Editorials
Monday, August 10, 1998

International court
plan has serious flaws

THE Clinton administration has taken some heat for refusing to sign on to a United Nations permanent international criminal court, but its resistance is based on more than isolationist obtuseness. As the lone superpower, with more troops stationed abroad than any other nation, the United States has more reason than most to be concerned about the danger that they might be hauled before a court where their rights would not be respected.

Some of the problems with the court proposal are outlined by Ted Galen Carpenter, vice president for defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank.

Carpenter writes that the definition of genocide to be used as one of the crimes the court will be empowered to prosecute includes such vaguely worded offenses as causing serious "mental harm" to members of any national, racial, ethnic or religious group. War crimes include "committing outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating or degrading treatment."

Then there is the matter of the court's composition. Instead of an impartial jury, the defendant would be tried by a panel of judges appointed by majority vote of U.N. member states -- including countries where the judiciary is not independent and human rights are ignored. Some of the judges could even be representatives of governments that are openly opposed to the defendant's government or movement.

The international court would not respect the right to a speedy or a public trial, or the right to confront one's accuser -- all staples of the American legal system, Carpenter points out.

The court could hold defendants for months, even years, before judicial proceedings began. In the tribunal hearing war crimes cases from Yugoslavia, trial sessions have been held behind closed doors, ostensibly to protect the privacy of alleged victims. Moreover, the permanent court would have the authority to conceal the identity of witnesses whenever deemed appropriate.

"Liberals would never tolerate such perversions of due process standards in an American court," Carpenter notes. "Why then do so many prominent liberals embrace the PICC, even though it will contain these and other appalling defects?"

The danger that this court might compel Americans -- or people of any nationality -- to appear before judges from countries that have no respect for human rights and the principles of justice, to be tried in secret for vaguely worded crimes without an opportunity to confront their accusers, is unacceptable.

Estrada didn't know

PHILIPPINE President Joseph Estrada is known for his sense of humor. It came in handy when he discovered that his navy and air force were conducting exercises with the U.S. Navy in the South China Sea without informing him. The recently installed president learned of the exercises several hours after they began, when reporters asked him for comment. "They simply forgot to tell us," Estrada said.

He explained that the exercises were scheduled during the administration of his predecessor, Fidel Ramos, who stepped down June 30.

If the military could forget to inform the president, what else might the admirals and generals have forgotten? For anyone concerned about the Philippines' national security, this is not reassuring.

A Navy spokesman said the exercises were held outside the Philippines' territorial waters because the Senate has not approved an agreement defining jurisdiction over American troops accused of crimes while on duty in the Philippines. The United States halted joint exercises in the Philippines and visits by naval vessels in December 1996, when the Manila government abolished a provision that had shielded U.S. military personnel from criminal prosecution by the Philippines.

Estrada is prodding senators to approve the jurisdictional agreement but nationalists are opposed. For the present, joint military exercises are being conducted outside Philippine territory -- with or without the president's knowledge.

Little girl's murder

ANYONE wondering why the investigation into JonBenet Ramsey's slaying is taking so long to lead to an indictment now has some fresh information over which to puzzle. Detective Steve Thomas, who studied and collected evidence in the beating/strangulation death of the 6-year-old beauty queen in her own home, has left the force after 13 years of service.

In his resignation letter, Thomas accused the district attorney's office in Boulder, Colo., of botching the case. While the district attorney denies those charges, the idea of hiring a special prosecutor to step into this apparently stalled fiasco is starting to look better and better.

The little girl's murder has been tabloid fodder since its occurrence on Dec. 26, 1996. Initially, public interest was high across the nation because JonBenet was a child beauty queen. Videos of her parading on stage dressed like a miniature woman provoked the ire of Americans lamenting the loss of childhood and the proliferation of stage parents.

Since then, this investigation has become notorious for its inaction. It's been nearly two years and yet no one has been arrested or indicted, although JonBenet's mother and father have been questioned. Thomas said the lull is largely because the district attorney's office is "literally facilitating the escape of justice," and that evidence collected by detectives has either been dismissed as unimportant or remains untested.

These disturbing charges should motivate the people of Boulder to demand that a special prosecutor be brought in immediately. If he or she has the same zeal as Kenneth Starr, more progress will be made than has been thus far.

---

Published by Liberty Newspapers Limited Partnership

Rupert E. Phillips, CEO

John M. Flanagan, Editor & Publisher

David Shapiro, Managing Editor

Diane Yukihiro Chang, Senior Editor & Editorial Page Editor

Frank Bridgewater & Michael Rovner, Assistant Managing Editors

A.A. Smyser, Contributing Editor