On December 31, 2000, David Scheffer (CFR), President Clinton's Ambassador for the International Criminal Court, signed the ICC Rome Treaty for the United States.
This was an incredibly radical, revolutionary act, which will bring devastating consequences for the American people, if they allow the U.S. Senate to ratify it. If ratified and implemented, this brazenly treasonous scheme by the CFR Insiders would rend asunder our constitutional protections and cause American citizens to be vulnerable to prosecution before international UN tribunals for alleged violations of lawless UN "laws."
If convicted by this UN kangaroo court system, American citizens
could be subjected to whatever penalties the
ICC judges decree, including imprisonment wherever the black-robed
globalists may decide to send them.
Would Americans embrace this attack on their most precious rights if there had been?
which is why the entire crusade for the ICC has been carried out by the
Insiders as a massive stealth campaign, aimed at imposing UN judicial rule
on an unsuspecting America.
Of course you didn't, because those
debates never happened. At the time that President Clinton announced the
U.S. signing of the Rome Treaty, probably not one U.S. citizen in 100 had
heard of the document, and not one in a thousand had any inkling of what it
* As Defense Secretary under both JFK and LBJ, Mr. McNamara (CFR, TC) was a principal architect of the insane doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) and the disastrous U.S. debacle in Vietnam. Following those efforts, which were fiascoes for America, but bonanzas for the Insiders, McNamara went on to serve the CFR cabal as head of the World Bank, where he lavished billions of dollars taken from U.S. taxpayers on Communist and socialist regimes throughout the world. Professor Ferencz of Pace University, an inveterate one-worlder and author of many books promoting disarmament and world government, is one of the early architects and proponents of the ICC. His books Defining International Aggression (1975), An International Criminal Court — A Step Toward World Peace (two volumes, 1980), Enforcing International Law (two volumes, 1983), and PlanetHood: The Key to Your Future (1991) greatly influenced the development of the ICC Statute, as did he personally. Professor Ferencz was the recognized eminence griese at the UN's ICC Summit in Rome, and it was due to his personal, vigorous lobbying that the undefined crime of "aggression" was included in the ICC Statute.
Similar editorials, op-eds, articles and commentaries appeared in the Washington Post, Christian Science Monitor, and many other Establishment print and broadcast propaganda organs, while, at the same time, the mammoth, pro-ICC, NGO network intensified its lobbying for the UN.
All of the usual chorus voices began hymning in unison, creating the false impression that a new "consensus" had formed, that "enlightened" political leaders now accepted the virtuous and unanswerable arguments of the selfless representatives of "global civil society."
Hereafter, only hopeless,
heartless, Neanderthal, "sovereigntists" would oppose the creation of this
desperately needed institution that is designed (we are told) to establish
"the rule of law" globally, "stop the culture of impunity," and bring to
justice the world's most terrible criminals.
But should we Americans toss out our own justice system or allow it to be subsumed in some global ICC system on the basis of promises by the UN and its champions?
Do any of the UN's member regimes now have in place better justice systems than we enjoy under the U.S. Constitution? Ha! The thought is ludicrous!
One doesn't have to do an extensive study of foreign jurisprudence to know
that it would be a very bad idea to run afoul of the ruling authorities in
Red China, Russia, Cuba, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Rwanda, Nigeria, and dozens of
other tyrannical regimes throughout the world, where concepts of due
process, the rule of law, and constitutional rights do not even exist.
That is a chilling thought to anyone familiar with the
Tribunal prosecutor's position that five years is a reasonable time for a
defendant to wait in prison for a trial. Other ICC advocates frequently cite
the European Court of Human Rights as a model for the ICC. But this
supranational judicial body has ruled in various cases that pretrial
detention of three, four, or even seven years is acceptable!
There were no federal laws regarding murder, rape, robbery,
theft, vandalism, fraud, and other ordinary criminal matters. The central
government was restricted to prosecuting treason, espionage, malfeasance of
office, and other matters directly related to the federal government.
federal courts, especially since the New Deal, have been running amok,
acting as a super-legislature in matters as diverse as abortion, education,
the environment, pornography, race relations, sexual conduct, sedition,
employer-employee relations, religious practice, local police, state
prisons, housing, etc.
Writing in 1821, toward the end of his life, Thomas Jefferson predicted the dire consequences America might suffer as a result of judicial usurpation:
Jefferson's pessimistic view was based upon his sober assessment of the corruptibility of human nature. He was warning, in the citation above, of the dangers inherent in the natural tendency in human beings and institutions toward greater and greater corruption, not against any particular combination of individuals then scheming to overturn our system of government.
However, as gloomy as his projections were, it is doubtful that even he could have imagined the outrageous and seditious usurpations of our federal judiciary.
And it is certain that he and every other Founding
Father, along with generations of earlier Americans, would stand in
dumfounded disbelief to learn that America's leaders today are seriously
proposing that the people of the United States be subjected to the
jurisdiction of an international judiciary.
The vast majority of Americans today are blissfully
ignorant of the fact that such a radical proposal is even under
consideration. But the truth is that it is perilously close to becoming a
reality. And unless the American public becomes sufficiently alerted,
alarmed, and activated to oppose this incredibly subversive scheme, it will
But the UN
membership is replete with murderous dictators, tyrants, and the worst
practitioners of these and other heinous crimes. The likes of Fidel Castro, Yasir Arafat, Sam Nujoma, Mikhail Gorbachev, Li Peng, Vladimir Putin, and
other bloody-handed thugs have always been welcomed and honored at the
Who, then, are the real targets of the ICC proponents?
Those who stand in the way of their proposed "new world order," naturally. That includes, of course, so-called "right-wing dictators," like General Augusto Pinochet, who has never been forgiven by the international Socialist-Communist-Insider cabal for overthrowing the brutal Communist regime of their favored left-wing dictator: Salvador Allende in Chile.
In 1998, while the 82-year-old Pinochet was visiting England for medical treatment, he was arrested and held on a warrant issued by Baltazar Garzon, an investigative magistrate from Spain. Judge Garzon, a Marxist activist, was pursuing a revolutionary political agenda, not seeking justice for real crimes. Many legal authorities condemned Garzon's action for violating established canons of international law.
Eduardo Fungarino, Spain's chief
government prosecutor, filed a court motion charging that the judge had
broken many legal procedures in issuing the arrest order, and that Garzon
had "an absolute lack of jurisdiction" over alleged crimes committed outside
of Spain against citizens of other countries.5
* For an in-depth look at the orchestrated global campaign to "get" Pinochet, together with a thorough analysis of the charges leveled against him, please see: "Patriot Enchained," The New American, September 13, 1999; and "Persistent Persecution of Pinochet," The New American, April 10, 2000 at www.thenewamerican.com/focus/pinochet/.
Instead, we were treated to a nonstop
diet of shrill editorials and shrieking demonstrators demanding not only
that Pinochet be drawn and quartered, but that a permanent international
tribunal, the ICC, be established to bring "dictators" of his ilk to
Likewise, Jiang Zemin, the butcher of Tiananmen Square, as well as the
bloody-handed Soviet tyrants Mikhail Gorbachev, Boris Yeltsin, and Vladimir
Putin — and virtually every other mass-murdering despot of the left — have
been conspicuously ignored by the self-righteous frauds leading the ICC
Day after day, throughout the ICC conference, the U.S. was subjected to tirades and condemnations — by official delegates as well as by NGOs — for supposed past and present sins. In fact, from the nonstop anti-U.S. invective one might imagine that America is the principal, if not the sole, source of evil in the world.
The billions of dollars that we have
ladled out over the past half-century to these countries and the UN itself
have purchased us not an iota of good will.
Months before the Rome conference had even begun, the UN Commission on Human Rights had targeted the U.S. with a purely political attack alleging that this country unfairly applies the death penalty. The Insiders' White House agent Bill Clinton aided the scheme by inviting UN human rights monitor Bacre Waly Ndiaye to America to meet with U.S. officials and inspect our prisons.
In September and October 1997, Mr. Ndiaye came to the U.S. and visited prisons in Florida, Texas, and California.
The New York Times reported:
Mr. Ndiaye's U.S. precedent-setting tour provided the Insider-funded NGO radicals at Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the ACLU, and the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights with a propaganda bonanza.
media cartel retailed all their lurid charges of the horrors of the American
justice system. In April 1998, shortly before the ICC Summit, the UN
Commission on Human Rights released a report based on the Ndiaye
investigation. The report charged that application of the death penalty in
the United States is tainted by racism, economic discrimination, politics,
and an excessive deference to victims' rights.8
This provided the NGO cabal with another golden opportunity for a round of media-enhanced attacks on the U.S. legal system. One of the aims of this report and its companion NGO campaign was to sow seeds of doubt and guilt in American public opinion concerning the fairness of American justice; this would make the upcoming ICC proposals for an international system seem much more reasonable. It also gave the Clinton administration an opportunity to strike a moderate pose while advancing this radical agenda.
The Clintonites said, in effect,
This was all a colossal, insidious charade, of course. Not to mention the epitome of hypocrisy. At the very time that Kofi Annan's Commission was denouncing the U.S. justice system, the sainted Mr. Annan was suppressing information that he had been a key silent accomplice in the Rwandan genocide.
Lt.Gen. Romeo Dallaire, the former commander of Canada's UN "peacekeeping" mission to Rwanda in 1994, revealed that he had sent a fax to Annan's office warning that Rwandan security officials had been ordered to "register" the (predominantly Christian) Tutsis as an obvious prelude to mass liquidation.
Annan's office ordered Dallaire to "assist in the recovery
of all weapons distributed to or illegally acquired by civilians," which, in
effect, meant disarming the intended victims!10 So Mr. Annan, whose
Commission was chastising the U.S. for gross abuses, was himself involved in
one of the most atrocious genocides in world history. Likewise, many of the
UN representatives at Rome who cited the Commission report in their
denunciations of the U.S. were representing some of the most repressive and
brutal regimes in the world.
The story announced the release of a Human Rights Watch report charging a national epidemic of police brutality.12
The 440-page report, entitled Shielded From Justice: Police Brutality and Accountability in the United States,13 was time-released for maximum effect on the conference. Human Rights Watch spokesman Richard Dicker, who was one of the top NGO strategists at Rome, seemed never to be satisfied if not hurling vitriol at the U.S.
But that has
not hindered him or his group from receiving hundreds
of thousands of dollars from the Ford Foundation, which has enabled the
group to push the ICC agenda.14
The revolutionary role of the NGOs at the Rome summit is one of the biggest untold stories of that event. As CFR staffer Jessica T. Mathews approvingly noted in Foreign Affairs, ever since the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, NGOs have been exercising more and more influence at UN conferences.15
But the Rome experience marked a watershed in the incredible evolution of NGO power. At the ICC Conference, the NGOs were given unprecedented access and privileges and accorded a status almost on a par with official state delegations. NGO experts and officials, inflamed with their own self-importance, regularly addressed the ICC Plenary Session as though they were official heads of state.
They remonstrated, cajoled, and
chastised the assembled plenipotentiaries to adopt NGO positions, which
always argued for larger jurisdiction and more power for the Court. NGO
briefing papers, reports, resolutions, press releases, and legal opinions
flooded the conference. The NGO Coalition for an International Criminal
Court (CICC) was given a large suite of offices within the FAO (the UN's
Food and Agriculture Organization) conference building itself, just down the
hall from the main meeting room, so that the NGO activists — who outnumbered
the official delegates — could overwhelm the conferees with "good cop-bad
cop" lobbying tactics.
Take your pick: Castroite, Trotskyite,
Marxist, Stalinist, Leninist, Maoist, Gramsciite.
Together with its sister organization, No Peace Without Justice, the TRP and other NGOs organized daily demonstrations and panel discussions, in addition to ICC-related broadcasts on its radio program, Radio Radicale. As the host country and the nation with the largest delegation — 58 delegates, as compared to the next largest, the U.S., with 40 — Italy was in the driver's seat.
The Prodi government and Mayor Rutelli gave every advantage to the NGO
radicals, granting permission for streets to be blocked for marches and
demonstrations and even allowing NGO militants to set up a continuous
propaganda stage partially blocking the entrance to the FAO/ICC conference
site. On July 14th (Bastille Day, of course) Mayor Rutelli granted the TRP
and its CICC allies an especially rare privilege: a torchlight march through
the Via Sacra (Sacred Way), a path through the temple ruins that reportedly
has only been opened twice this century.
This American Insider foundation has been funding radical, left-wing causes for much of this century. Accompanying Judge Goldstone was Morton Halperin (CFR), the notorious Marxist activist and longtime associate of the Institute for Policy Studies. President Clinton attempted to place Halperin in a sensitive, top Defense Department post, but the Senate, prodded by exposure of his subversive background, refused to confirm him.
Halperin stayed on for awhile in other capacities in the Clinton regime, before moving on to a position in the CFR's Studies Department, and then an appointment as vice president of the Twentieth Century Fund.*
Of course, leading the clamorous "global civil society" cabal** was the World Federalist Movement, whose representative, William R. Pace (CFR), ran the NGO show.
* In Rome, Halperin and Goldstone joined one-worlders Ben Ferencz, John Roper (Royal Institute for International Affairs), and Marino Busdachin (Secretary-General of No Peace Without Justice) at the Transnational Radical Party offices to help make the pitch for global governance. In January 2001, the CFR announced that Halperin would be rejoining the group's staff to "direct a project on democracy."
** Among the many other groups comprising the storied "diversity" of the NGO claque were: Parliamentarians for Global Action; European Law Students Association; Women's Caucus for Gender Justice; Caribbean Association for Feminist Research and Action; American Bar Association; International Federation of Lawyers; International Women's Rights Action Watch; Beyond Borders; the Carter Center; Maryknoll Society Justice and Peace Office; Center for Reproductive Law and Policy; National Association of Democratic Lawyers; OXFAM UK; Earth Action International; Pax Christi International; Sisterhood Is Global Institute; Global Policy Forum; Gray Panthers; Vietnam Veterans of America Foundation; Washington Office on Latin America; International Association of Democratic Lawyers; International Association of Judges; International Commission of Jurists; Women's Action Group; International Council of Jewish Women; World Council of Churches; and the World Order Models Project.
The World Federalists (headed by CFR veteran John B. Anderson), who have long advocated world government, clearly have mastered the fine art of demagoguery and mob control. However, they do not exercise their leadership by virtue of strategic vision, tactical genius, or moral suasion. They have been accorded the piper status by those who pay for the tunes.
It costs a great deal of money to assemble a horde of activists, fly
them around the globe, set them up with accommodations and entertainment in
one of the most expensive cities in the world, and equip them with all the
resources they need to effectively push a coordinated, prearranged agenda.
Even more than at previous summits, the NGO "citizen lobbyist" campaign at
Rome was completely the creation of the same old Pratt House coterie: the CFR and its foundation, corporate, think-tank network.
These events, which this writer attended, usually featured 50 to 100 or more NGO activists of the Femi-Leninist, Enviro-Leninist, Afro-Leninist, Homo-Leninist, Lesbo-Leninist stripe. This motley menagerie of uncivil specimens, always spouting hateful diatribes and Marxist cant, by no means can legitimately claim to represent "global civil society."
But their CFR
paymasters are hellbent on legitimizing this false claim, because these
misfits and miscreants are essential components in their "pressure from
The enormity of the deception and the immense resources and coordination of this global network are amazing to behold.
But even the astounding NGO-Insider spectacle at Rome fails to provide a full appreciation of the fact that it was but a part of a much larger scheme. The Rome gathering was the culmination of a multi-year program of PrepComs (Preparatory Committee meetings) that had been carefully orchestrated to arrive at the contrived global "consensus" that is now being celebrated by the votaries of "world order."
The final PrepCom meeting, held from March
16th through April 3rd, 1998 in New York, was a mini-preview of the Rome
summit, with all the major actors, from UN officials and pro-ICC national
delegates, to NGO activists, honing their skills, practicing their parts,
and coordinating their activities with their Insider media allies.
The CFR leadership was obvious.
The moderator of the program was Dr. Edwin M. Smith (CFR), professor of international law at the University of Southern California and formerly an appointee to the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency by President Clinton (CFR). The main speaker for the program was Ambassador Scheffer (CFR), formerly an adjunct professor of international law at Georgetown University Law Center, President Clinton's alma mater.
The program was sponsored by:
CFR members play prominent, if not
dominant, leadership roles in all of these organizations.
Lodge, who is a professor at the Harvard Business School and a trustee of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, writes in his 1995 book, Managing Globalization in the Age of Interdependence, that there are,
Professor Thomas R. Dye of Florida State University described this same "consensus shaping" process many years earlier in his 1976 book Who's Running America? Dye noted that the CFR and its related "policyplanning groups are central coordinating points in the entire elite policy-making process."
He went on to describe how they function:
The Proposed ICC
The proposed ICC has proceeded through this process, and has gone from "action recommendation" to "consensus" to (almost) full realization.
The ICC is breathtakingly audacious on many counts but the most amazingly brazen claim, and one unprecedented even for so outrageous an outfit as the United Nations, is the assertion by the UN that once the Rome Statute is ratified by 60 countries (a completely arbitrarily selected number, by the way: totals ranging from 30 to 90 were considered), the newly established court will then have compulsory jurisdiction over all countries, even those that refuse to ratify it.
This is, of course, a revolutionary and
flagrant violation of the most fundamental principle of treaty law, namely,
that a treaty is an agreement that
is binding only upon those who are party to the treaty. Yet the ICC zealots
had no qualms of conscience in repeatedly and piously invoking "the rule of
law" to advance their totally lawless proposal.
The new ICC would try individuals who are accused of
violating international laws.
But the super-jurisdictional ICC, he points out, has no legitimate basis for its claimed authority, no protections against abuses, no accountability, and virtually no limits to its jurisdiction.
What do esteemed legal scholars like Professor Rice find so monstrous about the ICC?
Let's take a look at the kinds of crimes the new ICC would claim
jurisdiction over, and then briefly examine the structure and procedures of
the court as laid out in the Rome Statute.
At the Rome ICC Summit, many
delegates insisted that these and a vast array of other crimes — piracy,
child pornography, kidnapping, political assassination, religious
persecution, discrimination based on sexual orientation, etc. — be included.
The delegates were repeatedly assured by the Summit leaders that these could
be added later, but were told they should not jeopardize the establishing of
the ICC by insisting on inclusion of all these other crimes at the
Some of the most egregious threats that are built into the system include:
In other words, under an ICC regime, an American citizen, whether in the United States or abroad, could be accused of a crime by a member of some militant group, then indicted, extradited, tried, and convicted by prosecutors and judges from North Korea, Zambia, Mongolia, China, Iraq, Cuba, Turkey, or Russia.
And then sentenced to serve time at some
undisclosed prison in Zimbabwe, Kosovo, Albania, Cambodia, or Algeria.
Any reasonable American quickly realizes that Professor Rice was indeed accurate in describing the proposed ICC regime as "a monster." And therein lies much of our problem: Average Americans cannot conceive that anything so patently absurd and obviously injurious to American interests could ever be adopted by our elected leaders.
they reason, even if the U.S. Senate ratifies the ICC statute, the U.S.
government would never allow wild abuses of the ICC against American
citizens. And, as the U.S. is indisputably the most powerful nation on
earth, we have no reason to fear that the ICC could force its jurisdiction
on us in any case harmful to our interests.
U.S. position appears to be that if this one major area of concern can be
addressed with some exemption or written assurance, then the U.S. could live
with the ICC — all in the interest of showing U.S. respect for the "rule of
That is to be expected.
U.S. concession was an important part of the Insiders' calculated plan
gradually to concede U.S. sovereign jurisdiction in criminal matters. This
is not merely a grab for power by UN globocrats, third-world dictators,
Communist commissars, and fuzzy-headed Marxist academics; it is a colossal
grab for global judicial power by one-world votaries within our own
government and other centers of power in our society.
And, naturally, it doesn't stop with an ICC. A global judiciary presupposes a global constabulary, both to arrest accused "criminals" and to enforce the Court's rulings. Thus the same Pratt House thought cartel that has brought us the ICC monster is pushing hard for an international police corps.
Writing in Foreign Affairs in 1997, New York University professor of law Theodor Meron (CFR) told his one-world comrades that,
Professor Meron continued:
In December 2000, senior government officials from more than 150 countries
converged on Palermo, the capital of Sicily, for a UN conference ostensibly
aimed at stepping up the global fight against "transnational organized
crime." The event, led by UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan and UN Under
Secretary-General Pino Arlacchi, featured 20 heads of government and
unveiled a new UN convention against the scourge of organized crime.
Reputedly a top expert on the Sicilian Mafia, Arlacchi has been criticized by others who dispute his exaggerated and premature claims of victory over the mob.
Miss Falcone, sister of famed anti-Mafia investigator Giovanni Falcone, who was assassinated by a Mafia bomb in 1992, says,
Even more important questions concern the UN's direct and indirect roles in helping establish and expand the global crime syndicates.
Over the past decade, for instance, tens of billions of dollars that the IMF has pumped into Russia have been tunneled into the Russian Mafia, fueling the massive growth of this ruthless criminal behemoth, which the UN now points to as a prime target of its current crusade.*
* See the following articles from The New American: "Crime Fighters
Converge," August 22, 1994; "G-Men Going Global?" January 23, 1995; "Enemy
Within the Gates" and "Russian Mafia: Organized Crime is Big Business for
the KGB," February 19, 1996; "Russia's Global Crime Cartel," May 27, 1996;
"Drug War on the West," April 10, 2000 at www.thenewamerican.com/focus/russia/.
Certainly that is the case as regards such "respectable" UN member states as Russia, China, Belarus, Ukraine, Yugoslavia, Montenegro, Albania, Georgia, Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Zimbabwe, and dozens of other regimes where the organized crime cartels are mere extensions of the governments' police-state apparatuses.
The UN has served well to cover the official criminal dealings of these governments, especially the central roles played by the Communist regimes of Russia, China, and Cuba over the past three decades in directing and overseeing the largest narcotics operations in the world.*
See: Joseph Douglass, Red Cocaine: The Drugging of America and the West
(1999). Also the following articles from The New American: "Danger! KLA in
the USA," May 24, 1999; "Narco-Terrorism: Drug War on the West," and
"Narco-Dollarization," April 10, 2000, at
The would-be globocops also insist that since organized crime is now a "transnational phenomenon," the nations of the world must "harmonize" their criminal codes and crime-fighting methods and efforts.
In this, Arlacchi is parroting the Establishment party line that the CFR brain trust began promoting in earnest during the 1990s. Foreign Affairs has been the lead conduit, as usual.
Typical is this offering from CFR factotum Jessica T. Mathews in the journal's January/February 1997 issue:
Organized crime isn't the only excuse the one-worlders have for grabbing global police powers; terrorism is another.
Writing in the Summer 2000 issue of Foreign Policy (the Carnegie Endowment's sister journal to the CFR's Foreign Affairs), Robert Wright opined:
Similar paeans to global policing in law journals, law enforcement
periodicals, and academic publications have been preparing the legal
community, the law enforcement community, politicians, and opinion molders
for this planned transformation of the UN into a planetary "Globocop."
Those prime sponsors include:
Russia, China, Cuba, Syria, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Algeria, North Korea — to
name a few.
The Bush administration has been less than comforting on this issue. In an October 12, 2000 meeting hosted by the Council on Foreign Relations, CFR member Condoleezza Rice — who was then George W. Bush's foreign policy advisor — was asked whether a Bush administration would support the ICC. Dr. Rice replied, in part:
words, she was repeating for CFR Team B the same "red herring" issue that
Mr. Scheffer offered as an objection for CFR Team A. The plan, obviously, is
for this false issue to be resolved as a way to soften U.S. opposition to
the ICC. Perhaps NATO troops will be given immunity from ICC prosecution in
exchange for accepting prominent roles as ICC "enforcers."
We must heed James Madison who warned:
The ICC would be a disaster even if it were proposed by honorable men.
But as the proposed agency of a criminal conspiracy against freedom and justice, it should be rejected out of hand.