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.
What about chemistry?
Omigosh, the man is an even bigger fool that I previously thought! He has done more to wreck this country in a few short weeks, and the Media claims that he “won”.
Arrrrgh! No disrespect indended to anyone, but good heaven's people, don't you remember recent history? Also, don't you ever read the finer points of the Constitution?
Once again, Bill Clinton signed the ICC treaty in the late 1990's. The Republican Senate did not ratify it, and when President Bush took office in 2001, he revoked Clinton's signature, effectively removing the U.S. as a signatory. All Obama has to do is sign the existing treaty and re-submit it to the Senate for ratification. This Senate WILL ratify it.
Article VI of the U.S. Constitution makes ratified treaties the law of our land. There would be NOTHING unconstitutional in the ICC treaty if it was ratified by the Senate.
It comes in handy when making bombs.
With pleasure.
In the mind of the black supremacist Obama, US soldiers are only good for sacrificing their lives to save the lives of black Africans
______________
You got that right! o has an obsession about making blacks the superior race. He detest white people. he won’t release his medical records, wanna bet he’s been treated for mental problems?
Omigosh, the man is an even bigger fool that I previously thought! He has done more to wreck this country in a few short weeks, and the Media claims that he “won”.
Bookmark
just one more thing for the next President to rescind.
___________________
LOl. When? In 4 years? 8 Years? After he has changed the Constitution to make him our new Fidel. OPEN YOUR EYES. Everything isn’t gonna be alright!
People, get this through your heads. If Obama re-signs the ICC treaty, and if the Senate ratifies it, the treaty becomes the law of our land. Don't believe me? Read the following:
United States Constitution, Article VI, para. 2
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The Constitution means what We The People say it means.
The Constitution belongs to us, not to the courts, the feds, the congress or any other usurper.
___________________
AMEN! At least one person, you, still realizes this.
That’s what I said.
You can argue that it’s against the SPIRIT of the Constitution and the Founders to subordinate our rights to outside authorities, but it would be strictly legal. And as I also said, you can bet that whatever it said in the treaty would be stretched further by liberal judges and politicians as time went by, which is what has happened with the Geneva Convention.
Where further issues might arise would be if the International Court passed measures that directly violated “inalienable” rights given in the Constitution, such as a ban on religious expression or freedom of speech. But that’s a worry for the future, and in any case we seem to be doing pretty well having those rights carved away slice by slice without any foreign help.
Aside from the most relevant reason why he shouldn't do this (would trigger a response in the US like this country hasn't seen since the civil war) he'd be really stupid to do this because the mob he creates would soon come for his head.
Look at all of the violations of the Constitution have already been happening? The practical result is what I said, because the country will not step up and assert our rights over our governmenet. And the country will not arise over this either, as much as I wish we would...
Your points are well understood. But, I'm sure a tipping point will be reached. I'd like us to wake up in time to take advantage of it.
Enumerate/list please.
I certainly hope you are wrong. For the sake of the country, I hope you are wrong.
With all due respect, that is the thinking that keeps The People from serving Cease and Desist orders upon a Tyrannical Government.
Sure, it belongs to the States, but it ultimately belongs to The People of those States.
After prefacing your comment by saying it's "arguable" that the ICC treaty would be constitutional. It isn't arguable at all. If it's ratified by the senate, it's the law of the land. I get frustrated when I see posts like several on this thread that indicate too many conservatives don't know the plain language of the Constitution's finer points. How can conservatives preserve, protect and defend it if they don't know what it says?
The Constitution belongs to the states, and through them to us, the people.
Again, with all due respect...We the People ARE the States.
Two! :>)
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.