“We got a Christmas card from Jason and Aly last week,” Gus replied. “They’ve got problems but they’re still in the Sudan, building a new mission with Toby. Aly’s expecting next month. You won’t believe this, but Denise Du Milan showed up. She’s affiliated with a children’s program sponsored by the EU and wants to help.”
“The woman’s a survivor,” Hank muttered.
“She seems to like Toby,” Gus said.
“Poor Toby,” Catherine murmured.
Westcot humphed. “The good Reverend can take care of himself. I wish he worked for me.”
Clare walked over to Westcot and took his hand. It was the first time they had met, and she bent over, kissing him on the cheek. “Thank you for saving my husband.”
“He saved himself,” Westcot told her.
“You’ve done so much for us, I just don’t know what to say.”
“You can always say ‘yes.’”
Clare smiled. “Yes to what?”
“We want Gus to run for the Senate.”
Clare considered it. “Where could we live? Our daughter and her sons live with us, you know.”
“We’re still raising a family,” Gus added.
“You can live here,” Westcot replied. “This place could stand some life.”
“I haven’t got a clue about politics,” Gus admitted.
It was Suzanne’s turn. “But you have great instincts and you’ll be a breath of fresh air.”
Hank waved his hand. “If you need help, I’m a volunteer.”
“Financing the campaign will not be a problem,” Westcot promised.
Hank gave him a studied look. “It’s tempting Max, and an honor. But please forgive me, I know how you work and there would be too many strings attached.”
Westcot thought about it for a moment. “Other than not messing with the oil depletion allowance, there wouldn’t be any.”
“And if I did mess with it?”
Westcot puffed on his cigar and considered his answer. “I wouldn’t be happy, but I could live with it. The offer is still open, think about it.”
“We will,” Gus promised.
“Would you look at that,” Suzanne said, still standing at the window. “It’s broad daylight and you can see the moon. I’ve never seen it so big.”
Gus looked at his wife as he slipped back in time. The memories flooded back, and, for a moment, they were young again. “And there is nothing left remarkable beneath the visiting moon,” he said, quoting his favorite line from Shakespeare.
Hank disagreed. “Nothing except courage and honor.”
THE END
AFTERWORD
For those who would argue that I have misrepresented the International Criminal Court in A Far Justice, I urge them to read the Rome Statute, the treaty creating the ICC, and to review the videos of the ICC in action. While the goals of the ICC, as set forth in the preamble to the Rome Statute, are laudatory, there are several basic objections to the court’s protection of individual rights and liberties, and ultimately, it’s ability to render just decisions.
First, the drafters of the Rome Statute tried to blend the Continental system of accusatory law with the American and English system of adversarial law. This concept was tested in the trial of Slobodan Milosevic before the UN’s International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. Prior to his death in 2006 from a heart attack, Milosevic made a mockery of justice by exploiting the inherent contradictions between the two systems.
Further, the Rome Statute specifically limits the ICC’s jurisdiction to states that are parties to the Statute, and to crimes that were committed after the ICC came into existence in 2002. However, many jurists and supporters of the ICC claim that the concept of universal jurisdiction, which is not embodied in the Rome Statute, extends the court’s jurisdiction to states that are not parties to the court, and that the court can reach back in time to prosecute crimes that were committed before it was created. The possibilities for unchecked and unwarranted prosecutions, motivated by politics or ambition, should be immediately obvious under this reasoning.
Structurally, in the ICC there is no trial by jury, defendants do not have the unqualified right to confront the witnesses against them in court, and there is double jeopardy. Trial by jury, a defendant’s right to confront witnesses in court, and freedom from double jeopardy, are individual rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States. While the Rome Statute incorporates an appeals process, the court itself rules on an appeal to its judgments, which, in my view, is an internal review. In short, there is no higher authority to the court’s jurisdiction. It rules and then rules on its own rulings.
Finally, it comes down to a question of sovereignty, the supreme power or authority. As currently written, the Rome Statute is the ultimate legal authority that trumps any national legal system. History holds a hard lesson that without a countervailing check on authority, this is an invitation to injustice.
To say that I find all this troubling is an understatement, and if I have provoked the reader into a closer examination of the ICC, so much the better. But in the end, A Far Justice is a story of people first, and how they are caught up in the turmoil of the modern world and doing their best to survive.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Writing is a lonely business and I am indebted to a small group of people who helped in the making of this book. A Far Justice is dedicated to the memory of Janice Hayes Perkinson, a wonderful friend and incomparable Superior Court judge, who explained the world of law in a way I could understand. John Lescroart started me on the journey and encouraged me to delve into the International Criminal Court. As always, William P. Wood was there at critical junctures, offering advice and saving me from many errors, while John Perkinson provided the legal mechanisms for this scenario that are actually coming into play. Three friends helped immeasurably; Don and Judy Person with their sage advice, and Mel Marvel who took a detailed look at the manuscript and provided yeoman labor keeping it all in perspective. Finally, my agent, Peter Rubie, proved again he is a superb editor. To all, many thanks for the help and, as always, the errors are mine.
While the battle of Mutlah Ridge, the “Highway of Death,” that occurred during the Gulf War of 1991, is an historical fact, the version in this story is fictitious. Nothing can detract from the courage of the men who actually engaged the enemy, and their story remains to be told.
A Far Justice Page 39