and Bill of Rights is something that can be challenged in U.S. courts.

But then, your case may be hindered by Executive Order No. 13107, signed by Clinton, which implements U.N. treaties even if they are unratified.

Schlafly advocates congressional action. She supports the American Servicemembers’ Protection Act, written by Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Jesse Helms. That measure would cut off U.S. military aid to any country that ratifies the International Court treaty. The senator would also prohibit U.S. forces from participating in U.N. "peacekeeping" operations unless expressly immunized from ICC jurisdiction by a U.N. Security Council resolution. Further, it authorizes the president to undertake any means "necessary and appropriate" to free U.S. soldiers from ICC captivity.

Pass that legislation "in this Congress? Forget it," says a discouraged national security expert. With the Senate split 50-50 and a GOP holding a thin majority in the House, and a public that is blissfully unaware of what’s going on, the Helms bill is not likely to get anywhere.

The security specialist’s solution?

Bush is going to have to publicly renounce the treaty and declare the U.S. will neither cooperate with it nor participate in any of its provisions.

While it is true that the U.S. Constitution does not permit our government to delegate its authority to a foreign court, only a president with backbone can make that stick.

Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics:
Bush Administration
United Nations