Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

World court now a reality
Worldnet Daily ^ | 11 APR 02 | Mary Jo Anderson

Posted on 04/11/2002 9:27:44 AM PDT by tomakaze

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-38 next last
this may have already been posted. I couldn't find it with a search. (but I did find a reuters article someone posted)
Sneaky Clinton B.S., snuck in at the last minute. No Senate vote (and to be totaly honest, given all the socialists in the senate, I wouldn't regard it as valid even if they did approve it) undoubtedly becuase they knew it wouldn't pass muster. it's also worth noting that Bush the Younger made no attempt to get out of it. Like father like son I guess. (a reuters article made mention of "looking into it" - yeah. right.)
3 judge tribunal picked from places the likes of Syria, Liby and North Korea. No habeas corpus. Yippee!
 
[unrelated but well worth mentioning- the site rework looks and functions damn good! Outstanding! well done, guys.]
1 posted on 04/11/2002 9:27:44 AM PDT by tomakaze
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: tomakaze


2 posted on 04/11/2002 9:31:27 AM PDT by Joe Brower
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tomakaze
Bush must be sure he can control it from touching the neocons, he passed on his chance to preserve the Constitutional rights of American citizens.

Our Constituion has lost even the illusion of protecting our freedoms now.

A man who loves his Constitution and freedoms has about as much business in the Republican or Democratic Party as a preacher does in a whorehouse.......if he's not converting the heathens he's got some damn explaining to do

3 posted on 04/11/2002 9:35:47 AM PDT by steve50
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #4 Removed by Moderator

To: Pissed Off Janitor
The "court" will be controlled by leftist apparatchiks pushing their agenda by means of "justice." Just like in Belgium and its politically selective "war crimes" prosecutions. Since it will be controlled by the leftists, and anti-Americanism is currently their unifying identity, Americans will be the targets, along with others that are seen as in the American "camp."
5 posted on 04/11/2002 10:20:54 AM PDT by Shermy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Pissed Off Janitor
RE:No! No! No! This is all part of Bush Jr.s brilliant out witting of the Democrats. You see, shreading the Bill Of Right is all part of his wonderful master plan of putting Dashel in a box
 
A brilliantly executed "strategery", so cunning and intricately designed that I simply can't wrap my feeble freedom loving mind around it. Genius! :-)
far as I'm concerned "W" is out. the guy's new nickname oughtta be "Judas". sits pretty well I think.
6 posted on 04/11/2002 10:28:25 AM PDT by tomakaze
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Pissed Off Janitor;steve50
As late as Monday there were reports that President Bush had sought means to retract the signature of former president Clinton, who signed the treaty on his last day in office. A signature indicates a nation's intent to seek ratification. However, the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee would not bring the treaty to the Senate for a vote.

Maybe I'm missing something here but I'm a little puzzled how Bush is to blame when a Senate committee won't even allow a vote by the full Senate -- Pickering style. How can you blame Bush when Democraps on the Foreign Relations Committee, led by that walking advertisement for hair transplants, Joe Biden, kept the request bottled up? A vote by the full Senate, even if it went the wrong way, would put prominent anti-American Democraps and socialists like Sanders and Jeffords on the record --something they avoid like vampires avoid dawn.

Can anyone here suggest a course of action Bush could have taken that would have avoided this outcome?

7 posted on 04/11/2002 10:37:45 AM PDT by Bernard Marx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ouroboros; Snuffington; Inspector Harry Callahan; Greg 4TCP; cva66snipe; Askel5; ppaul; ex-snook...
BUMP
8 posted on 04/11/2002 10:48:46 AM PDT by sheltonmac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Bernard Marx
It is my understanding that Bush had the option of removing the official signature of the President of the United States from it, removing the possibility that Congress could enact it if it wanted to. So you have no problem with this, like CFR, getting thru our so-called conservative president?
9 posted on 04/11/2002 10:49:30 AM PDT by steve50
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: steve50
So you have no problem with this, like CFR, getting thru our so-called conservative president?

That's one hell of a leap in logic and a distortion to boot. Where did I say that?

As for removing the signature, isn't that what the story said he was asking the Senate for? Where have you found information supporting your statement he could do it on his own? I'm not saying you're wrong, I just want facts.

10 posted on 04/11/2002 10:56:57 AM PDT by Bernard Marx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: tomakaze
No International Court can demand anything of the U.S. If they make any "ruling" that is detrimental to our best interests, we just cut off every dollar to every country that bottom-feeds off of us. A week later they'll be begging for forgiveness.
11 posted on 04/11/2002 11:09:34 AM PDT by dubyas_vision
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bernard Marx
Can anyone here suggest a course of action Bush could have taken that would have avoided this outcome?

Begged and pleaded with his Dad and Bob Dole NOT to stand up and "send a message" during impeachment that Clinton's actual removal would have sullied the decorum of the semen-stained office?

This might have had the additional advantage of obviating entirely the "Mad Bomber's" moral war in Serbia, the use of the "New" NATO to legitimize the Euro Soviet's collectivized security system and the US's being charged with sussing out and bribing the hostile witnesses -- and agents of "genocide" -- necessary to seal Milosevic's show trial and hand-deliver a critical win to Carla Del Ponte.

12 posted on 04/11/2002 11:28:58 AM PDT by Askel5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: dubyas_vision
If they make any "ruling" that is detrimental to our best interests, we just cut off every dollar to every country that bottom-feeds off of us. A week later they'll be begging for forgiveness.

How soon we forget the clenched fist to the face that was 9/11.

What some folks fail to notice -- given our stunning victories as we do the former Soviets' dirty work in places like Afghanistan and Georgia ... rolling out Worldwide the red carpet we laid for the former Soviets in Pristina -- is that we're not allowed to blow our nose without permission from here on out.

For Pete's sake, let's cut the empty threats and please "Keep Spending". Without the debt that drives our pinstriped Public Servants sorts at the Fed -- and powers the redistribution of American income gilt with Funny Money worldwide -- we hamsters could be in a world of hurt.

It's not as if our Useful Idiots aren't poised to enjoy the gamut of PATRIOT ACT powers as well as open our borders, cut off our water at will and up the ante (far more than anticipated) with certain other newly minted coins to protect and serve "the Peoples' Will".

13 posted on 04/11/2002 11:44:27 AM PDT by Askel5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Askel5
(Smiling...I think.) I guess I should have included the word "President" Dubya. Of course the s.o.b. should have been thrown out of office but that was another failure of the Senate.
14 posted on 04/11/2002 11:45:24 AM PDT by Bernard Marx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Bernard Marx
As for removing the signature, isn't that what the story said he was asking the Senate for?

President Bush did not have to go to congress to remove the signature. What the article referred to was that Congress refused to even consider ratification of the agreement when Clinton signed it first, back in December. President Bush had both the ability and power to remove the signature - or at the very least come out with a public statement saying it was null and void in his eyes. But he refused to do either.

15 posted on 04/11/2002 11:52:50 AM PDT by fogarty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: fogarty
I did mis-read the article. Thanks.
16 posted on 04/11/2002 12:09:17 PM PDT by Bernard Marx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

C'mon W. Trash this thing. If you're have to be a socialist, at least be a nationalist.

Oh, wait a minute...

17 posted on 04/11/2002 1:14:56 PM PDT by Tauzero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pissed Off Janitor
BRAVO! You just gave the best representation of kool-aid logic yet. "All part of the plan...just you wait! The GOP will save us!"
18 posted on 04/11/2002 1:35:30 PM PDT by Scholastic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Bernard Marx
I think that the committee refused to put "ratification of the ICC" to a vote not "removal of the signature". At least that is the way I read it.

Bush should remove our signature ASAP. Then congress should pass a resolution/law stating that no US citizen will be held to stand before "the abortion of justice called the ICC" and that any attempt to do so will be met with the full vicious force of the U.S.M.C.!

EBUCK

19 posted on 04/12/2002 9:13:36 AM PDT by EBUCK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Joe Brower; bang_list
As late as Monday there were reports that President Bush had sought means to retract the signature of former president Clinton, who signed the treaty on his last day in office. A signature indicates a nation's intent to seek ratification.

Coming soon to a courtroom near you: The American Gun Owner...

reckon?

20 posted on 04/12/2002 11:40:20 AM PDT by packrat01
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-38 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson