Time: Wed Aug 13 20:18:50 1997
by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id UAA11310;
Wed, 13 Aug 1997 20:19:24 -0700 (MST)
id XAA29859; Wed, 13 Aug 1997 23:15:30 -0400 (EDT)
id XAA29826; Wed, 13 Aug 1997 23:15:24 -0400 (EDT)
id AA17897; Wed, 13 Aug 1997 23:15:23 -0400
by usr02.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id UAA13039
for <snetnews@world.std.com>; Wed, 13 Aug 1997 20:15:19 -0700 (MST)
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 20:14:12 -0700
To: snetnews@world.std.com
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SNET: World Criminal Court Having Painful Birth
-> SearchNet's SNETNEWS Mailing List
The court was conceived by criminals,
so it is having trouble making it
through the birth canal.
/s/ Paul Mitchell
http://www.supremelaw.com
At 09:03 AM 8/14/97 -0400, you wrote:
>>From - Thu Aug 14 08:56:37 1997
> by centurion.flash.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id TAA08439
> for <msmith01@flash.net>; Wed, 13 Aug 1997 19:56:48 -0500 (CDT)
> by x1.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id UYQ26474; Wed, 13 Aug 1997 20:54:17 EDT
>To: msmith01@flash.net
>Date: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 08:51:08 -0400
>Subject: Bill Pace on the ICC (fwd)
>Message-ID: <19970814.085201.8606.0.mark.s@juno.com>
> 69-73,75-78,80,82,84-86,88-90,92-94,96,98-99,101-110,112-118,
> 120-121,123-127,129,131-133,135,137-142,144-149,151,153-158,
> 160-164,166-167,169-179
>From: mark.s@juno.com (Mark A. Smith)
>Status: U
>Content-Length: 7067
>
>--------- Begin forwarded message ----------
>From: "R. Biondi" <rbiondi@u.washington.edu>
>Subject: Bill Pace on the ICC (fwd)
>Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 10:26:58 -0700 (PDT)
>
>From: WFM <wfm@igc.apc.org>
>
>William Pace, executive director of the World Federalist Movement and
>convenor of the NGO Coalition for an International Criminal Court, was
>quoted in an article in today's New York Times.
>
>..................................
>
>August 13, 1997
>
>
>World Criminal Court Having Painful Birth
>
>By BARBARA CROSSETTE
>
>UNITED NATIONS -- For two weeks, through diplomacy's August
>doldrums, legal experts from scores of countries have been closeted
>in basement conference rooms here, working hard on a blueprint for
>the world's first international criminal court.
>
>The establishment of a permanent court to judge the most terrible of mass
>crimes -- including genocide and the massacres that have come to
>characterize the ethnic conflicts of recent decades -- is a goal that has
>eluded
>members of the United Nations for half a century.
>
>It is now within a year of becoming reality, if the remaining
>trepidations of
>some nations can be overcome.
>
>The obstacles could still be formidable. Many countries, including the
>United States, are wary of a criminal court with powers that cross
>borders.
>There is not complete agreement on what crimes the court would take on.
>There are wide differences of opinion on how crimes would be taken to the
>court, in particular whether a chief prosecutor would have the authority
>to
>originate cases.
>
>The Clinton administration backs the proposed court, which would be
>established by international treaty. But U.S. participation would require
>the
>consent of a Republican-controlled Congress, where many international
>issues have been bogged down by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
>
>U.S. diplomats and legal experts agree that chances that an international
>criminal court will emerge from a treaty conference scheduled for next
>June
>in Rome have improved.
>
>"Three years ago, almost all major powers opposed it," said William Pace,
>chairman of a coalition of human rights and legal groups. "Now virtually
>all
>governments have affirmed support. We are optimistic that this could be
>the
>last major international organization established in this century, which
>has
>been by all accounts the bloodiest, most war-ridden century in all of
>history."
>
>The absence of a court to deal with figures like Pol Pot, the Khmer Rouge
>leader whose reign of terror left more than a million Cambodians dead,
>has
>been widely noted. And the creation of tribunals to deal with war
>criminals
>in the Balkans and Rwanda has laid the groundwork for a more lasting
>forum.
>
>"The establishment of the Yugoslavia tribunal and the tribunal for Rwanda
>has shown that we can operate on an international level," said Gabrielle
>Kirk
>McDonald, an American judge serving on the Balkans tribunal in The
>Hague. She is taking part in the discussions here.
>
>"We at the Yugoslavia tribunal brought together 11 judges, all from
>different
>systems in different countries, and we were able to draft rules of
>procedure
>and evidence that we believe met the needs of all of the systems," said
>Ms.
>McDonald, a civil rights lawyer and former federal judge in Texas.
>
>The tribunal juggled common law, civil law and military justice systems,
>she
>said.
>
>"We basically created an international code of criminal procedure," she
>said.
>"I think we have been able to conduct a fair trial in an international
>setting."
>The only flaw in the system, she added, is that the present tribunals
>lack the
>power to order or make arrests, slowing the judicial process
>considerably.
>
>David Scheffer, who last week was sworn in as the Clinton
>administration's
>special envoy dealing with war crimes, said Tuesday that there were three
>major areas of concern to the United States: how cases get to the court,
>whether or when international law would complement or supersede national
>systems and how the court's procedures are defined.
>
>Washington wants the Security Council to be the arbiter of what cases
>would go to the international court, a view at odds with nearly all other
>countries. Europeans and some Latin American nations would give
>international prosecutors wide latitude in bringing cases. Other nations,
>especially in Asia, want governments to have some control over all stages
>of
>the court's activities.
>
>"You cannot have a system that tries to end-run the Security Council,"
>Scheffer told reporters at a briefing Tuesday.
>
>In the developing world, U.S. insistence on Security Council jurisdiction
>raises fears that Washington would use its influence to choose which
>cases it
>would allow the court to hear. The United States and the other permanent
>Council members -- Britain, China, France and Russia -- could use the
>veto
>to limit jurisdiction.
>
>"The international criminal court could be used to harass nations of the
>south," Connie Ngondi, executive director of Kenya's branch of the
>International Commission of Jurists, said Monday. She added that there
>was
>also apprehension in Africa that an international criminal court would
>have
>too much power to intrude in a country's internal affairs.
>
>The United States insists that the court's jurisdiction be limited to
>cases of
>genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, with sexual assault
>built
>into the definitions. Scheffer said he would meet with representatives of
>women's legal organizations this week to address concerns about
>procedures and language that could be important to safeguarding women's
>rights.
>
>But the administration opposes the inclusion of international terrorism
>and
>organized crime, which many other countries wanted to bring into the
>court's purview.
>
>The American Bar Association will make a formal recommendation on the
>court at a meeting early next year. The association initially supported
>including terrorism, said David Stoelting, co-chairman of its
>coordinating
>committee on the court. But after noting the State Department's
>objections,
>he said the association "may adjust some points."
>
>Tuesday, Scheffer outlined the problems that Washington had with too
>broad a jurisdiction for the court.
>
>"There is a reality, and the reality is that the United States is a
>global
>military
>power and presence," he said. "Other countries are not. We are.
>
>"Our military forces are often called upon to engage overseas in conflict
>situations, for purposes of humanitarian intervention, to rescue
>hostages, to
>bring out American citizens from threatening environments, to deal with
>terrorists. We have to be extremely careful that this proposal does not
>limit
>the capacity of our armed forces to legitimately operate internationally.
>
>"We have to be careful that it does not open up opportunities for endless
>frivolous complaints to be lodged against the United States as a global
>military power."
>
>
>
>
>--------- End forwarded message ----------
>
>
>
>====================================================================
>
>///, //// Mark A. Smith
>\ /, / >.
> \ /, _/ /. * * *
> \_ /_/ /.
> \__/_ < UNITED STATES THEATRE COMMAND
> /<<< \_\_ http://www.eagleflt.com
> /,)^>>_._ \ email: msmith01@flash.net
> (/ \\ /\\\ http://www.flash.net/~msmith01
> // ````
>======((`===========================================================
> The Second Amendment was created so that the citizens can
> sleep good at night, and the politicians don't.
========================================================================
Paul Andrew Mitchell : Counselor at Law, federal witness
B.A., Political Science, UCLA; M.S., Public Administration, U.C. Irvine
tel: (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night
email: [address in tool bar] : using Eudora Pro 3.0.3 on 586 CPU
website: http://www.supremelaw.com : visit the Supreme Law Library now
ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best
Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone
Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this
As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice. We shall
not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal.
========================================================================
[This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.]
-> Send "subscribe snetnews " to majordomo@world.std.com
-> Posted by: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail