Obama May Place U.S. Under International Criminal Court

humanevents.com ^ | 02/10/2009 | Thomas P. Kilgannon

[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.

[txnativegop]

Thanks! hanging head and sighing

[txnativegop]

Mojitojoe wrote:

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!

Dark, Dark Days ahead for America folks.

[x_plus_one]

Best to put up funds for candidates for 2010. Too much bloodshed weakens the national resolve.

[libsmacker75]

Also, at what point do they go en masse to Obongo and read him the Riot Act?

[AFreeBird]

The country was well on its way to tearing itself in two before Lincoln was elected. In fact, it had been in process at birth. Appeasement at that birth allowed the formation of the union but only served to delay the inevitable.

You cannot create a country based on freedom when millions live in slavery. Even the founders (some who owned slaves themselves) knew the hypocrisy of that.

[Windflier]

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.

Then leave us; who have no way out, and who would prefer to stand and fight for what is rightfully ours anyway.

In the meantime, do not insult those who would stand and fight, with your pessimism.

[Indy Pendance]

All this is the one world government movement. IE; Global warming. Collapse the world economy, only us ‘important’ people can fix the world. You laugh, hahaha, and the US would NEVER become Marxist. That cave in Idaho is looking pretty comfy.

[Wolfstar]

The first three words of the US Constitution are "We The People". Who do you think that refers to - the states?

"We The People" through the states. At the time the Constitution was written and ratified, people thought of their STATES as their countries. The people of the several STATES ratified the Constitution through their STATE legislatures, not through popular votes. Amendments to the Constitution must be ratified by the STATES, not directly by the people. The delicate separation of powers formula the Founders came up with was intended to reassure the small STATES that their interests would be protected in a federal system.

The Civil War drastically changed the relationship between the states and the federal government they created. In the 144 years since the Civil War ended, the federal government has increasingly stomped all over states rights. As a consequence, we now have a fed that is bloated beyond anything the Founders would have recognized or sanctioned.

[PMAS]

To: mojitojoe

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.

If this US goes in this direction, how long before the country where your vacation home is located follows the US ?

[BigFinn]

So that's the change you can believe in... and that change is to surrender our sovereignty and our constitution to the globalists.

Believe me, The Global Poverty Act will soon make it's reappearance. Then gun control. Economic collapse and how 'bout some new currency after the dollar collapses. Add a few islamic 911's in our cities. We will be more than ready for the new order.

Badabing... One world government.

It's been in the works for years. Little by little, piece by piece. Everything you've witnessed in the past few weeks has been orchestrated and paid for by nefarious masters. Obama is just their 'sock puppet' and his rise to power just accelerated the process. It wouldn't surprise me if the next move would be to meld what's left of our gutted military with the UNs. and join up with the confederation to nix Israel. The bad moon has risen. Is the caliphate and sharia law that far away too? Obama even said he would side with the muslims if it got ugly.

One of the first clues, in this quick move towards globalism, was that we can't even see President Hussein's birth certificate and that viewing is protected by our very own courts.

Things are moving at breakneck speed. If I had read this post a decade ago, I would say it was good fiction. But then again, it was all posted eons ago in the Bible.

[Wolfstar]

Again, with all due respect...We the People ARE the States.

Yes, but you miss the point. In the legal framework established by the U.S. Constitution, the people act on the federal level through the states. Since 1860, much has happened to cloud and diminish states rights, but a genuinely real conservative never loses sight of the fact that the federal government is supposed to serve the states, not the other way around. And to serve the people through the states.

[668 - Neighbor of the Beast]

And the sheeple shall confirm.

[dools007]

I hope this guy keeps going with this nonsense. It will bring things to a boil quicker than the Clintoon small cuts approach.

[nothingnew]

BITS is just around the corner.

FMCDH(BITS)

[txnativegop]

Sulfur, charcoal, and saltpeter. Enough chemistry.

[Windflier]

"We The People" through the states.

I won't argue with your legal interpretation of how the Constitution is administered, or what the relationship of the states is to the federal government, but the Preamble to the Constitution is as clear to me in its meaning as the 2nd Amendment is.

That document is mine. It binds the earth together under my feet. I will treat it as mine, and will defend it at all costs, if necessary.

[Little Ray]

Great move for Obama. Then the One could prosecute anyone daring to oppose his policies or to run against him for various “hate” crimes or “crimes against humanity.”

[Political Junkie Too]

If a President signs a treaty, and if the senate ratifies it, then that treaty becomes the law of our land.

Also see Article II. A treaty needs consent from 2/3rds of the Senate, which is even more than the super-majority required for cloture.

Will Obama get 67 Senators to comply?

-PJ

[Candor7]

Obama May Place U.S. Under International Criminal Court>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Obama cannot do that via sole executive action.

I believe that this would have to be by treaty, and congress has to ratify it ( 2/3 majority)before it would be effective. But read on, the wacko lefties are working out a way to circumvent the constitutional 2/3 vote requirement in the senate.

Secondly, the CIA and the Military would campaign in Congress against it, on the basis that US soldiers could refuse orders, or would cause enlistments to decline in our all volunteer military.( which leftist wackos want to have happen BTW.)

The " Bush is a War Criminal" leftists would prevent America from projecting power with its Air Craft Carrier Task forces for example, because they could not act without US sanctions, and such action would be criminal, with the Task Force Commander being arrested and tried at the Hague.

The purpose is to weaken military power of the USA and denude the USA of its hard earned sovereignty.

I do not believe that either China or Russia are signatories.

Time to stop this WHACKO leftist drivel.

It emboldens the World Caliphate Enemy and its US supporters to abuse our Republican system of government.

********************************************

ALSO THE WHACKOS ARE WORKING OVERTIME ON THIS:

Liberals Propose Fast-Tracking Treaties

AIM Column | By Cliff Kincaid | February 3, 2009

Translated into common language, this means that the treaty process takes too long and the treaty may ultimately be rejected by Senators reacting to popular pressure.

The liberal Brookings Institution has come up with a controversial way to get costly and unpopular treaties ratified by the U.S. Senate. Their answer is to bypass the constitutional requirement that treaties obtain two-thirds of the vote of the Senate before passage by redefining the treaties as statutes. Then, they would only need a bare majority for passage in both Houses of Congress, which just happen to be controlled by Democrats.

Such an approach would mean quicker and easier passage of controversial and expensive measures that, if debated as treaties in the Senate, might take too long and upset and alarm too many Americans (sic).

http://www.aim.org/aim-column/liberals-propose-fast-tracking-treaties/

**********************************************

Such a " Brookings" approach would destroy democracy and put the treaty function into the hands of those enemies of US policy who would act to bind Americas sovereignty as it has been exercised traditionally beyond political partisan machination. The International crime Tribunal is a Liberal Fascist court whose laws depend on political correctness, and the diminution of a nations right to self defence and sovereign right to wage war, by attacking individuals inside government, the military, and intelligence agencies.It would weaken America, and give the MSM power to report and define" crimes" of US military personnel to the Tribunal.

IN TRUTH, THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL TRIBUNAL IS MERELY A TOOL OF THE FASCIST EURO LEFT AND US FASCIST LEFT WHACKOS WHO DENY U.S. SOVEREIGNTY:

[Candor7]