UN Assumes Legal Sovereignty

BY JON CHRISTIAN RYTER

While labor unions, environmentalists and a hodge podge of anti-globalist conservative groups are picketing the World Trade Organization in Seattle, the United Nations is successfully undermining the sovereignty of all nations with its latest coup in Brussels. For the past two years a UN Treaty for an International Criminal Court has been making the rounds of the nations of Europe seeking the support needed to get it ratified by at least 60 of the 185 UN nations. [If ratified, the UN tribunals currently prosecuting the "war criminals" of the 1995 Bosnia conflict and the most recent NATO excursion into the Balkans would become part of that court.] At least 60 UN nations must ratify the Treaty* before it becomes binding on all UN nations--and by force of arms, binding upon the whole world. While this treaty has been circulating through the free world for almost two years, and has been signed by all of the European Union states [which, according to the United Nations means it is "officially ratified"], only one nation has thus far legally ratified the treaty through it's Parliaments. That nation is Italy. Word is that all of the EU states will officially ratify it by the end of Y2000. Standing firmly against the UN International Criminal Court are Iraq, Libya, Israel, Russia, Communist China and ...you guessed it, the United States. But it is important to understand that the United States stands against it not because Bill Clinton is against it [since Clinton has rubber stamped every subversive UN action and policy and UN Treaty since 1992], but because the Senate has let the White House know it need not even bother to submit the Treaty for ratification. [But one would think by this time that the United States Senate would have a better understanding of the rules by which both Clinton and the utopians in the United Nations play their game of international intrigue. Once Clinton signs a treaty, and the Senate fails to immediately act upon it, it becomes defacto law. Instead of threatening Clinton with a veto if he submits the Treaty, they need to be demanding its submission so it can be vetoed. The reality of this Treaty is that it, even if the United States does not ratify it, the UN International Criminal Court assumes legal jurisdiction over every nation in the world. In other words, the UN claims the right to arrest American citizens and, contrary to the Constitution of the United States, to hold them for trial by this international tribunal if the globalist overlords in Brussels decides that an individual American citizen, or collective group of citizens--even if he or they reside in the United States and has never left the country--may be guilty of international terrorism. The way in which the Treaty is constructed, the UN International Criminal Court will be the "superior" court of the world in matters of criminal justice. Under this Treaty Americans, the Constitution of the United States notwith-standing, can be arrested and tried for crimes defined as crimes by UN law [even if those "crimes" are not defined as "crimes" by the United States Constitution. Over the objections of many in Congress [but not the White House], the legal minds of globalism gathered this week to "fine tune" the "fine print" of the treaty that will establish the new world judicial body under which war crimes tribunals like those in Rwanda and the former Yugoslav Republic will be established and controlled. According to David Scheffer, Assistant Secretary of State for War Crimes Issues [since when do we have such a division in the State Department?], the UN's plans for the court are "...on track" even "...without the United States..." approval or participation. He said the Clinton Administration was under a lot of pressure from our allies in Europe to join, adding [probably with his fingers crossed and his tongue in cheek] "...We're not going to sign a treaty we can't support." Since when did that ever matter to Clinton? If he can make "points" with the European overlords of Utopia, you can bet the kitchen sink Clinton will sign it and worry about the consequences later. Scheffer added that Clinton is attempting to "...secure language in the treaty that would provide protection for Americans--enough that the United States could eventually join." What he meant was that Secretary of State Madeleine Albright is attempting to have the wording juggled around so that it appears that American soldiers who are called to fight on foreign soil, cannot be arrested by a foreign government and held accountable for orders given to them by the commanding officers. America's recent invasion of a sovereign nation--Yugo- slavia--is a good example of that. The United States and the European Union invaded a sovereign nation that had not provoked any of its neighbors. It's crime--like Russia's "crime" today was in their attempting to stamp out in rebellion by Islamic fundamentalists, within their sphere of sovereignty, who were attempting to carve out a chunk of that nation in order to create a muslim republic in lands not theirs. In the Middle East, under the close scrutiny of America and the world, the militant Islamic fundamentalists cannot carry out their covert acts in the secrecy of night. The United States and its European allies are forcing Israel to surrender a portion of its hard-fought land to the Palestinians so they can create an Islamic Republic in the heart of the land that God gave to Israel. Those who resist the expansionism of the Muslims throughout Europe are likely to face threats, if not arrests, by the new UN International tribunal within the next two years who will view any action taken by the non-muslims against the Islamic fundamentalists as acts of ethnic cleansing...crimes punishable by the new UN international criminal tribunal. By the end of Y2000 it is expected that the required 60 nations will have ratified the new Inter-national Crimes Court, and that its authority will supersede the highest courts of all of the nations of the world. Interesting as well is the fact that the new court will not "report" to the United Nations which is creating it, nor will the UN Security Council have jurisdiction over it. The reason? Because if it did, the United States would have veto power over actions that court might opt to hear. Also interesting is the fact that it is expected that once the ratification is complete that the new court's "budget" will be financed from the general treasury of the UN. That means that the United States, which foots the bill for 1/4th of the UN's expenses, will pay 1/4th of the budgetary require-ments of the new court, but have no authority over it. In the interim, the budget of the International Crimes Court will be paid by the European Union which is fighting hard at this moment to prevent the United States from being able to amend any of the provisions in the Treaty. The reason, according to EU officials is that by providing "special concessions" to the United States that would shield American troops from "prosecution" for war crimes, those same provisions would also shield "notorious" terrorists like Saddam Hussein and Osamo bin Laden. Scheffer said that the U.S. State Department has not yet decided whether the United States should actively lobby its allies not to ratify the Treaty, or simply ignore it once they do. That decision, Scheffer said, would not be made until the end of next year. At that time, of course, Clinton will know who the next President will be..and whether that new President will have a less hostile Congress [i.e., one controlled by the Democrats]. If the Republicans should somehow miraculously increase their margins in the House and Senate, and we miraculously elected a President with a nationalist backbone [although Alan Keyes and Pat Buchanan are the only two candidates running that fit that bill, and neither of them can be elected], it is clear that the United States would not only lobby our allies to dump that and any treaty which violates national sovereignty, I expect that President would threaten to cut off a lot of foreign aid to a lot of nations. If the Democrats regain the Senate, whose job it is to ratify treaties, I suspect Clinton would wait until the new President took office to seek a ratification of the International Crimes Court. Rather than allow Congress to reject the Treaty, Clinton will sit on it, allowing it to go into affect...and, by Executive Order [those illegal dictates to Congress and the nation], implement its provisions. Of course, like the Global Warming Treaty which Clinton has already implemented, Senate Foreign Relations Com-mittee Chairman Jesse Helms [R-NC] has already declared this treaty "...dead on arrival." _______________ *That is slightly less than 1/3 of the member States...not exactly a "majority" vote. But when you govern by "rule of the minority," why should it surprise anyone that it requires a vote with less than a 40% "majority" to enact a repressive, totalitarian treaty that benefits only the oligarchy at the top of the food chain?