The World Is Not Enough

HUMAN EVENTS ONLINE: The National Conservative Weekly Since 1944

Human Events Online (click the link above for the full text of the article) is working hard to inform us of the latest global incursions on your personal rights.

A recent article delineates the international movement to 'take control' of the Internet.

Ostensibly, this is intended to reduce the predation of pornographers and pedaphiles, hackers and other cyber-criminals whose efforts to attack our personal and commercial selves affects us all.

But the verbiage (as reported here) goes beyond these near-universally accepted boundaries. In practice, according to the author, there is nothing to prevent intrusive legal action against any person who publishes any statement which "they" find objectionable. "They" is not necessarily some unknown and unknowable individual; "they" are foreign governments, whose laws YOU may be breaking by the words and ideas YOU promulgate on the Internet.

How Hot is it, Johnny?

Nobody knows for sure how 'hot' these foreign potentates can make it for the average web-citizen, but since you're reading this, and since I've published it on the Internet, chances are it will affect you either directly or indirectly.

Indirectly, it may reduce the scope of the information you can receive on the Internet, because directly it may reduce the scope of information which may be posted on the Internet.

For an example (selected because of the scope of THIS Internet website), suppose I write an article about a match I attended in the USA in which the Metric Target is used. Suppose further I post pictures from this match, and comment that the "Classic" target is inferior.

We know that some countries have passed laws to the effect that targets which suggest a 'human shape or form' cannot be used for competition. What if some country took this one step further, and outlawed the depiction of people shooting at these targets?

According to this proposal, they are authorized to demand that the Corvallis Police Department arrest me and hold me for trial, because I have broken a law in their country even though I have never been there, and even though I have not mentioned either the country or the law.

To take it one step further, suppose that YOU commented on my article and voiced approval of my thoughts. You may also be held accountable, and be subject to arrest and prosecution even though you were not the author of the original statement(s), or had nothing to do with the shooting match, the photography, or the posting of those thoughts or images on the Internet.

Let's pause here and look at the opening remarks of the artical from Human Events Online:

by James Plummer
Posted Dec 8, 2005

An internationalist assault on the sovereignty of the United States and the privacy of U.S. citizens is currently awaiting action by the full Senate.

The Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime is being aggressively pushed by Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Richard Lugar (R.-Ind.), who reported the treaty out from his committee in early November. That should come as little surprise, in that Lugar has also been a leading proponent of the better-known Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST), another key building-block in the structure of world government.

Originally conceived as a tool to facilitate international cooperation in the pursuit of computer hackers and the like, the Cybercrime Treaty evolved during 15 years of negotiations to encompass any criminal offense that involves electronic evidence -- which in the 21st century is essentially limitless.

As written, it could require more surveillance on Americans who have been accused of violating the laws of foreign countries -- even if they haven’t violated U.S. law. Treaty cheerleaders paint menacing pictures of hackers and child pornographers. But in reality the Convention is drafted so broadly that it encompasses virtually every area of law where the possibility exists of computerized evidence. That could affect thousands of innocent people, including not only political dissidents, but also the politically incorrect.

How does this affect the Average Joe in America?

Well, what if you (or I) object to certain social, religious or moral situations?

The European view of “human rights” includes the shielding from mere criticism of certain protected minorities such as abortionists, third-world immigrants, and homosexuals. The London Times reports that the European Commission has announced its first list of mandatory continent-wide criminal laws and will soon seek to add speech-based crimes such as incitement to hatred to the list. (France has in the past fined California’s Yahoo! for an American customer’s auction of a vintage Nazi war medal.) De Boer-Buquicchio and other Eurocrats regard the Cybercrime Treaty as one of those “global governance mechanisms” by which to enforce these views. She even went on to press for greater ratification of the Cybercrime Treaty in the very same speech.

You don't like Zero-Tolerance laws? Unprotected borders? Pederast Scout-Masters? Are you Pro-Life? Then don't talk about it on the Internet, because it is no longer just the Liberal Athiest Activists who will only argue with you and call you names - you're busted!

There may be some hope that this treaty will not be ratified by the US:

Fortunately, one heroic, albeit currently anonymous, conservative senator has placed a “hold” on this Cybercrime Convention, a procedural maneuver that prevents an immediate, unannounced vote on the floor of the whole Senate. Conservatives concerned with sovereignty and the Bill of Rights need to both become aware and raise others’ awareness of the dangers posed by the Cybercrime Treaty, lest the Senate acquiesce in this subjugation of Americans to European-style “hate speech” laws through an electronic back door.

UN-fortunately, the fact that this objector has chosen to remain anonymous (so far) doesn't bode well for his/her willingness to lead the fight against this treaty.

What happens if a foreign power wants to arrest me for something that isn't illegal here?

Note that this IS a treaty, not a bill in Congress. Is this a good thing? No, it is not. Treaties have the effect of law in the United States of America, and in fact may take precedence when there is a conflict between the treaty and U.S. Law (or the Constitution).

I say this based upon the Treaty of Vienna, which states in part:

Part III Observance, application and interpretation of treaties

Section 1. Observance of treaties

Article 26 Pacta sunt servanda

Every treaty in force is binding upon the parties to it and must be performed by them in good faith.

Article 27 Internal law and observance of treaties

A party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty. This rule is without prejudice to article 46.

This last article is subject to interpretation, but it seems clear that when it says:

A party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty.

.... it means that if a nation's internal law (including the federal code and the Constitution of the United States) is in disagreement with the treaty, that 'internal law" is not sufficient justification to refuse to enforce any part of the treaty.


Here's the bottom-line in the Department of Bad News:

Most egregious in Lugar’s ratification report to the full Senate is the voluntary declaration that foreign governments, under the fig leaf of “urgency,” be able to order American law enforcement agencies to enforce their orders without judicial review. So even though these foreign orders may be opposition to the U.S. Constitution, no U.S. judge will be able to enforce the Constitution to prevent it. (sic) The treaty also has no “dual criminality” requirement, which means federal law enforcement agencies could be investigating Americans for constitutionally-protected activities which offend European sensibilities.

Even worse, the Cybercrime Treaty is open to all nations to ratify. That means a future leftist President could even allow Communist China to sign on to the treaty and direct U.S. law enforcement to investigate Chinese dissidents, even Americans, based in the United States.

(Emphasis added)

No, I'm not liking this one.