The International Criminal Court "will enter into force on the first day of the month after the 60th day following the date of the deposit of the 60th instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession." That countdown started on April 11 when Bosnia Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Cambodia, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and Ireland ratified the treaty, surpassing the necessary 60 ratifying signatories. When it goes into effect in July, the court will have international jurisdiction over what are now unprosecutable war crimes and crimes against humanity. The court won't have jurisdiction over anything that happened before July 1. It won't have any jurisdiction at all over US officials if the Bush administration has their way. Despite Bill Clinton's having signed the treaty that created it, all recent US administrations and the military and intelligence establishments have loathed this impending court. They're afraid of what they call "rogue prosecutions," that is, some poor weak state prosecuting US officials for war crimes. The Bush administration says they're thinking of symbolically "unsigning," the treaty so they can continue their secret military tribunals in peace. Be that as it may, some folks might not be sleeping so peacefully after July 1.--Troy Skeels

Marching up the sidewalk along Pine Street on the afternoon of April 20 from Westlake to SCCC (See lead article this issue) I couldn't help but notice a few transit-type absurdities. The uphill lane was closed to traffic, but because we didn't have a "permit" the SPD made damn sure we didn't walk in the street. This probably made the march seem even more impressive to onlookers, as it took much longer to pass than it would have otherwise. Not to mention the impression on those motorists waiting on side streets two or three times longer than they would have otherwise. As a traffic solution it was pure Seattle. Orderly, yet incomprehensible.

I also noticed that our sidewalks are clearly inadequate for any public presence bigger than a shopping party. The street would have been safer than squeezing us all up along the storefront rows. Safer and more convenient for people carrying signs and pushing baby strollers and, of course, for people hoping to enter and exit the shops. Once out of downtown and on the flank of Capitol Hill, the sidewalk narrows, random street signs and merchants' sandwich boards create an obstacle course (with the penalty for stumbling out of bounds a likely trip in handcuffs to the King County Jail). If the sidewalks are to play such a key role in public expressions of democracy we need some sidewalks more accommodating to free and orderly speech. Mayor Nickels has received wide acclaim for his aggressive pothole rangering. It's high time for some Sidewalk Ranger action.

All of which brings up the question of cars vs. people. The march was confined to the sidewalk because the street is officially reserved for cars even if cars can't use it at the moment. We take it for granted that people in cars need more right-of-way than people not in cars. We also take it for granted that cars' need for petroleum takes precedence over some peoples' need to live. What is it with those cars? They are certainly the most inefficient way to travel possible, not just the driving of them but also maintaining the expensive horrors required to fuel them. The Palestine solidarity march, on the other hand, was hands down the most efficient, highest density transportation system operating in Seattle at that moment. We had enough high-occupancy, fuel efficient people to deserve our own lane. Maybe it would be more patriotic and acceptable to Seattle officials if future marches were replaced with automobiles--a couple hundred sign-bedecked vehicles carpooling people from Westlake to Capitol Hill and then driving around the block looking for places to park. Call it Traffic Jam for Justice.--TS

Take yourself out for a beer or a friend out to dinner. Let's celebrate! Why? Because the Senate voted down the proposal to drill for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The Democrats were filibustering, and the Republicans needed a 60-vote supermajority to end the filibuster and bring the proposal to the floor for a vote. The Repubs figured if they could at least get a simple majority, it would make the Dems look like assholes and revive the bill's chances. So they forced a vote. And what happened? They lost with only 46 votes--not even a simple majority. Crow-eating Republicans groused that the price of gas isn't high enough yet for Americans to really care about this issue. That's bullshit. Americans care, all right; we care about the environment. We care about conserving energy. We care about fuel efficiency. We care about Enron and its huge political contributions to the Bush campaign. We care about all those things that Senate Republicans and the Bush administration would wish we would just forget about. Well, tough luck! I'm going to party tonight.--Maria Tomchick

There's something else we care about, too, that the Bush administration would like to just sweep away without our knowing about it. A little something to do with not deploying US troops on US soil. Last week, Donald Rumsfeld announced a "reorganization" at the Pentagon. It seems he and the generals--without input from Congress or the US people--have set up a new Northern Command that encompasses the US, Canada, Mexico, and portions of the Caribbean. Now, since Congress passed the 1878 Military Act, more commonly known as the Posse Comitatus Act, it's been illegal for the US government to deploy US troops on US soil against US citizens. There's a very good reason for the Military Act to exist: it's one of the checks and balances that ensures the stability of our democracy by making it damn hard for a military coup to occur.

More importantly, students of history--particularly labor history--will remember that the US government has broken this law before, to deploy troops against labor organizers and strikers in the coal fields of Idaho and other labor struggles in the early 1900s. (That's before the government formed the FBI to deal with such matters. And we're not even talking about the National Guard, deployed to horrifying effect against '60s anti-war demonstrators.) The Bush administration's lousy record on civil liberties almost ensures that Northern Command troops will be put to similar use in the future. If that weren't bad enough, media pundits are oblivious to all of this. As usual, folks on the grassroots level will have to kick up a fuss, first--and probably file suit against the Bush administration--in order to jump-start our half-witted media.--MT