Posted on 02/16/2009 10:49:57 AM PST by shielagolden
Obama May Place U.S. Under International Criminal Court
Waterboarding. Abu Ghraib. Detaining terrorists at Guantanamo Bay. Dissing Hans Blix. These, as seen by the Left, are the cardinal sins of George W. Bush’s administration. Set aside the fraternity party-like nonsense that took place at Abu Ghraib and what’s left are actions taken to protect U.S. interests.
But self-loathing Americans whose minds are confined in the cult of globalism don’t see it that way. Each of these “offenses” has at least one thing in common: they hurt the feelings of foreigners. Insensitivity to the outside world, U.S. internationalists argue, is a stain on Uncle Sam’s reputation from which we must repent.
With that in mind, one more “offense” must be included in the list of Bush’s sins. It occurred May 6, 2002, when John Bolton, on orders from the President, withdrew the U.S. from the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC). Oh, there were terrible tantrums in Turtle Bay that day! Globalists were dismayed because Mr. Bush’s rejection of the ICC was a vote for American sovereignty -- a refusal to cede authority to international government and a court that is not bound to the principles of the U.S. Constitution, far less our laws.
That could change under the Obama administration.
Two weeks ago, hope returned to the House of Hammarskjold when U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice, in a closed Security Council meeting, voiced support for the ICC. She said it “looks to become an important and credible instrument for trying to hold accountable the senior leadership responsible for atrocities committed in the Congo, Uganda and Darfur.”
The mere mention of the International Criminal Court by the U.S. Permanent Representative drew her colleagues’ attention. “What she said on human rights and international law I could have written myself,” French ambassador Jean-Maurice Ripert told Bloomberg News. Costa Rica’s Jorge Urbina said Rice’s speech “raises expectations” that the United States will submit to the authority of the ICC.
Urbina is on point. Sen. Obama said little about the ICC during his campaign for the White House. But in his first weeks as President, his actions speak less to constituents in Peoria and the Bronx than to admirers in Paris and Brussels. Obama’s trans-American constituent service includes his decision to shutter “Gitmo” and grant his first presidential interview with Al Arabiya television.
In his inauguration speech, Obama declared that “America is ready to lead once more.” He said American power “does [not] entitle us to do as we please.” In the parlance of the Left, these suggest submission to international authority, which was raised again last week when Ben Chang, spokesman for National Security Advisor General James Jones, echoed Rice’s comments about the Court. In the context of an ICC indictment for Sudanese President Omar Bashir, Chang told the Washington Times, “We support the ICC in its pursuit of those who’ve perpetrated war crimes.”
So, what will ICC engagement mean for the United States? To answer that, one must read “A Strategy for U.S. Engagement with the International Criminal Court,” written by David Scheffer and John Hutson and issued by the Century Foundation. Scheffer was instrumental in the formation of the ICC and served as Ambassador at Large for War Crimes in the Clinton administration. Hutson was the Navy’s Judge Advocate General from 1997-2000.
The report is stunning in its frankness, heartbreaking in its eagerness to sacrifice American citizens for some nebulous “global good.” The authors’ complaints begin with the Bush administration’s unwillingness to subject Americans to ICC indictments. They explain:
Any path toward support of the ICC will require examining long-standing concerns about the exposure of U.S. military service personnel and American political and military leaders to the court, whether or not the United States is a state party to the Rome Statute. (emphasis added)
A cornerstone of the ICC is that its jurisdiction extends only to those nations that ratify the Rome Statute. By subjecting the U.S. to the ICC even as a non-participant, the authors have turned the Rome Statute into a “living document.” It should be noted that the ICC itself is doing the same. Last week, Lois Morena Oncampo launched an investigation to determine if Israel can be prosecuted for attacks on Gaza. Israel is not a party to the ICC.
Scheffer and Hutson continue, stating the implications to the U.S.
“If the United States were to join the ICC,” they write, “one would have to accept at least the theoretical possibility that American citizens (particularly political and military leaders) could be prosecuted before the ICC on charges of committing atrocity crimes.” And without the protections afforded by Constitutional and laws.
What do Scheffer and Hutson mean when they suggest U.S. “political leaders” can be prosecuted by the ICC for “atrocity crimes"? See paragraph one.
I hope I'm wrong too, but have lost all faith in conservatives due to their inability to grasp politics 101.
Bought some shotgun shells for this spring turkey season. They only had maybe 10-15 small boxes on the shelve.
Went to the counter to look for some other ammo....Saw ONE lonely box of .270 ammo...and bought it. Asked for .243 and .38 ammo...No got! The shelves were nearly empty........
Today I ordered some ammo on-line...and can't get my order until March 2nd or so.....
Ammo supplier's can't keep up with demand here lately....
MOLON LABE
Yes, that is true, but the people can in a legal manner against the feds only through their states and the courts. If we are ever to create an effective pushback against federal bloat, it has to come from the people via the states.
If your eyes are so "open" then why are you still here? Shouldn't you be moved out of the country already?
If you truly have no faith that We The People can take back our government and our Constitution, then keep it to yourself. Otherwise you're doing the tyrant's bidding.
Tom Gresham of Gun Talk had the president of Remington Arms on his radio show this past week-end. The man said they are doing their best to keep up with the demand.
In Jesus’ Holy Name, Amen
...or Roe v. Wade, or "progressive" income taxes, or (fill in the blank with any other stupid federal gov't decision of the 20th century).
Boy, do you have misunderstoods.
The first three words of the US Constitution are "We The People".
Who do you think that refers to - the states? Think again.
This is Obama’s way of putting his predecessors in prison for “war crimes” and to criminalize political opposition. This as a direct and immediate threat to the liberty and life of every conservative and, for that matter, anyone who is not in lockstep with his black radical agenda to terminate the existence of the United States of America.
So that means Obama can be indicted for killing any civilians since he became POS. Excuse me POTUS.
Most of what I bought was in fact Remington.
Oh, I see what you’re saying now - and you are right.
Time to take back our Country, beginning at the Local and State levels. However, Local and State governments can be tyrannical as well, so We the People need to stand firm.
4th amendment - illegal search and seizure? go to an airport recently?
9th, 10th amendment - the federal government is limited to only those items listed in the constitution, the rest reserved to the people or the states. Perhaps I am wrong, be I do not see any right listed in the constitution for the government to take 12.4 of my salary and give it to old people. I do not see anything in the Constitution for Medicare. Education is not authorized by the constitution at the federal level. Go through the budget and probably 2/3 of it is not authorized. Limited property rights like wetlands rules..
1st amendment - freedom of speech? McCain Fiengold - limiting political speech during an election.
2nd amendment - if you live in Chicago
5th amendment - I hate drugs, but do not see how confiscation of property before trial and conviction is not a violation
Or New York, California, New Jersey, Washington DC, etc...
If you truly have no faith that We The People can take back our government and our Constitution, then keep it to yourself. Otherwise you're doing the tyrant's bidding.
________________________________
Your attitude doesn't affect me a bit. I imagine you are cornered here with no way out if and when the sh*t hits th fan and you feel very vulnerable and trapped, as do we all.
First, we will move permanently to our vacation home outside the US when we feel the time is right and when and if we choose. I do no tyrants bidding. I refuse to accept and play his game. Fortunately, unlike some, we have options should we choose not to live under a Fidel like regime.
I never said the People couldn't take back the Republic, but I believe( and that is my choice) that you are daydreaming if you think in 4 or possibly 8 years that will be an option. I hope you are wrong. But the majority on here have no faith in the RNC or our Republican representatives, about half are RINOS.
Unless something drastic happens(BC exposes him or something) I think you are far too optimistic and don't realize these are NOT normal Clinton, Carter times. Time will tell who is right. This plan has been many years in the making with some powerful forces behind it from all corners of the world that have lived for the day that the US would fall from power. I hope you are, I doubt you will be.
take 2/3 of the states for ratification.
At what point do the 4 stars realize they took an oath ...against all enemies foreign and domestic....
?????
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.