Monday, May 06, 2002

ICC gets thumbs-down

Thank goodness. The US is announcing its withdrawal from a treaty authorizing individuals to be tried in an international court (ICC stands for international criminal court). Clinton, in his love for a one-world government, signed the treaty after it was introduced in 1998. However, both the Democrats and Republicans had a rare moment of lucidity and vehemently opposed it. Now Colin Powell says the official announcement of withdrawal to the Secretary-General can come as early as today.

Watch the one-world government types squirm. They don't get their theater of grand-standing or their launchpad for a global government.

So, why am I so down on the ICC, you ask. Point-by-point:

  • It will be run by the UN, which is either incapable or unwilling to execute its mission of preventing wars.

  • It has a good chance of becoming a theater of anti-freedom grandstanding. Ariel Sharon will probably be the first person drug before the court, even though there are others for which the term "war criminal" is more fitting.

  • National sovereignty is a more useful concept than the one-worlders would have you believe. Governments become corrupt. Power corrupts. A one-world government will be corrupt before it forms. (Note to self: time to take the 10th Amendment razor to our own national government.) Problem is, opposition to a corrupt one-world government will be weaker than if we simply had a gaggle of national governments.

  • Look what happened to the commission on human rights. Four of its members are known for slavery, forced abortions, religious persecution, forced conversions, mutilation, and other gross abuses. Now imagine if these countries had the power to arrest, detain, try, convict, and execute individuals from other countries.

The Bush administration has done another good thing. Keep it up, and I might have to use more than one hand to count the number of good things Bush has done.