When you have a good case, and it is taken up by a
prosecutor, you welcome the case going to trial and you rely on the facts as
well as the law to prepare a good defense for your client.
When you have a bad case, and it is taken up by a
prosecutor, you protest the specter of the case going to trial, and you attack
the character of the prosecutor instead of relying on the facts or the law or
both to prepare a good defense for your client.
Clifford May does not have one word to say in defense
of the horrible crimes that Israel has been committing in Palestine during the
last half century. And so, he did what was expected of someone like him. He
attacked the character of Ms. Fatou Bensouda, prosecutor at the International
Criminal Court (ICC) who, at long last, turned her attention to that festering
problem.
But knowing that the whole world, including most
Americans, welcomes the prosecution of Israel's criminals, Clifford May has attacked
Bensouda for wanting to prosecute, not the good soldiers of America's military,
but the criminals who soil the name of that military by wearing its uniform and
committing horrible crimes.
These are the reasons why Clifford D. May was
motivated to write an article that came under the misleading title:
“International Criminal Court prosecutor Fatou Bensouda puts American soldiers
in her crosshairs,” and the subtitle: “Globalists gone wild.” It was published
on March 24, 2020 in The Washington Times.
Attacking Fatou Bensouda is not the only thing that
Clifford May did to protect Israel by pretending to protect America. He also
attacked the ICC itself, and made a big deal about America not being a member
of the Court. In fact, what happened in that regard, is that America signed but
did not ratify the Rome Statute. It later notified the ICC that it does not
intend to ratify the Statute at all … and then Israel followed suit.
With regard to the vehement protestations, which are
raised by the likes of Clifford May to the effect that America and Israel
cannot be taken to court because they are not members of the ICC, the world has
rejected that excuse. In fact, the norm that's followed in the world, is that
in the absence of a ruling by a competent international body on a specific
inception, a number of countries can get together on an ad hoc basis, make the
rules and abide by them.
In fact, no one knows this reality of contemporary
life more than the United States of America that appointed itself policeman of
the world and started acting accordingly. America also came up with a doctrine
known by the name, “The responsibility to protect” and added it to the many
doctrines it came up with over the decades, concerning its relation with the
rest of the world.
But the difference between America and the ICC is that
the latter does not act like prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner the way
that America does. The ICC does not use drones and warplanes to kill people.
All it does is establish the guilt or innocence of someone, and lets other
jurisdictions take care of the enforcement part of the verdict.
In fact, this is where Clifford May could have
contributed a basket of good ideas to resolve this important and yet lingering
matter. Being a lawyer and eager to see the legal approach triumph where and
when it is asked to get involved, Clifford May can still suggest a practical
way as to how America can work out a deal with the ICC. Such a deal will
specify that if an American soldier is convicted by the Court, he will be sent
to the United States to serve his sentence.
And while there, the soldier can use the American
military or civilian courts to appeal his sentence. If it can be proven that
the ICC has erred, the sentence will be altered or quashed altogether. If after
all this, there will be a popular outcry to the effect that the accused was
wrongly convicted in the first place, there will always be the presidential
pardon that can put an end to the controversy.
But why is it that Clifford May or even a non-Jewish
lawyer did not come up with that idea or something similar in the first place?
That’s because the Jews are always on the scene of every event, pushing
everyone aside and elbowing their way into the heart of every controversy. They
come into the fray not thinking about America or the world or anything like
that. They come with the pretense of talking about America but only think about
Israel, and always act to further its interests.
In fact, you'll find the Jews on the scene almost
instantly after the break of a controversy. They'll be there, not with ideas
they put on the table to contribute to the debate, but come with a bag full of
insults they throw at everyone.
Before the good people had the time to think about the
subject and come up with ideas of their own, the Jews would have polluted the
scene with a ton of nonsense, and will have moved on to another topic.
Once there, and before anyone else had the chance to
get in, the Jews would have hijacked the subject and treated it in the same
nonsensical way they always do.