The reported coming into being of a new International Criminal Court, ICC, was big news. Tom Carter of the Washington Times wrote a typical story, saying the ICC, a permanent judicial body to prosecute war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity, "will come into being today despite U.S. objections." That was a reference to the fact that the U.S. has not ratified the ICC treaty. Even so, the body will claim jurisdiction over all countries of the world. Carter said it became a reality when 60 countries ratified the document. A ceremony was held at the United Nations.

Carter’s story did not explain how it is that 60 countries can ratify a treaty that will apply to the approximately other 130 countries in the world. This is a perversion of the treaty process, which implies that agreements are arrived at between countries and only applies to them. He also didn’t explain how the arbitrary number of 60 was arrived at. Like many in the media, Carter didn’t ask, let alone answer, such questions. These are the reporters who have uncritically reported the activities of another U.N. criminal tribunal, the one that is now trying former Serbian dictator for alleged crimes against humanity. Milosevic has said that, in Kosovo, he was fighting Muslim terrorists supported by Osama bin Laden. The difference is that the ICC is a criminal court that could target American military personnel and their civilian leaders.

Carter acknowledged that "Opponents of the treaty fear an independent tribunal, accountable to no one, could become an international ‘Star Chamber’ prosecuting U.S. servicemen and civilians for involvement in U.S. policy abroad." But he went on to ignore the reasons why a bill to protect U.S. citizens against the court failed to get to the desk of President Bush for his signature.

Carter said, "The American Servicemembers’ Protection Act, sponsored by Sen. Jesse Helms, North Carolina Republican, mandates the use of force to rescue Americans brought before the court. Differing versions of the bill have been approved by the House and Senate." Yes, they were approved by the Congress but the bill was dropped in a House-Senate conference at the direction of liberal Senator Daniel Inouye of Hawaii.

The American Servicemembers’ Protection Act had passed the House of Representatives by a 282 to 137 vote last May and the Senate by a 78 to 21 vote in December. The bill went to a conference committee to iron out differences between the House and Senate versions. But the legislation was then dropped from the final Defense Appropriations bill. The conference committee met in secret, but we were told that Senator Inouye removed the anti-ICC legislation.

The radical groups that want to see Americans on trial before an international court were jubilant. "All the hard work and solidarity paid off," said Human Rights Watch. The World Federalist Association hailed the move, saying that the U.S. will just have to have to learn to live with it. It is a mystery why the Washington Times and other media have let Senator Inouye off the hook for leaving Americans naked before this U.N. court.

Reed Irvine can be reached at ri@aim.org