And here is the real point: I believe that many (not all, but many) of those who are supporting the ICC are lying when they say it won't be applied to the US and to Israel in this fashion. I think that the reason they are in favor of it is exactly that they hope it can be used to bring the US down a notch. There is, here in the US, a strikingly great correlation between those who are in favor of the ICC and those who otherwise profess that the US is too powerful, too influential, consumes too much, does too much, etc.To this list we can add those who are insufficiently obedient to the Environmental Lobby:
Any bets as to whether "ecocide" will trump keeping the developing world in poverty? But be reasonable, we're told - after all, it's not like the inmates will be running the asylum or anything. I mean, only serious, far reaching ecological catastrophe will be covered by this, right? Oh, wait:A campaign to declare the mass destruction of ecosystems an international crime against peace - alongside genocide and crimes against humanity - is being launched in the UK.
The proposal for the United Nations to accept "ecocide" as a fifth "crime against peace", which could be tried at the International Criminal Court (ICC), is the brainchild of British lawyer-turned-campaigner Polly Higgins.
Controversially, Higgins is suggesting ecocide would include damage done to any species - not just humans. This, she says, would stop prosecutions being tied up in legal wrangling over whether humans were harmed, as many environmental cases currently are.: "If you put in a crime that's absolute you can't spend years arguing: you take a soil sample and if it tests as positive it's bang to rights."So now insects will have "human rights" under International Law. That sure saves all that tedious proving harm to people bit. Take the soil sample.
Progressives wonder why their agenda is increasingly unpopular. Perhaps it's because that as society has made major gains in quality of life - the air and water is much cleaner (at least in the West) than 30 years ago - the need to even bigger campaigns has led to policies that would keep billions in poverty, cause millions to die early, and force billions to settle for a worse standard of living than their parents had.
Kind of hard to get the masses behind that program, so let's apply the Police State.
Progressives, you need to rein in kooks like this. The rest of us are watching, hoping you'll prove me wrong. Sadly, confidence is not high.
Oh good-grief. Someone needs a hot lead enema.
ReplyDelete"First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out--
ReplyDeletebecause I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me--
and there was no one left to speak out for me."
You can fill in the blanks with whatever groups you want--eco-criminals, etc--as soon as you let one get taken away, more will follow.
International courts have two problems: jurisdiction and law.
ReplyDeleteThey could be legitimate if they would meet these to criteria: (a Jurisdiction) punish violations of international agreements (b - Law) if the country has signed the agreements. Example: it is legitimate for an international body to prosecute violations of the Geneva Conventions if the country has violated them even though it has signed the treaty.
However, virtually all international criminal trials (including most especially war crimes trials) seem to prosecute people who have violated no corresponding law or signed international agreement.
Maybe the person is a horrible dictator, but if they have violated international agreeement, any prosecution stinks of revenge rather than justice.