Can The New World Court Try U.S. Citizens?
 

Recently, President George W. Bush threatened to pull US Peacekeepers out of Bosnia if a three-man panel of judges in the Hague, Holland, was given jurisdiction over them.

The much-discussed “World Court” presently consists of a small, temporary office in the Hague, where it was said a small number of staff had only a fax machine and a telephone.

Conceptually, the court would consist of 18 judges and a prosecutor. The purpose of the court would be to try those accused of “war crimes.” But who is to determine what is a “war crime?” To Americans, Slobodan Milosovich is a war criminal, who is guilty of carrying out massacres of Muslims and ethnic Albanians in Serbia. But to Palestinians, Israelis are “war criminals” who are guilty of genocide in the West Bank and Gaza. To Afghans and Pakistanis, Americans are “war criminals” who have “bombed villages and weddings.”

Suddenly, anti-US voices are being heard around the world, particularly from the EU (European Union) over Bush’s resistance to the court.

Currently, there are 3,100 Americans still stationed in Bosnia as “peacekeepers.” Also, there is a multi-national force under the aegis of NATO some 18,000 strong, which includes the Americans. The UN maintains a 1,500 member “training mission” for military police in Bosnia.

No matter where, and no matter which military force is involved, it is inevitable there will be crimes carried out by military personnel. Theft and rape are not uncommon. Traditionally, all offenses committed by military personnel who are garrisoned in foreign lands are handled by the appropriate military authority, and are usually not under the jurisdiction of the host (or occupied) country. The Japanese were bitterly angry over a rape committed by a US serviceman on Okinawa, and demanded the US quit the island.

Because it is a hotbed of ethnic, racial and political differences, Bosnia presents a particularly sticky problem to the US peacekeepers. American diplomats and high-ranking military officers could, upon complaints from any group, whether Muslim Albanians or Greek Orthodox Serbians, be hauled into the “World Court” and tried for “war crimes.”

When Bush threatened to pull US troops out of Bosnia unless certain revisions were made in the court’s charter, his threat was met with anger and dismay by nations all around the world.

The President of the European Commission, Italy’s former Prime Minister Prodi, said “It [Bush’s threat] complicates the situation. It’s another movement of division between Europe and the U.S. that we have to avoid at any cost.” But would the cost be the abandonment of the court? Even the British reacted negatively. Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said the Bush veto would be “a serious matter” and said his government did not agree. The German Foreign Minister, Joschka Fisher said he “regretted the United States’ negative stance.” Norway’s Foreign Minister also chimed in, saying, “We think the US has exaggerated the risk of unfortunate cases.” Spain’s Foreign Minister Joesp Pique said he was opposed to anything that would impede the implementation and working of the court. The Russian Foreign Minister also criticized the US position.

So long as the work of the court was purely JUDICIAL, and not POLITICAL, the US government went along. Yet, once it became apparent that US citizens could be hauled before the court to be tried for “suspected crimes against humanity, genocide and war crimes” the government blanched; took another tack. Not surprisingly, the only nation standing with the US in its opposition is Israel.

There could be much more afoot here than meets the eye.

US opposition to the court is bound to appear as a virtual admission of guilt in hostile countries around the world who have accused the US of war crimes. Sentiment in Germany has been expressed as “All the US ever does is go around and bomb everything.” Millions in the former Yugoslavia feel the same way, as do more than one billion Muslims in dozens of countries. Recently, when villagers alleged that a US bomb went astray and killed many people attending a wedding in Afghanistan, such charges were again reinforced. Notwithstanding the fact that Al Quaida fighters were borrowing a page from Saddam Hussein, hiding their anti-aircraft guns among civilian structures, and using civilians as “human shields,” grossly exaggerated claims came from Afghans about casualties. Investigators could not substantiate any such claims. Told the victims were “buried in a garden,” they were not shown the garden.

Leaders of many nations view Bush’s decision as “deepening the divide between the United States and its European allies over key issues of cooperation.”

For decades, I have predicted the eventual creation of a kind of “United States of Europe.” Such a unified Europe has been in the hopes and dreams category of such geopolitical visionaries as Haushofer and MacKinder, who wrote of Germany’s need for “lebensraum” (living room) and its inevitable domination of Europe. Bismark wanted to unite Europe. Hitler tried it by force of arms.

Following the devastation of Germany and much of Europe during World War II, there were many sage observers who predicted Germany would rise again. My father said so, as early as 1944, when Allied bombers were pounding German cities into rubble. I began saying so in the mid 1950's over television and radio, and in articles in our magazines of the time. Theodore White wrote “Fire in the Ashes” implying the Nazi’s were not truly defeated, but would arise from the rubble. “The New Germany and the Old Nazi’s” was a major book by T.H. Tetens, who had earlier written of rapproachment between a new Germany and Russia, called “Germany Plots With the Kremlin.” Brian Connells, a 20-year Reuters veteran who lived in Germany, wrote “Watcher Along The Rhine” showing German revanchism.

In the very depths of the Cold War, when it appeared East Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Rumania and Bulgaria would always remain under Soviet domination, I was telling huge audiences numbering up to 15,000 that those specific nations would come out from behind the “Iron Curtain;” that Germany would REUNITE, and that Europe would unite into a “third power bloc” in the world, able to arbitrate between east and west!

For decades, I have spoken on television and radio, and written in dozens of articles and booklets, that Germany would reunite; that Europe would unite; that eventually we would see EUROPE looming as the most dangerous foe the United States has ever faced.

Now, there is an attempt to give virtually UNLIMITED POWER into the hands of a small number of “judges” chosen from among 100 nations — power to INDICT AND TRY U.S. CITIZENS, DIPLOMATS, AND MILITARY PERSONNEL!

Because the US government is RESISTING such a move, Europe is ANGRY!

You will live to see growing fractures in the US/European alliance!

Whether you want to believe it or not, the same old system which existed for centuries in the heartland of Europe is to have an end time “resurrection!” From the days of Constantine to the times of Adolf Hitler, the BEAST of Bible Prophecy was a European creation! It was controlled by a great RELIGIOUS power. It is to have another shocking reawakening, and it is prophesied to become the greatest superpower the world has ever seen!

If you have not yet read my book “Europe and America In Prophecy” please find it on our web site at “garnertedarmstrong.org/,” call our offices at (903) 561-7070, or write to me at Box 747, Flint, TX, 75762 for your free hard copy.

 

back to top home what's new word from main
sermons - audio audio/video page TV program - audio TV program - video
two key prophecies United Europe are we in the end time? good news
best of GTA - TV best of GTA - sermons sound bites TV log
breaking news headlines end time news news sources
booklets 21st Century Watch beliefs heart & soul of gospel
feature page Feast of Tabernacles prophecy page evolution page

Garner Ted Armstrong