Posted on 07/02/2002 3:09:04 PM PDT by Destro
Wednesday July 3, 4:05 AM
Bush stands firm against International Criminal Court
President George W. Bush said he hoped to "work out" an impasse with the United Nations over the new International Criminal Court but stood by his repudiation of the tribunal.
"We'll try to work out the impasse at the United Nations. But one thing we're not going to do is sign on to the International Criminal Court," Bush said during a brief visit here to tout his domestic agenda.
Washington on Sunday vetoed renewal of the UN peacekeeping mission in Bosnia to highlight its concerns that the court could be used to pursue US forces or officials with politically motivated prosecution.
The Bush administration later backed off, granting the mission a 72-hour reprieve that lapses at midnight Wednesday (0400 GMT Thursday).
On Monday, the world's first permanent war crimes tribunal officially opened its doors in The Hague with a mandate to bring to justice perpetrators of the worst crimes against humanity.
Bush said he would not submit the treaty creating the court to the US Senate for ratification because "as the United States works to bring peace around the world, our diplomats and our soldiers could be drug into this court, and that's very troubling to me."
Democrat Joe Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said Tuesday that Europe must "be more sensitive" to the need to spare US troops from "frivolous prosecution" but said the veto was a ham-handed approach.
"It jeopardizes the continuation of vital peacekeeping and police training missions in Bosnia - and UN operations elsewhere. And that undermines our fundamental goal of bringing permanent security to the Balkans and other troubled areas of the world," he said in a statement.
White House spokesman Ari Fleischer told reporters traveling with the president that the United States was "absolutely not" using the flap as a pretext for curtailing its international peacekeeping commitments.
"The President thinks the ICC is fundamentally flawed because it puts American servicemen and women at fundamental risk of being tried by an entity that is beyond America's reach, beyond America's laws, and can subject American civilian and military to arbitrary standards of justice," he said.
That's why the court "is a threat to America's involvement to be peace keepers and to help around the world," said Fleischer, who declined to predict the result of consultations with the United Nations.
"These are difficult talks, and it's impossible to predict what their outcome will be," he said.
In Washington, Secretary of State Colin Powell was making a series of calls to a variety of his foreign colleagues in an effort to secure a last minute deal, State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said.
"We're in the middle of the last minute," he told reporters, noting that Powell had spoken twice on Tuesday with British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw whose country is now president of the UN Security Council.
"We're continuing to work on these issues, because it is our desire to work it out in a way that allows us to continue this very important mission without being exposed to further risk from the International Criminal Court," he said.
But I do not understand why American troops under NATO's UN SFOR mission carry out outrageous raids in support of the UN Court for Yugoslavia? If a UN Court is bad for Americans is it not just as bad for other peoples?
I think those animals disguised in NATO general's uniforms did the following in front of the cameras as a slap in the face of Bush on the same day Bush made this announcement: NATO troops ransack home of fugitive Karadzic
I can't understand this double standard for the life of me.
Image how this will play out in 2004 if Hillary is President. Hold on to your sovereignty -- she'll grab it.
This is exactly the kind of statement by Bush that disturbs me. How/why can/would Bush work out an impasse with an organization that would usurp American sovereignty? Any President who would turn over American sovereignty is not performing his mandated responsiblity to uphold our constitution.
Before you Bushbots give Bush attaboys for this one, why don't you ask him what he has done to rescind Clinton's signature? While you're at it, why don't you ask him what he has done to prevent a future globalistsocialistcommunist Democrat President from sending the Clinton signed treaty to a future sympathetic Senate for ratification?
What should Bush do to rescind Clinton's signature?
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a38ae1fc86628.htm
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/682976/posts
Suddenly, the Union isn't so big on Unity. bUSh is having the same concerns that George Mason and Patrick Henry had about giving up a portion of their state's sovereignty!
and rightly so, given that the next "civil war" will be when one of the "states" tries to secede from the UN, and the self-righteous remaining countries will attack it and try to invade it, starting WWIII/Armageddon.
This whole thing should help people see the righteousness of the Southern People and the CSA.
What do you want him to do, declare the Democratic Party and its presidential candidates null and void? That is why actually WINNING elections are important.
Bush did recind Clinton's signiture
Hyde Praises Decision by Bush Administration
to Unsign Treaty Establishing Int’l Criminal Court
(WASHINGTON) - U.S. Rep. Henry J. Hyde (R-IL), chairman of the House International Relations Committee, commented today on the announced decision by the Bush Administration to unsign the Treaty of Rome establishing the International Criminal Court:
“I commend the Bush Administration for restoring honesty to our dialogue with other nations about the International Criminal Court (ICC).
“Champions of international law should focus their fire on the Clinton Administration for the dubious way in which they signed the treaty establishing the ICC rather than the Bush Administration for correcting the mistaken impression left by their ill-considered action.
“International law in this regard is clear. Comment (d) to section 312 of the Restatement of the Law Third, Foreign Relations Law of the United States provides that ‘signature [of a treaty] . . . is deemed to represent political approval and at least a moral obligation to seek ratification.’ Accordingly, what is unprecedented is signing a treaty and then simultaneously declaring, as President Clinton did on December 31, 2000, that ‘I will not, and do not, recommend that my successor submit the Treaty to the Senate for advice and consent until our fundamental concerns are satisfied.’
“It was clear then, and remains clear today, that our fundamental concerns about the ICC will never be satisfied. We simply cannot accept an international institution that claims jurisdiction over American citizens superior to that of our Constitution, and that threatens to prosecute and imprison Americans without benefit of the protections enshrined in our Bill of Rights.
“For these reasons, overwhelming majorities in both the House of Representatives and the Senate have voted within the last year for legislation that disassociates the United States entirely from the ICC. In this context, there can be no doubt that the United States will never ratify the treaty establishing the ICC.
“It would be dishonest for the United States to continue to represent to other nations that we are on track to become a party to that treaty when nothing could be further from the truth. The Bush Administration should be praised for setting the record straight.”
##30##
If to mindlessly defend Bush is to be a Bushbot then what would you call somebody who mindlessly criticizes Bush -- your post.
A broken record?
Henry Hyde has it right. Thanks TF
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.