To: DoughtyOne"For the record, our government didn't express any objection to the ICC until a couple of weeks before it was certain to be ratified. In this manner it
could claim objection, although avoid doing anything whatsoever to make sure it wasn't ratified. This is hardly something a conservative would brag
about."
Rubbish.
No, this is fact. I notice you morphed the issue rather admit this was fact.
Bush not only unsigned the International Criminal Court treaty (signed by Clinton), but he went on the offensive and compelled more than 20 ICC-signee nations to give full ICC prosecutional immunity to U.S. citizens who might be or pass through those soeverign territories.
Yes, when did Bush unsign the ICC? Once Bush knew the treaty was a done deal, anotherwords enough nations were committed to signing on by a certain date, he voiced disagreement. Once again, it was too late.
Sure he went on the offensive and compelled more than 20 ICC-signee nations to grant immunity of prosecution of our military, but as another poster pointed out to you, that was just our military, not individual citizens. A crime against humanity can be as little as speaking out against homosexuality. It can be as little as speaking out with a "woman's right to choose" termination of the life within her. Who protects these people and the churches they are members of when the ICC comes a knockin?
There is a list around here of some 34 nations who have had their U.S. military funding cut off due to their failure to either give the U.S. ICC immunity or to reject the ICC altogether, all thanks to GWB going on the offensive against a hostile press/media/Democratic Party cartel that actively supports such international leftist pablum.
Once again, Bush was in office 15 months before he took a stand on the ICC, and only then after the ICC was assured of ratification. If this is an example of good leadership (regarding this issue) to you, then I have to ask what team you are actually on.
You state, "all thanks to GWB going on the offensive against a hostile press/media/Democratic Party cartel that actively supports such international leftist pablum." Okay, why did it take fifteen months for Bush to go on the offensive, and why did that only happen after ratification was assured?
If the idea of an ICC was bad, wouldn't it have been far better to damn the idea of an ICC from day one than allow it to be assured of ratification before going on the record with regard to it?
162 posted on 08/03/2003 12:50 PM PDT by Southack (Media bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
"Yes, when did Bush unsign the ICC? Once Bush knew the treaty was a done deal, anotherwords enough nations were committed to signing on by a certain date, he voiced disagreement. Once again, it was too late."
It wasn't too late. Bush has taken the U.S. out of the ICC, and Bush has convinced numerous other ICC nations to give us immunity from the ICC when Americans are on the territory of those other nations.
Now granted, taking on the ICC that Clinton signed wasn't Bush's very first Executive Action. He did things such as reversing Clinton's abortion EO's, fighting Kyoto, getting our EP-3 plane and crew back from China, passing the first tax cut (i.e. his core campaign promise), and then we got hit on 9/11, a mere 8 months into Bush's Presidency.
But Bush had managed all of the crisises and situations and still managed to gut the ICC within his first year and a half in office, amazingly fast for Washington, D.C. standards.
Criticizing Bush about his timing, rather than what he actually did, is also pretty weak in my book.
The ICC is gutted. The deed is done, and that's a good thing overall in the big picture.