UN Sovereignty Trumps Congress, Rules US Judge

UN Sovereignty Trumps Congress, Rules US Judge
Vol: 44 Issue: 13 Friday, May 13, 2005

The United States Congressional committee investigating the Oil for Food scandal issued a subpoena for a former FBI agent who had worked as an investigator for the UN’s so-called Independent Inquiry Committee.

The committee, which was appointed by UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, allegedly investigated Annan’s involvement in the Oil For Food rip-off. Following the release of its report, Annan took every available opportunity to describe it as a ‘vindication’ of charges of wrongdoing against him personally.

Annan established the Volcker committee in April 2004 to investigate allegations that U.N. official had engaged in corrupt activities.

The former FBI agent, Robert Parton, reportedly quit the committee in disgust after the committee ignored or covered up any evidence that pointed to Kofi Annan.

The committee, headed by former Fed Chairman Paul Volcker, faulted Annan for not conducting an adequate investigation into reports of possible conflicts of interest when the UN awarded Oil For Food contracts to a company that employed his son, Kojo.

The U.N. oil-for-food program was established in 1996 to exempt Iraq’s government from sanctions to sell oil to buy food, medicine and other humanitarian goods. The program was the brainchild of Kofi Annan, and Kofi Annan personally set it up.

Saddam extorted more than $2 billion in illegal kickbacks from companies that traded with it, and used oil vouchers worth millions of dollars to pay off corrupt UN officials to look the other way.

As a consequence, much of the medicine shipped to Iraqi hospitals was expired, allegedly fresh food arrived already rotten, while Saddam took regular delivery of UN-approved luxury cars and expensive cases of Scotch.

Parton s documents and audiotapes reportedly demonstrate proof positive that U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan s stories are conflicting regarding the world s largest bribery scandal.

In response to a subpoena from the House International Relations Committee, Parton turned over several boxes of papers and audio tapes to the committee, one of several that are conducting their own inquiries into the U.N.-administered program.

“I kept my copies of certain materials relating to the areas of the investigation for which I was responsible because of my concern that the investigative process and conclusions were flawed,” Parton said.

“Although I sought to avoid any public discussion of these issues, I had repeatedly voiced my concerns internally to the IIC and wanted to retain a record of my efforts so that, if it became necessary, I could establish that I was not associated with the path the IIC . . . chose to take.”

The Volcker committee went to court to block the Congress from hearing Parton’s testimony and sought the return of Parton’s documents. It told a federal judge that the Congress obtained the documents ‘illegally’ because the former FBI agent was covered by UN ‘diplomatic immunity.’

Diplomatic immunity is designed to enable UN officials to carry out their work without fear of interference by the governments of countries in which they are posted. It can hardly be applicable to US citizens who are former staff members of an outside inquiry into the UN.

Or so one would think.


U.S. District Judge Ricardo Urbina in Washington issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) after the United Nations filed a petition to block the Parton congressional subpoenas.

The ten-day TRO gives both sides, according to the judge, ‘some time to resolve the matter’.

Volcker’s lawyers argued that the US Congressional investigation would undermine the ‘integrity’ of the UN investigation and ‘lives may be in jeopardy’ if details of the investigation are leaked.

The judge apparently accepted Volcker’s unverified statement that ‘lives may be in jeopardy’ as fact and issued the injunction.

American lives have already been lost as a consequence of UN efforts to prevent the Iraq war and the Congress is investigating whether the UN Security Council’s involvement with Saddam Hussein played a role — which is its constitutional responsibility.

Let’s step back and take a look at the Big Picture issue here. The question before the judge was nothing less than determining who is sovereign under existing US law — the United States Congress or the United Nations.

The United States Congress issued a subpoena to a citizen of the United States compelling him to provide evidence of criminal wrongdoing to a US Congressional investigative committee. By issuing the subpoena, the Congress put the full weight of its Constitutional authority behind it.

Even the President of the United States is subject to Congressional oversight and authority. Richard Nixon tried to ignore Congressional authority. He became the first sitting president in US history to step down rather than face Congressional impeachment.

Bill Clinton tried to ignore the authority of the Congress, but he couldn’t ignore his impeachment trial. The Constitution gives Congress the authority to make laws, to enforce laws and to ensure that no person is above the law.

That power is granted by the sovereign authority of the United States Constitution, a document that can only be changed by a two-thirds vote by both Houses of Congress and ratification by three-quarters of the legislatures of the individual States.

Since the ratification of the Bill of Rights in 1791, there have been more than ten thousand proposed amendments to the Constitution, but only 21 have been adopted.

The US Constitution is unique among the nations of the world. Constitutional rights are not granted by the government under our system. Instead, they are granted by the Creator. What the Creator grants, only the Creator can take away.

Therefore, under the Constitution, US sovereignty is derived from the Sovereign Authority of God.

The federal TRO sets a precedent for making US sovereignty subordinate to the UN. In effect, Judge Urbina determined that the Congress exceeded its authority in subpoenaing a person covered by UN diplomatic immunity, even though that person is a citizen of the United States and not a foreign UN diplomat.

If allowed to stand, it means that UN law trumps US law, even in US courts and in the US Congress. And history proves that, once a precedent has been set, it is only a matter of time before it is stretched to the limit.

In 1973, the Supreme Court ruled abortion was legal in the first trimester. In 2003, the Bush administration fought a pitched battle to ban the practice of killing an infant at birth, provided its feet hadn’t left the birth canal.

Ten years ago, a ban was lifted on homosexuals in the military. Today, the battle is over the right of homosexuals to get ‘married’. It’s the old ‘give them an inch and they’ll take a mile’ axiom in action.

If the UN can trump the Congress in a US federal court on something as self-serving as protecting itself from a US criminal investigation, then it isn’t a stretch to expect the UN to trump Congress on some matter of international policy. Like preventing the US from defending itself — or a US ally, like, ummm, say, Israel?

The Scriptures tell us of a coming global government during the Tribulation.

“And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority. . . and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.” (Revelation 13:2,7b)

According to the prophet Daniel, the final world government won’t be the United Nations, but will instead arise out of the revived Roman Empire.

But having once established that the United States HAS an international master, it doesn’t matter whether that master is the current UN, or its replacement.

The precedent has already been set.

This entry was posted in Briefings by Pete Garcia. Bookmark the permalink.

About Pete Garcia

Christian, father, husband, veteran, pilot, and sinner saved by grace. I am a firm believer in, and follower of Jesus Christ. I am Pre-Trib, Dispensational, and Non-Denominational (but I lean Southern Baptist).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s