Is Obama turning Clinton over to the ICC on the war crimes charges?
They’ve been waiting 10 years for him.
Oh...Mr. 0bama had best hope it does not. That would be a most egregious "misunderestimization" of the average American's love for his country and hatred of the U.N.
We can expect Jim Robinson and etc. to be extradited to Europe and Canada for daring to criticise islam.
Given that anything you say "can and will be used against you" and given that United States Courts, prosecutors, Congress, etc. aren't going to be able to provide immunity from the ICC for anything said and given that we won't know what will come under the authority of the ICC, not just now but in the future, I guess we can't answer any questions asked by United States Courts, prosecutors, Congress, etc.
Of course, considering the Linda Trip thing and the Lautenberg Amendment, that's pretty much true already.
If you’re going to try anybody in this place for war crimes it has to be about Kosovo.
A new meaning to “Sold down the river.”
sigh...
bookmark for later.
I will never submit to the jurisdiction of any international court.
-PJ
However, anyone who understands that Obama is an avowed Marxist, and that the current Congress is loaded with far Left Dems, could see this coming a mile away.
Elections have consequences. Conservatives must learn to play the game of politics effectively, starting with the fact that you never, ever, EVER win by losing.
In a nutshell, here's Obama's message:
Foreign born, non-citizen President.........giving America away.....
When Average Americans start going up in front of the ICC for hate-crimes like DARING to speak against the gay lifestyle, standing against Obamaunism, etc,etc, many Americans will begin to realize what they have done.
But, just like many Germans learned, it will be too late to do ANYTHING about it.
There. All better now.
Just more anti-American Globalism....first its Free Trade, then its surrender of more US soverignity.
I hole the Free Traders/Globalists responsible for this, and those in both parties. Free Trade was the first step in the surrender of American soverignity.
Oh, HELL NO!
And keep your eyes on the Law Of the Sea Treaty, too, amidst other distractions.
This monster has to be stopped right now.
Would this be constitutional?
It’s arguable, but I would say yes, for all practical purposes, unless there is a civil war.
All he has to do is put through a treaty. And I don’t think that’s beyond possibilities, even if it needs 67 votes.
Look at the Geneva Convention. We are subject to that, because we signed on to it. And in recent times it has been extended way beyond what the text actually says. For instance, the Geneva Convention does not apply to terrorists or irregulars who are not properly in uniform, but try to tell that to our current politicians, judges, and opinion makers.
The Geneva Convention should actually work against terrorists and guerillas, but in practice it always seems to work against us—because we let it.
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.Are not U.S. military personnel subject to the laws of foreign states that they visit?
First, and most important-at least up until now-as the shining city on the hill, America stands as the linchpin obstacle to the worldwide success of socialism. American sovereignty, American exceptionalism, American laissez-faire capitalism (such as it was), America's dedication to the rights of the individual, are all anathema to communism. Sweep away the idea of American sovereignty and the last stumbling block for the worldwide dominion of communism goes with it.
Second, international treaties and submission to international courts having to do with human rights and/or war crimes, as well as tribunals of arbitration over trade, are ways to modify the American Constitution without the bother of submitting Obama' s notions to the constitutional requirements for amendment. Look for Obama, that is if he cannot exploit the financial crisis fully enough, to try the back door for his schemes by way of treaties and executive agreements, some of which he might vouchsafe to make public.
Third, I believe that leftists are powermongers because it is not just the Constitution which they find repugnant but the first two commandments. As Ann Coulter said at the end of her book, "they would be gods." In rebellion against God, liberals are compelled to play God. Megalomaniacs, they naturally seek the grandest platform for the out workings of their egos. There is no greater arena in which to play God and the whole world. Hence, the drive to one world government.
However, I do not expect Obama to surrender any sovereignty if it might curtail his own power to rule here in America in the meantime. He will either have to participate in the making of the rules internationally or he will take his marbles and go home. He might try to cut a deal, Clinton style, in which he seeks an international role as a sort of czar of the world after he concludes his administration here-if he does not take a page from Hugo Chavez's book and contrived to make himself the Messiah for life. If he does try to cut a deal for a career after this administration, look for him to sellout America's interests in the war against terrorism in exchange for that gig.
However Obama plays it, you can be sure that your liberties will have nothing to do with it.
