Posted on 11/27/2009 9:08:57 PM PST by American Dream 246
Unreal. Team Obama may allow US soldiers to be tried in the Hague for war crimes. The Wall Street Journal reported, via Jihad Watch:
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton expressed “great regret” in August that the U.S. is not a signatory to the International Criminal Court (ICC). This has fueled speculation that the Obama administration may reverse another Bush policy and sign up for what could lead to the trial of Americans for war crimes in The Hague.
The ICC’s chief prosecutor, though, has no intention of waiting for Washington to submit to the court’s authority. Luis Moreno Ocampo says he already has jurisdiction—at least with respect to Afghanistan.
Because Kabul in 2003 ratified the Rome Statute—the ICC’s founding treaty—all soldiers on Afghan territory, even those from nontreaty countries, fall under the ICC’s oversight, Mr. Ocampo told me. And the chief prosecutor says he is already conducting a “preliminary examination” into whether NATO troops, including American soldiers, fighting the Taliban may have to be put in the dock.
“We have to check if crimes against humanity, war crimes or genocide have been committed in Afghanistan,” Mr. Ocampo told me. “There are serious allegations against the Taliban and al Qaeda and serious allegations about warlords, even against some who are connected with members of the government.” Taking up his inquiry of Allied soldiers, he added, “there are different reports about problems with bombings and there are also allegations about torture.”
It was clear who the targets of these particular inquiries are but the chief prosecutor shied away from spelling it out.
Asked repeatedly whether the examination of bombings and torture allegations refers to NATO and U.S. soldiers, Mr. Ocampo finally stated that “we are investigating whoever commits war crimes, including the group you mentioned.”
He’ll have to appoint more Judges favorable to him before he does this.
WHY ARE NOT THEY AFRAID???
##########
I would say its because they think they’ve got the race in their pockets...via all the special interest groups they’ve been paying off with OUR tax dollars.
When the Army Chief of Staff thinks that any loss of diversity is worse than the murder of 14 people on a mainland US base, I think you may be wrong on that.
It saddens me to no end how disconnected people are with what is happening. When you attempt to engage people with facts, you get stupid comments telling you they are your facts, not theirs. I respond that a fact is a fact, but you get the glazed over look in return.
When pressed, they have no idea of the reality of any given situation. People have become Simpletons who unfortunately get to Vote.
I respectfully disagree. We are not, by temperament, Europeans. Yes, many are still asleep, but many are not. Many who are alert are not making themselves useful, but many are. You are simply not aware of all that is going on, nor do you seem fully aware of the full range of the American spirit and its commitment to freedom. I encourage you to remain optimistic. There is still a reason to believe.
This man sickens me. Each day is a new low.
Opinion:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704013004574519253095440312.html
OPINION EUROPE
NOVEMBER 26, 2009, 7:04 P.M. ET
“Prosecuting American ‘War Crimes’
The International Criminal Court claims jurisdiction over U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan.”
By DANIEL SCHWAMMENTHAL
The Hague
SNIPPET: “Secretary of State Hillary Clinton expressed “great regret” in August that the U.S. is not a signatory to the International Criminal Court (ICC). This has fueled speculation that the Obama administration may reverse another Bush policy and sign up for what could lead to the trial of Americans for war crimes in The Hague.
The ICC’s chief prosecutor, though, has no intention of waiting for Washington to submit to the court’s authority. Luis Moreno Ocampo says he already has jurisdiction—at least with respect to Afghanistan.
Because Kabul in 2003 ratified the Rome Statute—the ICC’s founding treaty—all soldiers on Afghan territory, even those from nontreaty countries, fall under the ICC’s oversight, Mr. Ocampo told me. And the chief prosecutor says he is already conducting a “preliminary examination” into whether NATO troops, including American soldiers, fighting the Taliban may have to be put in the dock.
“We have to check if crimes against humanity, war crimes or genocide have been committed in Afghanistan,” Mr. Ocampo told me. “There are serious allegations against the Taliban and al Qaeda and serious allegations about warlords, even against some who are connected with members of the government.” Taking up his inquiry of Allied soldiers, he added, “there are different reports about problems with bombings and there are also allegations about torture.”
It was clear who the targets of these particular inquiries are but the chief prosecutor shied away from spelling it out.”
SNIPPET: “Mr. Schwammenthal is an editorial writer for The Wall Street Journal Europe.”
Well stated...& rest assured, you’re not alone in your thoughts.
Note: The following post is a quote:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2310442/posts
Clinton hints at US joining international court
NRC Handelsblad (Netherlands) ^ | August 7, 2009
Posted on August 7, 2009 6:05:01 AM PDT by Schnucki
The Obama administration made its strongest declaration of support for the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague when secretary of state Hillary Clinton voiced regret that the US was not part of the court. But Washington is still far from joining.
Hillary Clinton was speaking in Nairobi, Kenya, where she urged the government to go to the ICC to prosecute perpetrators of last year’s post-election violence.
It was a surprising message to come from an American representative, given that the country has long boycotted the court. Although president Bill Clinton signed the Rome Statute that establishes the court, lawmakers never supported his decision and when George W. Bush came to power he quickly withdrew the US’s endorsement.
The Hague Invasion Act
In 2002, Congress even passed the American Service Members Protection Act, which forbids government officials from cooperating with the ICC. Known as ‘The Hague Invasion Act’, it authorises the president to use “all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release of any US or allied personnel being detained or imprisoned by, on behalf of, or at the request of the International Criminal Court”. Clinton’s statement therefore comes as a positive sign to supporters of the court.
“This administration, it’s like night and day,” said Michael Barnett, a professor of international relations at the University of Minnesota.
“The Bush administration, it never never tried to mask its open hostility to the UN and other international organisations. This administration has a very, very different attitude. It’s not necessarily an administration that’s going to love all international organisations it sees, but it certainly understands that it’s in America’s interest to craft them in a way consistent with American national interest.”
Political heat
But this doesn’t mean that the US will become a full-fledged member of the court anytime soon, Barnett warned.
“There are lots of domestic political reasons why Obama would not sign the Rome Statute. To begin with, there’s congressional hostility, so as a pragmatic political matter, there’s a question of whether Obama would take on the political heat for what would amount to be a symbolic gesture. Second, there’s going to be opposition from the American military in the same way there was before. And then thirdly, the US has more troops abroad than any other country so feels more exposed to charges, trumped up or not.”
But even without ratifying the Rome Statute, and with The Hague Invasion Act in place, president Obama can still work closely with the court. The administration has already said it will be sending a representative to the upcoming ICC review conference next year, something that president Bush had always refused to do.
There are no words.
stepping in back in time to Nancy Pelosi’s hometown newspaper:
Note: The following post is a quote:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2219799/posts
Time for the U.S. to take a second look at the International Criminal Court
San Francisco Chronicle ^ | 4/1/9 | William H. Taft IV, Patricia M. Wald
Posted on April 1, 2009 7:42:19 AM PDT by SmithL
The time has come for the United States to engage officially with the International Criminal Court. Established in 2002, the court exists to prosecute persons accused of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, and the United States should cooperate with all responsible efforts to combat such abhorrent acts. We should act now to develop a more formal relationship with the leading institution for prosecuting such violators.
The United States has been wary of the ICC and so far declined to join the 108 nations that are members. Objections began with the Clinton administration and were magnified after 9/11. Out of fear that the court would issue frivolous arrest warrants for American soldiers and otherwise overstep its bounds, the Bush administration in 2002 announced that the United States would have nothing to do with the court.
Those fears have not been realized. The ICC prosecutor has declined to investigate politically motivated charges in Iraq and elsewhere, and instead has focused on the gravest human rights cases of our time: in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Uganda, the Central African Republic and Darfur. The courthas compiled a commendable record in cases of considerable interest to the United States. Recognizing this, the Bush administration in 2005 began softening its opposition to the court and even supported some of its efforts, particularly in Darfur, where the court issued an arrest warrant against Sudanese President Omar Al-Bashir.
The American Society of International Law convened an independent, nonpartisan task force of American legal experts, which we chaired, to examine the U.S. relationship with the court. The task force concluded unanimously that the Obama administration should take the next step and announce an explicit policy of positive engagement with the ICC. If that policy proves successful, we should then give serious consideration to joining the court.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
stepping back in time to February 2009:
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=30632
“Obama May Place U.S. Under International Criminal Court”
by Thomas P. Kilgannon
02/10/2009
SNIPPET: “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.”
No American general would ever hand over our boys to the UN. It’s the Teleprompter in Chief who will push this unfortunately..
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Then the general should quit on the spot if he is forced to give up a man.
Again, stepping back in time to February 2009...
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/06/beware-of-international-justice/
“EDITORIAL: Beware of international ‘justice’”
SNIPPET: “President Barack Obama has made no secret of his love affair with international organizations and we-are-the-world handholding. Yet he has not been equally vocal in the defense of America - especially in instances when multinational bodies might transgress the nation’s sovereignty and work against our self-interest. These issues are now once again in the spotlight as the new administration provides a wholehearted endorsement of the world’s first permanent tribunal, the International Criminal Court in The Hague. While the court might be able to do much good in bringing to justice some of the world’s most notorious human-rights abusers, American support for the tribunal’s activities must be counterbalanced with a prudent regard for our unique needs as the world’s preeminent power and defender of orthodox western values. Some of the world’s most egregarious human-rights violaters have called for indictments against a U.S. president, military leaders, corporate executives, and others under outlandish interpretations of “law.”
Mr. Obama and his representatives have now gone further than any other previous administration in empowering the ICC.”
You’re 100% right. I work with numerous people who have fled countries with communist/socialist regimes, and they all say the exact same thing. How many people who have the first-hand experience with this type of government have to say it before we believe it?
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.