Congress Moves to Shield U.S. Personnel From World Court

NewsMax ^

[Happy2BMe]

Congress has threatened to cut economic aid to governments that refuse to sign immunity accords shielding U.S. personnel from being surrendered to the International Criminal Court, the Washington Post reports.

A provision inserted into a $338 billion government spending bill for 2005 would bar the transfer of assistance money from the $2.52 billon economic support fund to any government "that is a party" to the criminal court but "has not entered into an agreement with the United States" to bar legal proceedings against U.S. personnel, says the Post.

The congressional cuts would not affect 96 countries that have signed immunity pacts with the U.S.

The legislation includes a national security waiver that would allow President Bush to exempt members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and other allies. However, Washington's key European allies -- including Britain, France and Germany -- have opposed the U.S. effort arguing that it weakens the treaty.

The move is the latest to ensure that the first world criminal court can never try American citizens for crimes committed overseas. The House and Senate are to vote on the budget Dec. 8.

Congress has already passed the American Servicemembers' Protection Act, which cut millions of dollars in military assistance to many countries that would not sign the so-called “Article 98 agreements,” pledging not to turn over to the court U.S. personnel accused of committing war crimes overseas.

The latest Congress' action might affect U.S. Agency for International Development programs designed to promote peace, combat drug trafficking and promote democracy and economic reforms in poor countries, the Post reported.

By way of example, the cuts could put at risk as much as $250 million to support economic growth and reforms in Jordan, $500,000 to promote democracy and fight drug traffickers in Venezuela -- and about $9 million to support free trade and other initiatives with Mexico, the Post said.

To date, the treaty has been signed by 139 countries and ratified by 97. The Clinton administration signed the treaty in December 2000. However, the Bush administration renounced it in May 2001, citing concern that an international prosecutor might conduct frivolous investigations and trials against U.S. officials, troops and foreign personnel deployed overseas on behalf of the United States.

Governments that have yet signed immunity pacts with the U.S. have been trying to negotiate terms of an agreement that would not violate their own laws that bar them from undermining the court.

The court's advocates maintain that the tribunal was created to hold future despots in the ranks of Adolf Hitler, Pol Pot and Idi Amin accountable for mass killings -- not to pursue U.S. officials responsible for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan as the Bush administration apparently fears.

When established by treaty at a 1998 conference in Rome, the framers touted the court's purpose to prosecute perpetrators of the most serious crimes, including genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Meanwhile, International Criminal Court Prosecutor Luis Moreno Ocampo of Argentina has begun investigating widespread human rights violations in Congo and Uganda.

[Happy2BMe]

Wonder how John Kerry and Hillary Clinton will vote on this?

(We know Barbra will support our troops through all of this.)

[newsgatherer]

bump for monday udate.

[Happy2BMe]

The United States Congress may *actually* be on *OUR SIDE* - ping.

______________________________________________________

Congress has threatened to cut economic aid to governments that refuse to sign immunity accords shielding U.S. personnel from being surrendered to the International Criminal Court, the Washington Post reports.

[Mamzelle]

Hillary Clinton will shortly accumulate a voting record to the right of Jesse Helms. Watch, wait, and see.

[Happy2BMe]

#4 - Hillary's strategy taking shape for 2008.

[nmh]

bttt!

[xzins]

We all should remember this troubling section of our US Constitution:

Article. VI.

...

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.

[CaptainAwesome2]

we shouldnt be giving away that money anyhow. if someone wants to arrest our people and put them on trial we should just destroy all their government buildings.

[Migraine]

Hillary Clinton will shortly accumulate a voting record to the right of Jesse Helms. Watch, wait, and see...

I agree -- and she is liable to start talking about being "born again". I'm with you on this one. It bears watching. But wait. Wouldn't that be too crass, even for the Hildebeast? Nope.

[Condor51]

Uh no offense, but there's already a thread on this

www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1289183/posts
It's from the Guardian, but it's the same thing.

[GW and Twins Pawpaw]

"The court's advocates maintain that the tribunal was created to hold future despots in the ranks of Adolf Hitler, Pol Pot and Idi Amin accountable for mass killings -- not to pursue U.S. officials responsible for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan as the Bush administration apparently fears."


Please! The UN passed 17 resolutions against Saddam and did NOTHING to enforce them. We as a Nation must begin to stop funding to these countries and organizations that seek to destroy us.

[Happy2BMe]

CIA: Saddam Bought Off Countries, People with Oil

>

~ ~ ~

"But it was the weasels who scuppered any return to business-as-usual. Messrs Chirac and de Villepin barely paused for breath before moving on from their pre-war sabotage programme to a revised post-war sabotage programme."

"Do you think his lawyers will speak French?"

Don't sweat it Saddam, your lawyers on his way, and your punk Chirac has already said he's willing to post the bail.

"Within France and its client states!!"

~ ~ ~

* * * *

The United Nations Wants to TAX you!

"Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali ... urged the [UN] to consider imposing its own taxes to become less dependent on the United States...."

-Washington Times, January 16, 1996

Are you concerned that...
...numerous taxation schemes to finance the UN are being considered?

Economist James Tobin proposed in 1972 that the UN be the recipient of a tax of 0.05% on foreign exchange transactions. In 1993, the Ford Foundation produced Financing an Effective United Nations, a report containing recommendations that the UN tax airline traffic, shipping, and arms sales. In 1995, the UN-funded Commission on Global Governance suggested that the UN collect levies from those who use "flight lanes, sea lanes for ships, ocean fishing areas, and the electromagnetic spectrum." Ultimately, of course, the burden of all taxation falls on consumers.

Are you concerned that...
...a State Department study specifically proposed giving the UN taxing power and, ultimately, control of the world?

In 1962, the State Department financed a study entitled "A World Effectively Controlled by the United Nations." The report outlined what would be needed for such a total world government: "a mandatory universal membership," an ability to use "physical force," and "compulsory jurisdiction" of its courts. One of the UN's "principle features," stated the report, would be "enforceable taxing powers." (Emphasis added.)

Are you concerned that...
...no matter how much our nation gives, the UN will never be satisfied?

In addition to hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars in foreign aid, our nation has provided the UN with tens of billions more for its programs since 1945. Currently, U.S. contributions make up 25% of the UN's annual budget. But, in his May 2001 speech at Notre Dame University, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan complained with a typical anit-American attitude, "It is shameful that the United States ... should be one of the least generous in terms of helping the world's poor."

Are you concerned that...
...taxing authority would fuel an unaccountable UN Superstate?

Former UN Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali said of a UN tax: "We would not be under the daily financial will of member states who are unwilling to pay up." UN Founder Harlan Cleveland made the same point in Futures: Rather than relying on "the worn-out policy of year-to-year decisions by individual governments" (about how much to give the UN), "what's needed is a flow of funds for development which are generated automatically under international control." And there would be no Congress to limit the UN's appetite for your tax dollars!

The United Nations Wants to Take Your Land!
"Private land ownership ... contributes to social injustice.... Public control of land use is therefore indispensable."

- United Nations "Habitat I" Conference Report, 1976

Are you concerned...
...that the UN is militantly anti-property rights?

The UN is dominated by socialist, communist, and other collectivist regimes that are hostile to private property, the basis of our freedom and prosperity. Karl Marx wrote in the Communist Manifesto that "the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: abolition of private property." Marx continued: "In one word, you reproach us with intending to do away with your property. Precisely so; that is just what we intend."

Are you concerned...
...that the UN intends to carry out Marx's plan?

In true Marxist fashion, the report of the UN "Habitat I" Conference declares that private land ownership "contributes to social injustice.... Public control of land use is therefore indispensable...." Agenda 21, the UN's massive environmental manifesto, envisions a UN empowered to control and micro-manage our planetary environment and the actions of every person on Earth. It says: "All countries should undertake a comprehensive national inventory of their land resources" and "develop national land-management plans." The UN's Assessment would "reallocate" property rights and have "stakeholder groups," instead of property owners, make decisions on private land use.

Are you concerned...
...that our own U.S. government is adopting many of the UN's anti-property rights and policies and treaties?

The U.S. has signed Agenda 21 and has begun implementing the UN's "Wildlands Project," an incredible plan to push millions of Americans off their land to make vast nature preserves out of half of the nation. Also, under the UN's 1988 Convention on Narcotics, the U.S. has adopted unconstitutional "asset forfeiture" laws that allow seizure of property without due process.

Are you concerned...
...that UN treaties could destroy our heritage of freedom?

Nobel Prizewinning economist, Friedrich A. Hayek, noted that "the system of private property is the most important guaranty of freedom, not only for those who own property, but scarcely less for those who do not. It is only because the control of the means of production is divided among many people acting independently that nobody has complete power over us, that we as individuals can decide what to do with ourselves."

[Cicero]

The legislation includes a national security waiver.

Bad idea. This was done with earlier legislation such as trading with Cuba, and one president after another kept signing waivers rather than offend countries like Canada or the Euroswine. It would be much better if Bush or his representative could approach France or Germany and say, "Sorry, guys, but my hands are tied. Play ball or else. Nothing I can do about it. Sorry (not)."

[B4Ranch]

That's kinda like what the Feds told the Dtates about the Seat Belt Law. Hmmm. Good proven tactics

LOL Is there anything we won't do for buck?

"On your knees or else."

http://www.worldnewsstand.net/law/white-paper.htm

[followerofchrist]

NO ONE should be subject to this court. It looks hypocritical and elitist if the US approves of others being subject but not us. We should acknowledge that the court is bogus and steps on the national sovereignty of nations.

[loboinok]

Congress should also revoke Diplomatic Immunity to all countries who refuse to sign.

[RockAgainsttheLeft04]

The very idea of a "world court" is a direct affront to national soverignety, and not just ours. Congress is simply doing it's most basic duty --protecting our national security and it's interests-- in refusing to fund the ICC and the like.

I applaud the 'Pubbies in Congress for sticking it to the far-left-wing of the American Democratic party and drawing the line for the future protection of U.S. citizens and soldiers from third-world dictatorships with an axe to grind using the ICC to strike at our freedoms in a way they never could militarily. I also hope that it will eventually lead to the eventual destruction and disbandment of the Marxist "one-world" courts.

[hershey]

The UN and Europe and pals are busy 24/7 trying to tie down the US. If they could figure out a way to take over this country and keep us on as slaves, they would. It's amazing. We're supposedly a bunch of vulgar, rude, arrogant upstarts too dumb to know our place in the pecking order...which is way, way down at the bottom. We're supposed to, in the immortal words of JF...kingKerry, 'sit down and shut up'. Or maybe it's 'shut up and sit down'. Whatever. We're supposed step aside and let our betters run the world on our money, brains, and blood. That this is ludicrous and never going to happen doesn't seem to have sunk in as far as Chirac, Canada, Germany, et. al are concerned. Well, they're all bound to be disappointed since the US Congress will never allow US soldiers to come under the control of the World Court. So they'll have to think of something else.

[snowsislander]

Another legacy of the disastrous Clinton administration that we are forced to clean up...

[winner3000]

"The Clinton administration signed the treaty in December 2000."

Last time I checked at least 90 senators voted against it.