Whatever happened to the rule of law? (Guest post) ~ Elder Of Ziyon

Sunday, December 22, 2024

Whatever happened to the rule of law? (Guest post)

(A guest post.)

The rule of law is the bedrock of modern democratic civilization.

Alexander Hamilton once said “The instruments by which [government] must act are either the authority of the laws or force. If the first be destroyed, the last must be substituted; and where this becomes the ordinary instrument of government there is an end to liberty" Tully No. III, [28 August 1794]

I was previously under the impression that the legal system carried some weight, both in international arenas, and certainly within the US. Recent events seem to illustrate how thin the veneer of civilization really is. Fifteen hundred American criminals were pardoned in one day, Venezuelan drug gangs have poured in through porous borders, governments fall under the control of terrorists, and journalists continue to report on the chaos using neutral language that sounds a lot like ChatGPT.

In his recent comments about Syria, Vladimir Putin stated "... we are on the side of international law and for the sovereignty of all countries, while respecting their territorial integrity, meaning Syria."

This quote ought to give us a good chuckle, in light of Putin's abysmal track record of invading other countries, including Ukraine, Georgia, and Estonia. Even Sweden and Finland are preparing for a Russian invasion:

But before we start throwing stones in glass houses, the US Department of State has some explaining to do:

"US dropping terrorism bounty on Syrian leader after first diplomatic visit since 2012"

The article quotes directly from the Department of State press briefing on 12/20/2024:

"QUESTION: Okay. All right, I’ll go with the second one, is: How do you – can you explain the dynamic of removing the $10 million bounty on somebody who’s wanted by the FBI list? Is this a good thing for other people on this list, encourage them to disengage from terrorism? Or is it only applicable to Syria?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY LEAF: So this is a decision, a policy decision, that was made in the interests of and consonant with and aligned with the fact that we are beginning a discussion with HTS. So, if I’m sitting with the HTS leader and having a lengthy, detailed discussion about a whole series of interested – or interests of the U.S., interests of Syria, maybe interests of the region, suffice to say it’s a little incoherent then to have a bounty on the guy’s head. Otherwise, I should ask the FBI to come in and, like, arrest him or something. So, I’m being facetious, but you know what I mean. We have a set of issues that we would like to discuss with HTS over time, and it is strictly pertaining to Syria and to the circumstances that we see before us. So no, it has no bearing on any other person."

Assistant Secretary of State Barbara Leaf seems to argue that since she is ignoring US law by sitting with a wanted terrorist, and not arresting him, she is somehow prevented from obeying the law, since that would contradict what she is actually doing. In other words, since she can do no wrong, whatever she is doing must be right. Ms. Leaf may one day face a Senate hearing for these statements. I would caution her to refrain from using the cliche defense of "it depends on the context."

In this era of bizarre contradictions and inverted logic, contrast the above events with the arrest warrant for Netanyahu, issued by the International Criminal Court in the Hague (ICC). Charged with a preposterous allegation of a war crime, without hard evidence, and without any attempt at a judicial hearing, the Prime Minister of a democratic country is suddenly a wanted criminal.

"Netanyahu will be arrested if he comes to Auschwitz memorial, Polish government confirms - report"

https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/benjamin-netanyahu/article-834302

Other countries have also indicated they would arrest Netanyahu, given the opportunity:

Italy, The Netherlands, Spain, Switzerland, Lithuania, Canada, Ireland, South Africa, Turkey, Jordan, Norway, and of course Sweden, have all professed their unwavering loyalty to the Rome Statute.

Now consider international law as it pertains to diplomatic immunity:

Article 29 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961 stipulates:

The person of a diplomatic agent shall be inviolable. He shall not be liable to any form of arrest or detention. The receiving State shall treat him with due respect and shall take all appropriate steps to prevent any attack on his person, freedom or dignity.

It is doubtful that Ahmed Hussein al-Sharaa, known as Abu Mohammad al-Julani within the terrorist group Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham, is legally entitled to the immunity afforded to a diplomatic agent. After all, just because you can topple a government does not automatically mean you represent the government.

Conversely, Benjamin Netanyahu , as a democratically elected Prime Minister, most certainly qualifies as a diplomat, and does receive full immunity under the Vienna Convention.

Is the ICC aware of this convention? Are the above listed countries aware of it? Will US relations with these countries continue as before? Should they? Are there any adults at the ICC, the UN, or the Department of State? Will international law make a comeback on 1/20/2025, or do we now live in a "post-legal world?"

[This is a controversial issue in the legal community, a clear contradiction between the ICC and the Vienna Convention. In the cases that it has happened that a leader with a warrant visited another country, even in cases that the national court ruled that he should be arrested, there have been no arrests, which strongly seems to indicate that state practice - which largely determines practical international law - has so far ruled against respecting the ICC. But, as we've seen so many times, when it comes to Israel the laws are interpreted differently.- EoZ]