The New York Times

Sunday, June 14, 1998

U.S. HAS NO REASONS TO FEAR WAR CRIMES COURT

To the Editor,

Ruth Wedgwood (Op-Ed, June 10) misses the critical importance of establishing an international criminal court -not only to punish abuses but also to deter them.

If we properly define the crimes the court will consider to include genocide,

ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity, the United States military should have no reason to fear an effective and independent court. Moreover, the "complementarity" principle in the draft statute insures that effective prosecutions within a functioning national legal system like ours will not be overridden by the court.

This court must be independent from the United Nations Security Council. If punishing war crimes is influenced by the political priorities of the big powers, crimes in small countries are more likely to be overlooked. A permanent member may prevent the prosecution of war criminals to protect its own interests in a country. The benefits of a court far outweigh the minuscule possibility that it will be used to bring frivolous cases against the United States.

JIMMY CARTER

Atlanta, June 12, 1998

To the Editor:

Ruth Wedgwood' s plea for caution on the proposed international criminal court is well founded (Op-Ed, June 10). Unlike the World Court, the proposed court would exercise jurisdiction over individuals, not sovereign states, and would necessarily trump the legal guarantees of the defendant's country of citizenship.

In the case of Americans, that means the Constitution.

Dozens of prominent organizations and public figures have urged the United States to ratify, even before the definitive treaty has been presented. Many espouse liberal views and have criticized the American criminal justice system. Oddly, they seem to have greater faith in a supranational court likely to be comprised - at least in part - of judges and prosecutors from judicial paragons like Cuba, North Korea and Libya.

STEPHEN B. KAPLITT

New York, June 11, 1998

The writer is legal adviser, National Defense Council Foundation

To the Editor:

Ruth Wedgwood (Op-Ed, June 10) invokes fears that Americans will be the subject of political harassment by an international criminal court.

Effective safeguards, against politically motivated prosecutions can and will be pursued in Rome. They include a precise enumeration and definition of the covered crimes; the principle that the court will only complement - not supplant - national judicial systems; judicial oversight of an independent prosecutor able to begin proceedings, and criteria for selecting and removing judges and prosecutors.

Making the court little more than an extension of the United Nations Security Council, as Ms. Wedgwood proposes, would cripple it. The court will lack legitimacy if it is subject to the political control of the five permanent members. Worse, their veto power could leave the court powerless to deal with the most horrific cases of genocide and crimes against humanity.

MICHAEL POSNER

Executive Director, Lawyers Committee for Human Rights

New York, June 10, 1998

To the Editor:

Ruth Wedgwood (Op-Ed, June 10) supports Senator Jesse Helm's position that the United States should not participate in the creation of a permanent international war crimes court unless it can veto any charges against American service members. Such an attitude requires a misplaced confidence in the righteousness of all American military activities.

The My Lai massacre, for instance, should be sufficient to remind all Americans that we are not immune to crimes against humanity. To suggest otherwise will only strengthen the belief f other countries that the United States is a bastion of arrogance where the will of the rest of human society is ignored.

LIZA RYAN

Berkeley, California, June 11, 1998