Replies

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.]

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

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.

The World Court and a United Nations tax are the lines in the sand that we need to draw and not let anyone cross. Let them dress up in their stupid robes and powdered wigs, let them print up the tax forms, but the day that they try to enforce anything here on U.S. soil is the day that the Second Amendment was written for.

tomakaze:
It's also worth noting that Bush the Younger made no attempt to get out of it.

steve50:
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.

World Net Daily:
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.
-snip-
Key European allies have accused the Bush administration's refusal to support the court as an example of U.S. "unilateralism" in an interdependent world.
-snip-
Several U.S. allies, notably Canada, have urged the Bush administration to support the court as a means to hold genocidal tyrants accountable for their crimes.

I must be missing something here. The article seems to make it quite clear that Bush does not agree with the court, and is trying to find a way to retract the signature of Clinton. Are we reading the same article?