Posted by Dan Ewert : 3/31/2004 08:11:00 PM (Archive Link)
The ICC Won't Let Me Be

Ok, so this is an interesting issue, fraught with potential peril. The International Criminal Court has ruled against the United States in that the U.S. “violated the rights of 51 Mexicans on death row to receive diplomatic help,” and the U.S. has been “ordered” to review their cases.

Issue 1: The ICC has as much legal jurisdiction over the United States as a tribal council meeting in Botswana. We have stridently avoided having anything to do with the court. While Clinton signed onto the treaty organizing the court, it was never submitted to the Senate for ratification (it would have been defeated) and was therefore never officially accepted or adopted by the United States. Bush wisely “unsigned” the treaty when he took office since it was obvious that the court could easily be used to further anti-U.S. policies and sentiments from around the globe. Among other things, it could be used to prosecute American soldiers, leaders, generals, etc., for supposed war crimes that occurred during military actions. Moreover, the court would be beyond our laws and abilities to control it and would not be bound by set laws as our own courts are. We would essentially be giving up our legal sovereignty.

Issue 2: The federal government doesn’t have a thing to do with these cases beyond federal appeals courts, including the Supreme Court, all of which have not found in favor of the Mexicans (the Supreme Court declined to hear the case). This is a state issue for states to decide. The State Department can’t go around ordering Texas or Oklahoma to do something and the ICC sure can’t either. As a Texas resident, I’d be seriously put out if the state yielded its criminal jurisdiction to the court.

Issue 3: This is something the U.S. should give absolutely no credence to… not even lip service. I already don’t like this part: “U.S. officials will study the decision carefully, said State Department spokesman Adam Ereli, adding that the United States has tried to comply with the requirement that consular access be granted to Mexican and other citizens detained on U.S. soil.” Any sort of acceptance of this decision on our part would set a disastrous legal and political precedent. Even without officially ratifying the court, we’d be giving ourselves over to it on precedent. And we’ll have enough trouble with anti-U.S. countries going after us in the ICC, we don’t need our own trial lawyers trying to mess with the U.S. judicial system through international law. Don’t believe me? Check out the quote: “David Sergi, who represents Texas prisoner Roberto Ramos, said the ruling ‘will give us a chance to litigate a lot of issues that were not addressed at trial.’ He said it could lead to a retrial or at least a sentencing review for his client.” You really don’t think lawyers wouldn’t pursue action in the ICC as a path to personal success?

Additionally, any sort of acceptance of the decision would only encourage others to try and get a piece of America by going through the court. My preferred government response to the decision would involve plentiful scoffing, but they’ll probably take a more diplomatic route.

Issue 4: This particular case hinges entirely on procedure, not guilt or innocence. What’s being left out is that failure to receive consular assistance in a timely manner doesn’t mean these 51 people aren’t guilty. They were tried in court, found guilty by juries, and sentenced. Just because the Mexican consul didn’t get a call until their national had been in custody for a month, it doesn’t mean the guy didn’t do it. Let’s take a look at the Texas convicts mentioned in the article: “Fierro was convicted of shooting a taxi driver to death, Ramos was convicted of killing his wife and two children with a hammer, and Torres was convicted of killing two people during a burglary.” Yeah, quality guys. I’m real glad there’s a global court out there looking out for the best interests of somebody who kills his own family with a hammer. It’s probably only a matter of time before the ICC comes out with a decision that supports child rapists. I mean, what, were there no perpetrators of genocide available for the ICC to go after? You know, maybe try to prosecute vicious killers instead of defending them?