trb@drutx.UUCP (BuckleyTR) (05/01/85)
The following editorial, by Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah), appeared in the Rocky Mountain News in Denver on Wednesday, May 1, 1985, under the headline "Genocide treaty carries a concealed dagger." It is reprinted here without permission. A few of my comments follow. --------------------------------------------------------------------- The Senate should proceed with upmost caution next week when the Genocide Convention comes up for ratification for the sixth time since it was proposed in 1949. Today, as before, there is every reason to reject the treaty in its current form, which could so easily play into the hands of those hostile nations that wish to make trouble for America and its allies. Consider the following scenario. The year is 1990. Israeli Defense Minister Yaakov Levin, in New York City to make a speech before B'nai B'rith, has been arrested in the lobby of his hotel on a federal warrant charging him with genocide against the Palestinian inhabitants of the West Bank. The warrant was issued by the U.S Attorney's Office upon a complaint filed by the United Nations Secretary General. After arraignment, he is to be turned over to the International Genocide Penal Tribunal at the United Nations. The defense minister will be held incommunicado, for under the Genocide Convention there is no right to bail, no probable-cause hearing and no due-process protections afforded to defendants. He personally is charged with genocide, since according to the convention only individuals can commit such acts. Governments are exempt from liability and cannot even be accused of complicity. The particular crimes in question are: causing serious bodily and mental harm (undefined), deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about the destruction of the Palestinian people in whole or in part and forcibly transferring Palestinian children from the West Bank. There are additional counts of conspiracy, incitement, attempt and complicity. The defense minister is accorded no presumption of innocence. He has no immunity as a government official and will be given the right to an attorney, not necessarily one of his own choosing, but does not have to testify on his own behalf. He does not have a right to confront his accusers, cannot prevent heresay evidence from being introduced, has no fundamental fairness protections in court procedure and does not have to be proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. He has no right to a jury trial and, if convicted, will not be able to make use of any appellate review process. He cannot be released, even temporarily, by means of habeas corpus, since that doctrine does not apply under the Tribunal Statute. He cannot prevent extradition to the U.N. custodial authorities, for the executive agreement binding the United States to the Genocide Tribunal discarded traditional American extradition protections and bound us to deliver any accused person to U.N. authorities for trial. After a three-week media extravaganza, the defense minister is convicted on all counts by a 13-2 vote - unanimity is not required - with only the American and Zairian judges finding in his favor. He is sentenced to life imprisonment and transferred to Syria. Israel, in the meantime, dramatically withdraws from the United Nations, angrily accusing the United States of betrayal. When Syria does not meet Israeli demands for return of the imprisoned minister, Israel mobilizes its army, and within days another Arab-Israeli conflict has begun. The Soviet Union immediately threatens the United States with retaliation. Israel is then declared an outlaw state in an overwhelming vote by the General Assembly, which calls upon all members to assist Syria. U.S. approval of the convention, as endorsed and interpreted by the Reagan administration, could lead to this sort of fantasy becoming harsh reality. This must not be permitted, for the sake of our own national interests and world stability. We are all opposed to genocide, in any form, but the Genocide Convention, as proposed, is unacceptable. Orrin G. Hatch -------------------------------------------------------------------- I have posted articles on this net in the past on the dangers of the Genocide treaty, and I felt this article presented a realistic scenario, given the provisions of the treaty. Note the paragraph that says, "Governments are exempt from liability and cannot even be accused of complicity." Scholars of this treaty for many years have been warning that this theme of the convention means the Third Reich would not have been accused of genocide, in fact, COULD NOT have been accused. The atrocities of the Red Chinese in the slaughter of some 60 million of its citizens would not be considered genocide. Likewise, the Cambodian Regime of Pol Pot could not have been accused, the Vietnamese regime could not be accused, the genocide of the Soviets against the Afganis would not be considered genocide. In fact, the only persistent perpetrators of genocide, the Communist governments, could never be found guilty of genocide, as not only are governments not liable, but "political" crimes are exempted (this was a clause the Soviets demanded in 1949). Not surprisingly, all the Communist governments have heartily approved the genocide treaty. Some of the non-communist countries have, after adding extensive amendments and revisions, and other governments have rejected even those changes. The Supreme Court has ruled that a treaty, like this convention, overrides the Constitution. An American accused of genocide would not be afforded the protections of the Constitution, and the scenario described above could become a harsh reality for him or her. Please ask your Senators to vote against ratification of the Genocide Convention. If you would like a copy of the complete text of the convention, I will send one for an SASE. If you have any questions about the convention, please send e-mail, write, or call me! Tom Buckley AT&T Information Systems | home address: ihnp4!drutx!trb | P.O. Box 33602 (303) 538-3442 work | Northglenn, CO 80233 (303) 377-8293 home