trb@drutx.UUCP (BuckleyTR) (05/06/85)
"The Jewish Press," the Brooklyn-based largest independent Anglo-
Jewish newspaper in America, ran the following editorial in their
March 22nd edition on the Genocide Treaty. I'm posting it without
permission to the net, as it shows yet another perspective of people
against this dangerous treaty for all the right reasons.
I'm reprinting this exactly as it appeared. I'm guessing that English
is a weak second language to the the author, Mr. Arnold Fine, by the
way it's written. I disagree with the use of the word "Russians" rather
than the "Soviet Government" (sounds like a redneck cowboy - "It's them
damn Ruh-shins!"), and towards the end where it says, "In 1984 Jesse
Helms, then a Senator..." If I'm not mistaken, he's still a Senator!
Anyway, it's good to see so many people taking a stance against this
absurd treaty, and this is yet another view.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
(From THE JEWISH PRESS, March 22, 1985)
"WHY THE UNITED STATES SHOULD NOT RATIFY THE
GENOCIDE CONVENTION TREATY"
By Arnold Fine
For the past 35 years the U.S. Senate has refused to ratify the
Genocide Convention Treaty. That Treaty calls for the outlawing
of the slaughter of human beings. So why has our Congress balked
at signing the Treaty for the past 40 years? The answer lies in
the fact that the Treaty, as reworded by Russia stands to hurt
every American and especially Israel.
The argument presented by those who want to see the treaty signed
claim it is a response to Nazi Germany's crimes against the Jews.
However, in reality the slaughter of six million Jews actually has
nothing to do with the language of the present Treaty.
Then what is this all about? According to the language in the
treaty, which has been considerably modified by the Russians,
Americans would lose their rights under the Constitution and
Israel would become the prime target in the U.N. All the UN,
controlled by Russia, would have to do is continue their anti-
Israel stance and charge Israel with genocide for their position
in opposing the terrorist PLO. Interestingly enough, it would be
used as a club against the very nations it was designed to
protect.
Let's define genocide. It is considered the systematic planned
annihilation of a racial, political or cultural group. However,
the definition as explained in the Genocide Treaty could easily be
used against any individual or nation charged with killing even a
single member of one of the groups named in the definition. The
language in the treaty interprets genocide as "the intent to
destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or
religious group as such."
Since the phrase is subject to interpretation and with the absence
of precise meaning, the treaty would present a terrible threat to
this nation.
For example, when the Genocide Treaty was first proposed in 1940
its definition included "political" groups. The Soviets objected
strenuously and the term "political" was deleted from the language
of the treaty.
The Russians did not want that term included in the treaty because
they consider their enemies as "enemies of the state" - in other
words, "political criminals." By Russia's own admission almost
all of the Jews now being prevented from leaving Russian soil are
considered "political" and those in prison are "political
criminals" of the state.
When the U.N. first presented the treaty, the U.S. delegates felt
the term "...with the complicity of government" should be included
in the language of the definition. It was felt, regardless of
what an individual might do, it certainly could not be done
without the sanction or force of the government. The Russians
objected once more and that language was deleted.
By rejecting the language in the original treaty, the Communist
governments exempted themselves from the treaty's intent. As a
matter of fact, with that language deleted, the only nations that
could then be liable for personal prosecution by an international
tribunal could be any nation other than the Communist nations! So
the Russians had that phrase deleted over and above the objections
of Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Ceylon, Nationalist China, Cuba
(before the Russians became sponsors), Equador, Greece, Norway,
the Netherlands and the United Kingdom.
How would the signing of the treaty affect the United States?
Here's what would happen if the treaty were ratified. First it
would supercede all State laws and could nullify acts of Congress
and even treaties our President or Congress may have signed with
other nations.
A person or group who might be charged with genocide would not be
tried by a domestic court where legal due process is assured under
our constitution. They would have to be tried by an international
tribunal even if the charge is trumped up. They would not have a
guarantee against self-incrimination, the protection against
unreasonable search and seizures, the writ of habeas corpus and
the right of due process of law. All of these would be
meaningless in a foreign court.
The language of the treaty cuts across and overrides the
Constitution of this nation. It could make an American citizen
subject to extradition and prosecution without the safeguards
afforded by our system of justice. At the same time the treaty
would make Russia and their satellites immune from punishment
because of the very language they injected into the treaty.
There is no doubt in any one's mind that the Russians would
control the World Court where these cases would be tried. The
nations who would sit on the World Court would be able to
interpret the treaty as they saw fit when applied to an American
citizen or an Israeli.
The treaty language further stipulates that genocide includes the
causing of mental harm to members of a national, ethnical, racial
or religious group. Theoretically members of the FBI, the CIA and
even a local Police Department could be accused of genocide
because of their supposed harassment of certain groups. By the
same token migrant farm workers from Mexico could bring farmers
before the World Court charging them with genocide. During the
Vietnam War the Russians accused the American soldiers of
genocide. If there had been a treaty every Prisoner of War would
have been tried in the World Court with the full support of the
United Nations which is controlled by the Russians.
In a nutshell, if the United States signed this treaty it would
remove Constitutional guarantees from all Americans and subject
every American to the jurisdiction of the World Court.
In 1984 Jesse Helms, then a Senator, asked the State Department
whether the treaty applied to the Soviet's genocide against
Afghanistan or the mass murder of Cambodians in the 1970's. The
answer Helms got was "No." Because of the treaty's language, they
felt it did not apply!
The treaty has become a propaganda tool of the Russians. It has
been designed to embarrass us before the world. The Russians have
nothing to lose if the treaty is signed, but we, as Americans,
have much to lose - namely protection from persecution under our
Constitution.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Buckley
AT&T Information Systems
ihnp4!drutx!trb
(303) 538-3442david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin) (05/07/85)
Someone should stop the horror fairy tails. No treaty signed be the US, even if properly ratified, can supercede the US Constitution, unless that treaty is accompanied by a Constitutional amendment. A treaty signed by the US has the force of law -- and like any law, if it contradicts the Constitution, it is struck down upon challenge. So while a bad treaty could wreak all sorts of havoc with reasonable foreign policy, IT CANNOT WREAK HAVOC ON US CITIZENS DOMESTICALLY. Perhaps the treaty is dangerously flawed and a threat to international justice (I don't know, I never read the thing), but it is dishonest to try and whip up opposition by attempting to scare people with empty threats of circumvention of due process and such things. By all means, opponents should lambast what dangers that may be, but ought not raise fictional threats to use as whipping boys. David Rubin
dimitrov@csd2.UUCP (Isaac Dimitrovsky) (05/12/85)
[] > "The Jewish Press," the Brooklyn-based largest independent Anglo- > Jewish newspaper in America, ran the following editorial in their > March 22nd edition on the Genocide Treaty. I'm posting it without > permission to the net, as it shows yet another perspective of people > against this dangerous treaty for all the right reasons. > > [editorial against the genocide treaty was quoted] I don't want to go into the merits of the genocide treaty, as I really don't know much about it. However, I get the impression that you are quoting the Jewish Press as being representative of the Jewish Community. I don't think this is at all true. Or at least I hope it isn't. For example, the Jewish Press strongly supports Meir Kahane, American rabbi turned Israeli rabble-rouser, who has some radical but somehow familiar ideas about how to solve Israel's Arab Problem. Isaac Dimitrovsky