Another step toward world government (United Nations New World Order)

Conservatives, alarmed over the erosion of American sovereignty, suffered another setback this week.

The New York Times describes the defeat: "The United States bowed Wednesday to broad opposition on the Security Council and announced it was dropping its effort to gain immunity for its troops from prosecution by the International Criminal Court."

It is a victory for the New World Order, and internationalists see it as such. Both the Financial Times ("U.S. Retreats on Bid for War Crimes Immunity") and The New York Times ("U.S. Drops Plan to Exempt G.I.s from U.N. Court") elevated it to the front-page lead story on June 24.

Several factors brought about the U.S. defeat. NATO allies Spain, Germany and France abandoned us. U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan called for an end to immunity for U.S. troops. And the Abu Ghraib prison scandal undermined the case for any exemptions from war crimes trials for America soldiers.

The prospect of U.S. soldiers being led in handcuffs before the ICC to be prosecuted for war crimes, while Washington impotently wails, is, of course, remote. But Americans had better wake up and smell the coffee. A global bureaucracy is steadily tying this nation down with tiny strands, just as Gulliver was tied down by the little men on that beach in Lilliput.

Globalists are elated and cocky over our defeat. Reports the FT: "International human-rights groups welcomed the Security Council's refusal to extend the immunity resolution.

'''The rule of law has been reinforced: that international law applies equally to all countries,' said William Pace, head of the Coalition for an International Criminal Court."

What is wrong with Pace's contention? Just this. The United States opposed creation of the ICC. And the president and Congress have rejected its claims to jurisdiction over U.S. armed forces. By what right, then, does the ICC claim such jurisdiction?

Can a tribunal be set up and assert a right to prosecute U.S. citizens and soldiers without our permission? In the World Government rising, apparently our consent is not required for us to be subject to a criminal tribunal whose sovereignty supercedes our own. Americans had best discover what these internationalists are up to, or our grandchildren may one day wake up and find out Granddad was napping while they lost forever what their ancestors had won for them on the battlefields of Saratoga and Yorktown.

Consider the claims being made and accepted by nations, by international organizations and by civil servants no one ever elected.

The U.N., a U.S. creation, is now claiming the right to determine when, where and whether the United States may go to war. Secretary General Kofi Annan, a U.N. bureaucrat from a failed state, Ghana, is telling us that U.S. soldiers must be subject to prosecution by a U.N. war-crimes tribunal with jurisdiction we have never accepted.

The World Trade organization, established in 1994 when Bob Dole and Newt Gingrich signed onto Bill Clinton's GATT treaty, ordered President Bush to lift U.S. steel tariffs or face fines, and President Bush meekly complied. Now, the WTO has ordered Congress to end tax breaks for major U.S. exporters and authorized the EU to impose tariffs on U.S. goods – which the EU has done. Now, Congress is rushing to comply.

Has no one considered imposing reciprocal tariffs on the EU and telling it the ball is in its court? Europe, after all, runs a huge trade surplus with us. They are the ones who should fear a trade war.

The question here is not only what is decided, but who decides. Why should laws enacted by Congress and signed by the president be subject to any review, other than by our own Supreme Court?

This year, another U.N. power grab, over the world's oceans and their resources, almost succeeded, until conservatives like Phyllis Schlafly and Frank Gaffney raised the roof. U.S. accession to the U.N. Law of the Sea Treaty was then interred in Senate committee. The Law of the Sea Treaty was a resurrected version of the one Ronald Reagan had torpedoed in 1983. They keep coming back.

Americans seem unaware that all these institutions with the high-sounding names – the United Nations, World Trade Organization, the Kyoto Protocols, the International Criminal Court, the Law of the Sea Treaty, the North American Free Trade Agreement, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank – have one grand strategic purpose:

To assert the superior sovereignty of international organizations over the government of the United States, to restrict and conscript our power for their purposes and to transfer the wealth of the American nation and people to international civil servants – for their consumption and redistribution.

In the name of humanity, these glorified thieves would rob us of our heritage. We are fools if we let it happen.

What is going on on this thread? Do these other posters just like to spread lies?

U.S. Rewords a Resolution on Immunity for Its Troops
By WARREN HOGE
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/23/international/23NATI.html?ex=1088568000&en=05d0331a2974eff4&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE
Published: June 23, 2004

NITED NATIONS, June 22 — The United States circulated a reworded resolution among Security Council members on Tuesday evening to try to overcome broad opposition to its effort to keep its troops immune from any prosecution by the International Criminal Court.

The measure, introduced last month and then withdrawn, would extend such protection to American soldiers participating in United Nations-approved peacekeeping forces. The current expiration for such immunity is June 30.
Advertisement

That same day, next Wednesday, Iraq regains sovereignty and the mostly American force there becomes a United Nations-mandated one. The United States is pressing hard for a vote beforehand.

This is the third year in which the United States has sought the exemption, and though there were three abstentions last year and several more expected this year, American diplomats in May said they felt confident they could obtain support for a "technical rollover" of the measure.

The Bush administration says the protection stops people from using the court to bring politically motivated war crimes prosecutions against Americans abroad.

Last week, Secretary General Kofi Annan called on the Security Council to turn back the American move, saying it was "of dubious judicial value" and particularly objectionable in the aftermath of the prisoner abuse cases in Iraq.

Mr. Annan said that passing the measure would discredit the council, the United Nations and the "primacy of the rule of law," and he appealed to the 15 members to maintain the common purpose they had shown earlier this month in voting unanimously on a resolution affirming the arrangements for transferring power in Iraq.

That appeal caused several nations to rethink their backing of the original resolution and of their reluctance to be seen as defying the United States.

The version that American diplomats circulated on Tuesday dropped language in the original proposal that expressed the intention to renew the one-year exemption each July 1 for further 12-month periods "for as long as may be necessary."

Mr. Annan had protested that the clause would perpetuate United Nations approval of what was meant to be a temporary emergency departure from international law.

The new language pledges that this request for a one-year exemption is the last.

James B. Cunningham, the American deputy ambassador, said the ambassadors would consult with their governments overnight and that the United States would wait to hear how the compromise was received before deciding whether to put it to a vote.

Richard Dicker, director for international justice at Human Rights Watch and an opponent of immunity for American troops, expressed doubt that the compromise would change enough minds. "I wonder how one reconciles support for even one year's exemption with the very strong words of the secretary general," Mr. Dicker said.

But Abdallah Baali, the Algerian ambassador, said he thought otherwise. "A number of countries have been looking for a gesture from the Americans," Mr. Baali said, "and this could be that gesture."

-------------------------------------------------

And

There was an article on this posted at today's nationalPost. It ends with the following:

Besides seeking a new exemption from arrest or prosecution of U.S. peacekeepers, Washington has signed bilateral agreements with 90 countries that bar any prosecution of American officials by the court and is seeking more such treaties. Mr. Cunningham said the United States is “more comfortable” with a final year-long exemption given Washington's progress in signing bilateral agreements and status of forces agreements.

IOW, the administration apparently feels the blanket immunity from the UN is irrelevant, given these bilateral treaties. HOWEVER, I would feel more comfortable if our ambassador to the UN would forcefully reiterate that : 1. it is a gross insult to national sovereignty to claim that a nation is bound by a treaty it specifically rejected-that goes against the UN's own bylaws re: sovereignty; 2. that our laws state that the US Constitution is the supreme law over US citizens ; and 3. Any attempts to bring US citizens before this tribunal, by ANY country or countries, will be considered a hostile act which the US will retaliate against with all means at its disposal, NOT excluding war.

We must make it clear to the scum of the earth that we are willing to see large numbers of their soldiers die , if that's what it takes to have our national sovereignty respected.

--------------------------------------

And

U.S. Ends Bid for Protection From War Crimes Tribunal (Update1)

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.