Posted on 05/21/2002 6:05:34 PM PDT by TaRaRaBoomDeAyGoreLostToday!
WASHINGTON – The House is expected to vote soon on a permanent world tribunal, the International Criminal Court (ICC), recently the centerpiece of a lavish champagne celebration at the United Nations. The court threatens our sovereignty, our leaders and our troops.
The House Appropriations Committee voted last week to tack on to the defense funding bill a provision that would forbid federal agencies to cooperate with the court. Further, it authorizes the president to take whatever action is necessary to rescue any U.S. citizen who's hauled before the ICC. President Bush has bluntly rejected the court or the U.S. participation in it.
Fred Gedrich, senior policy analyst at Oliver North’s Freedom Alliance, tells NewsMax.com he expects the House to approve the measure by an overwhelming vote.
The big problem, he says, will come in the Senate. Actually the Senate in December voted 78-21 for similar legislation, written by Sen. Jesse Helms, R-N.C., but it was deleted in the end-of-the-year conference committee by Sen. Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii.
Senate Democrats Fail to Protect U.S. Servicemen
Although the names of the ultimate House and Senate conferees are not yet known, key Senate Democrats will offer no cooperation in getting the measure through, even though the Senate last year went on record in favor of it.
But House Majority Whip Tom DeLay, R-Texas, took the lead in getting the provision into the House bill, and he has lent his power and prestige to see that his House colleagues approve it.
Contacting your congressman won’t hurt (see www.house.gov). DeLay’s office Monday told NewsMax it would "probably” reach the House floor this week.
The more indefinite Senate schedule means that Americans who cherish the constitutional protections afforded accused persons – trial by jury, protection against double jeopardy, etc. – would do well to start contacting their senators and urge them to make sure the Helms bill does not die again in the last-minute adjournment rush.
One good talking point is that the International Criminal Court enjoys only minority support among the world’s populations. Gedrich points out that the populations of the 66 nations that have ratified the treaty "account for only one-sixth of the world’s 6.1 billion people.”
As noted above, the U.S. is part of the majority that has rejected the ICC, but internationalists who envision a world without borders intend to see that the United States is subjected to the ICC’s power. That is why congressional legislation is needed to put additional teeth into President Bush’s refusal to cooperate with this dagger pointed straight at the heart of the sovereignty of this nation.
Clinton Tries to Circumvent Constitution
Bill Clinton signed the treaty in his last days as president. Even he acknowledged it was "flawed,” and he refused to send it to the U.S. Senate for ratification. Under the Constitution, U.S. participation in a treaty is not agreed to and is not valid unless it is ratified by two-thirds of the Senate. Last year’s 78-21 vote for non-participation in the ICC gives you an idea of where this treaty stands with well over two-thirds of the 100 U.S. senators.
That means that internationalists in the Senate who favor the treaty have to deal in the back rooms of closed conference committees.
In addition to the U.S., nations staunchly opposed to the treaty include India (the world’s largest freely elected government), Japan (the world’s second-wealthiest nation), and China (the world’s most populous nation).
All indications are that supporters of this mischief are not primarily interested in going after the Saddam Husseins of the world. The president and an overwhelming majority of lawmakers on Capitol Hill believe U.S. adversaries will abuse the court to influence and meddle in U.S. foreign policy, national security and military affairs, and to unjustly detain and prosecute American leaders and service members legitimately acting on behalf of the U.S. government.
Globalists Oppose War on Terrorism
Examples:
Capitol Hill is in the midst of deciding whether President Bush’s prosecution of the war effort will be upheld beyond "I support the president” lip service. This is where deeds can replace words.
Are all the liberal democrats out to get this country?
THANK GOD!!!!!!!!!
OUTRAGEOUS!!! Who died and put the U.N. in charge?
Would you believe the David (who would be King) Rockefeller donated the $$$ Manhattan real e$tate $$$ upon which the United Nations squats today.
I understand part of the deal was to include a suite of offices in support of his greedy Glo-baloney schemes. How convenient.
Unfortunately for all freedom-loving Americans, he is reported to be alive yet today.
So what else is new!
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.