Part 16 (2/2)

Now President Obama has removed the sanctions that governed those bilateral agreements, and so has signaled our willingness to cooperate with the court.

$100 MILLION, 700 STAFF, AND ONE INDICTMENT

The ICC does a terrible job of the task for which it was nominally created: the prosecution of human rights violators. In ten years of operation, it has acc.u.mulated a staff of seven hundred and spends an annual budget of $100 million. It has, according to the Wall Street Journal, ”so far completed precisely one trial-that of Thomas Lubanga, a commander in the civil war in Congo. It took three years and ended with a conviction on March 14, 1012. The appeals have not begun. A few other trials are ongoing or set to begin. Even by the low standards of international tribunals, this performance should raise an eyebrow.”6

While 120 countries have signed on to the ICC, few of the really bad actors have done so. The Journal reports that the court's members.h.i.+p ”includes few authoritarian countries that employ repression or conduct military operations. Mostly democracies with some semblance of rule of law have joined.”7 Since the ICC cannot intervene unless a nation is a signatory to the treaty, it doesn't get much business.

But the possible implications of this court are terrifying. It would have the right, if we signed on, to prosecute Americans for crimes committed on American soil. If a person had already been acquitted by our own courts, it could indict and try him anew without any restrictions on double jeopardy.

The court could even overrule decisions of our own Supreme Court if we become a party to its jurisdiction.

And the ICC has none of our const.i.tutional protections. It has no trial by jury, no right to a speedy trial, no separation of prosecutorial and judicial functions (the judge and the prosecutor are the same person). It has no protections against search and seizure and does not follow American jurisprudence.

Some people have cited the court's inability to go after war criminals as a reason to strengthen its jurisdiction, but Eric Posner, a professor at the University of Chicago Law School, drew the opposite conclusion, writing in the Journal, ”Now ... it is clear that the ICC will serve no country's interests, let alone international justice... . It is too weak to deter atrocities, end impunity, or keep the peace, but it is strong enough to serve as an irritant in international relations.”8

But the globalists will continue to press for ICC jurisdiction, always remembering that the court is the judge of its own powers. While their initial sales pitch for the court sounds impressive-the prosecution of war criminals-it really is a heavily disguised attempt to bring the United States and our military under the jurisdiction of a global court. If the Law of the Sea Treaty is a threat to our naval dominance, the ICC is poised to restrict our military power.

We must be vigilant on this issue and move quickly to defeat it should the Obama administration move to resurrect the court and deepen American partic.i.p.ation.

PART SEVEN

GLOBALIST CONTROL OF s.p.a.cE

Even as the UN tries to take over control of the seas, the globalists are also pus.h.i.+ng for international control of outer s.p.a.ce. In January 2012, Hillary Clinton announced we would enter into negotiations with the European Union and other ”s.p.a.ce-faring” nations to develop a Code of Conduct for Outer s.p.a.ce Activities.

On its surface, the code seems to be aimed at keeping outer s.p.a.ce tidy by curbing the growing amount of debris in outer s.p.a.ce. It is, literally, an anti-littering agreement.

Rose Gottemoeller, acting undersecretary of state for arms control and international security, explains that ”orbital debris and irresponsible actions in s.p.a.ce have increased the chance of collisions that could have damaging consequences for the United States and others. As more nations and organizations use s.p.a.ce, the United States must work with our allies and partners to minimize these problems. The United States is joining with the European Union and others to develop an International Code of Conduct for Outer s.p.a.ce Activities to reduce the potential threat to American s.p.a.ce a.s.sets by endorsing nonbinding best practices and transparency and confidence-building measures.”1

A BACKDOOR BAN ON DEFENSIVE s.p.a.cE WEAPONS

But Taylor Dinerman, of the Gatestone Inst.i.tute, explains the code's real purpose: ”What this Code would, in fact, ban is what the Europeans, the Russians, and the Chinese see as American 's.p.a.ce weapons.' The code is designed to prevent the United States and other liberal democracies from deploying systems actively to defend their own satellites, while it would allow Russia, China, and just about anyone else to continue their s.p.a.ce weapons program, probably with only minimal cosmetic changes.”2

To curb debris in outer s.p.a.ce, the code would prohibit the launch of any missile or satellite that might contribute to litter in outer s.p.a.ce. This would ban defensive s.p.a.ce-based anti-missile satellites and weapons systems designed to defend against nuclear attack. (The theory is that such systems would contribute to debris by destroying missiles as they fly through s.p.a.ce en route to targets in other nations.)

<script>