U.S. Soldiers Get One-Year Immunity From ICC Gee! Thanks so very much indeed!

AllSouthwest News Service ^ | July 15, 2002 | Don "Jet-Eye" Loucks

[asneditor]

First, President Clinton signed the International Criminal Court treaty just before he left office. Then, recently, President Bush “unsigned” said treaty, supposedly removing U.S. troops and citizens from the danger of prosecution by the unaccountable court. Then, our Big Pal, the United Nations, said that it didn’t count -- we were in the court’s jurisdiction anyway.

“Oh, yeah?” said the American president. “I don’t think so!”

Just to back up his position, the American president said that he would pull U.S. troops out of the Balkans.

“Uncle!”, cried the U.N. We will give the Americans one-year immunity.

“Sounds like a deal!” said the American president.

“Whoa!” says I, “What kind of a deal is that? One lousy year? How about forever?”

It’s a rotten deal, Americans. The U.N.’s foot is in our door, and we are all vulnerable.

The trojan horse is the idea that only perpetrators of war crimes will be prosecuted. However, under the I.C.C., any American can be prosecuted for virtually anything by a foreign court.

Think about this for a moment. Our government enters into an agreement that binds it to do the bidding of a foreign power willing to drag Americans out of their own country for whatever reason it wishes.

Sound like treason?

The relinquishment of such an exclusive power of government to an outside force -- the United Nations -- should be considered as nothing less than the treason it is.

The political ramifications are astounding. Literally, a member of congress, or even the President himself could be charged, extradited and tried for nearly anything, including some weird U.N. crime against nature.

Most of us were relieved when George W. Bush was elected in 2000 instead of Al Gore. But I ask you, with regard to the I.C.C., what is the difference?

I hope and pray that President Bush realize the dangerous path we have been guided toward and will take the steps necessary to protect our nation’s sovereignty. Perhaps the measures taken so far have been shaped to deflect the full impact of the I.C.C.

I hope so. But, considering the track record of our executive branch over the last seventy years, I am not particularly optimistic.

What about this I.C.C. business? The smart thing for the U.N. to do is to lay low, prosecute some petty thugs like Robert Mugabe (Oops! I forgot. He’s a communist! He will NOT be prosecuted!) and then have a few show trials in order to establish the legitimacy of the court.

A few scapegoats will be chosen and “dealt with.”

Then the cop who slams a minority member against a squad car will be next to be sent to Brussels, or Genoa, or Zaire for prosecution for crimes against humanity.

Brace yourselves.

This is Jet-Eye, Over and Out.

[asneditor]

I'm beginning to think Bush is more of a friend to the
UN than I would like. Of course his Daddy was an ambassador
to the UN. He sure doesn't seem to be the conservative I was hoping he was. Alright bushbots -- fire away

[teletech]

The US needs to get out of the UN --- NOW!!

[asneditor]

I couldn't agree more but it may have become a monster that we can't slay until enough people get fed up. Unfortunately, most folks think the UN is just great because of its little commie programs like UNICEF. The program that expliots children to raise money.

[Libertarianize the GOP]

.

[SEA]

Sad to say, Bush is the son of his father as far as the UN. The ONLY answer is to get the US out of the UN.

[asneditor]

ping

[F.J. Mitchell]

Our troops have a year reprive under Bush before being dragged into the UN's kangeroo court-that is a year more than would have happened under Gore. We can only hope that enough intestinal fortitude will still exist in this country that the President in office at the time our troops are left to the mercy of that court ran by our enemies, will be tarred, feathered and thrown into the Potomac on a rail-a rail road rail that will go straight to the bottom with his/her worthless arse still tarred to it.

[asneditor]

*PING*

[F.J. Mitchell]

"NOW!" NO, yesterday!

[edger]

Oh, it is worse than that. The one year extension the US got from the UN don't mean diddly. The UN has no jurisdiction over the ICC. The ICC is not bound by anything the UN or anybody else says which is precisely the problem.

Dubya negotiating with the UN was a foolish waste of time. Now tell me he didn't know that.

[asneditor]

I must say you educated me on that. I wasn't sure if the UN actually ran the ICC or not. Your post makes this sound even more ominous.

[jwh_Denver]

Our troops have a year reprive under Bush

Bush wants to bust them next year with the same message. I suspect he likes p*ssing them off.

[edger]

No, our troops do not have a year's reprieve. They have nothing. The ICC is independent of the UN. Any deal Dubya made with the UN don't mean diddly because the UN has no power over the ICC. And that is precisely the problem. The one year bit was just to diddle the sheeple.

[F.J. Mitchell]

If you mean Bush likes pissing off the Icc and the UN, I think maybe you are right.

[F.J. Mitchell]

I will believe it is diddly when the ICC feels froggy enough to put an American on trial on BS charges, and we don't invade the Netherlands and free our people.

[TheGrimReaper]

But I ask you, with regard to the I.C.C., what is the difference?

BIG difference: Under President Algore (God forbid) there would very likely already be Americans convicted and jailed in the OWP (One-World Prison).
[Hey, just where is that OWP, anyway??]

[jwh_Denver]

That's what I mean. Pesonally I would have played around with them UNers first with nasty mind games. Then POP em!

[Ajnin]

Mexico and illegal alien activists will waste no time in trying to have the Border Patrol indicted. They have already tried to have the human rights commission condemn them.

[D-fendr]

It's actually the UN that got the reprieve. Bush won't pull the troops out as long their immune. When they're not, out the go. So long as we have a president who stands his ground.

Which was the case in any case. It will continue to be the case as long as the court exists.

I think we got a two-fer here. Immunity and an excellent campaign issue. Candidates for president will continually be asked to take the stand: "Will you subject U.S. soldiers to this court?"