The pernicious agenda behind 'universal jurisdiction'
In the Wall Street Journal, former US ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton discusses the pernicious agenda behind 'universal jurisdiction.' It is no accident that arrest warrants never seem to be issued for the likes of Kim Jong Il or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, since the real targets of universal jurisdiction these days are Western nations. Ultimately, what it targets is the very ideas of sovereign accountability and political independence. These goals largely motivated the 1998 Rome Statute that created the International Criminal Court, itself a step toward constraining states' abilities to police their own affairs, and an institution that the Obama administration yearns to join.That last paragraph describes Judge Richard Richard Goldstone perfectly and shows why the purveyors of the Goldstone Report will never be satisfied with Israeli investigations that conclude that Israel did not commit war crimes. After all, if Israel didn't commit war crimes, it could (and will) use the same battle tactics in the next war against the terrorists.
Transferring accountability for decisions from democratic politics to the criminal justice system understandably intimidates policy makers from making perfectly justifiable choices, such as defending against terrorist threats. Moreover, "command responsibility" has been transmogrified from liability for failing to stop known criminal activity, to liability when officials "should have known" their subordinates were committing crimes. This further ups the ante and explains why former foreign ministers like Ms. Livni or Henry Kissinger are at risk.
This deterrent impact is exactly what universal jurisdiction advocates seek—both to affect decisions at the highest national levels, and to discourage mid- and low-level officials from implementing disfavored policies. Some foreign critics hope to prosecute former President George W. Bush for enhanced interrogation techniques and the Guantanamo Bay detention facility. While they likely won't get to the former president, they'll be at least somewhat content prosecuting the attorneys who wrote the underlying legal justifications. Incredibly, the Obama administration has yet to definitively reject the possibility of allowing such prosecutions overseas.
Universal jurisdiction against officials of authoritarian regimes sounds appealing. But in these cases, the real goal should be replacing such regimes with representative governments that undertake sovereign accountability for prior transgressions.
Nonetheless, human-rights activists who view their morality as higher than that of elected governments are satisfied by nothing less than prosecution. That is precisely why contemporary universal jurisdiction is so profoundly antidemocratic.
Read the whole thing.
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 4:52 PM
2 Comments:
Exactly. Moreover as long as its only Israel's that effected, no one is in any great hurry to change "universal jurisdiction." And no - a Kim Il Jong, Hugo Chavez or Mahmoud Ahmedinejad are not going to be traveling to countries that have these laws so they're not really inconvenienced. For Israel, such laws represent another front to choke off the Jewish State's normal life altogether. That is the real pernicious agenda behind "universal jurisdiction" charges being filed against it and its officials.
That blew my mind. Now I know why the Nobel prize committee rushed to give Dear Leader Hussein (aka Obama) the Peace Prize. This gives "universal jurisdiction" over previous US presidents, especially the hyper-hated George W. Bush. They won't dare go after Clinton because he's shored up by Arab support. Eventually, it will be open season on Bush and his Administration, while DL Hussein just smirks and sneakily gives the finger all who don't follow Him (capital H intended).
Post a Comment
<< Home