Maybe like this?
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.
Another illustration of why the Founding Fathers were wise to create a presidency where Natural Born Citizenship was one of the constitutional prerequisites for the office! Unfortunately, the hacks who largely comprise today's American judiciary seem not care - at least up to now.
Thanks! Good points.
Just more evidence that Obama is the Manchurian candidate that he does not have “his country” best interests in mind.
I would be for a Conservative Family March On Washington. Such a march could be huge if conservative people would only put their money where their mouths are — that’s how Obama won, the liberals sent him more money than McCain got from conservatives. Much, much more. Liberals are willing to financially support their heinous “principles” but conservatives wait for the other guy to do it.
Such a march would have to begin with a website where people could organize from as a starting point.
Even many Freepers were mocking the birth certificate question, so you won’t get much leverage from them on that one. ;)
Obama can’t wait to start sending US troops to face war crimes tribunals. I’m so glad the American people were tripping over themselves to elect the most obviously anti-American president we’ve ever had, just so they could pat themselves on the back for “making history”. Idiots, all of them.
Obama Citizen of the World
The "birth certificate question", or more accurately, the place of birth question (as a major determinant of natural born citizenship in the instance of Obama), is not a matter to be decided by popular vote on an Internet forum, but rather a matter of fact and constitutional law.
Be that as it may, there certainly are a lot of FReepers who agree with me and feel that the question is still very much undecided. One of those is Alan Keyes. If you check out the latest update on World Net Daily, you will see Former Ambassador Keyes' views on the issue.
As you might know, if O is proven in a court of law to be constitutionally ineligible to serve as president by reason of the "natural born citizen" clause, any action he may have taken as a usurper of presidential power can be held to be null and void. So the issue is still very much relevant.
Maybe like this?
I couldn't disagree more. Read de Tocqueville or Jefferson, or even most, if not all of the FF. They are ardent free traders that placed a high priority on limited federal government and also thought that free trade was crucial to a robust capitalist democracy.
I don't need the imperial federal government telling me what I can buy, at what price I can buy it, and from where it can be sourced.
As for the ICC. Again, I believe that every Founding Father, to a man, would be rolling over in their grave if this becomes the law of the land.
You seem to be one of the last few people on this planet that takes a small thing such as a constitution and laws seriously. Take a page from the left, any law or treaty that gives the politburo more power is good.
Good MY HINDEND! It is time for Silent Majority to be silent no more. Arise! Restore the Republic to its proper place.
NO!
In theory, possibly. But no one has / is doing anything about it, including the supposed Republican Gov. of Hawaii when she had the chance. The Supremes aren’t touching it. It’s basically a dead issue unless and until someone grows some legal balls and compels him to dig the original out from under lock and key.
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.