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 1-20, 21-38 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
To: tomakaze
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
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
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
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?
To: ouroboros; Snuffington; Inspector Harry Callahan; Greg 4TCP; cva66snipe; Askel5; ppaul; ex-snook...
BUMP
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
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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
To: fogarty
I did mis-read the article. Thanks.
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
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!"
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
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?
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-38 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson