Skip to comments.
International Kangaroo Court
FRONTPAGE Magazine.com ^
| 7/30/03
| John Perazzo
Posted on 07/30/2003 3:51:18 AM PDT by kattracks
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-65 next last
1
posted on
07/30/2003 3:51:18 AM PDT
by
kattracks
Comment #2 Removed by Moderator
To: Tom Jefferson; backhoe; Militiaman7; BARLF; timestax; imintrouble; cake_crumb; Brad's Gramma; ...
Because he understands that the ICC would likely be used as a political and public relations battering ram by a host of anti-American accusers, President Bush has chosen, unlike Tony Blair, not to make his country a signatory to the organization. This has exempted American officials from prosecution. Bushs intent is to protect Americans against politically motivated lawsuits such as one recently filed by human rights attorneys in a Belgian court against General Tommy Franks and a colonel in the U.S. Marines for their roles in Operation Iraqi Freedom.
No more UN for US-list
If people want on or off this list, please let me know.
3
posted on
07/30/2003 4:00:05 AM PDT
by
knighthawk
(We all want to touch a rainbow, but singers and songs will never change it alone. We are calling you)
To: kattracks
The ICC is a travesty. I seem to recall that the day it came into 'real' existence, a group of British peaceniks appeared before a magistrate in England attempting to obtain an arrest warrant for Henry Kissinger for 'war crimes' involving the invasion of Cambodia during the Vietnam Era. The sensible magistrate sent them away citing lack of jurisdiction. The key here is going to be not which group of idiots attempts to initiate prosecutions, but which cases are accepted by the ICC as valid. We'll see soon enough.
4
posted on
07/30/2003 4:03:57 AM PDT
by
silverdog
To: kattracks
gttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt
5
posted on
07/30/2003 4:08:27 AM PDT
by
dennisw
(G_d is at war with Amalek for all generations)
To: TonyRo76
The very next Democratic president we have, no matter who it is, will sign that paper within a week of inauguration. You watch. This country is doomed if we don't take back our schools and universities, and teach even our lefties that they need to be Americans first and not "global citizens."
6
posted on
07/30/2003 4:10:24 AM PDT
by
A_perfect_lady
(Let them eat cake.)
Comment #7 Removed by Moderator
To: A_perfect_lady
Youre right Tony. The Dems will sign on to this in a minute. God help us when they do, It will be another piece of our sovereignty down the drain.
To: kattracks
9
posted on
07/30/2003 4:17:16 AM PDT
by
bets
To: A_perfect_lady
The idea of global citizen is frightening. Why would we join a group that doesnt share our ideals and principles? We would grant some sort of equality to tyrants and failures. In the case of tyranys, one despot would wield as much power as an entire nation of progressives. Or worse in a democracy places like China and India would become dominant and "lead".Ohmygoditsscary
10
posted on
07/30/2003 4:17:32 AM PDT
by
Evil Inc
To: Evil Inc
You are already a global citizen. You're probably in the International Labour Organization's (the ILO, a UN monster) database. They have a:
1.
International Social Security database, and an
2.
International Primary database (comprised from about 102 countries)
Then there's the international database from your insurance info - from the International Organization of insurers (and they all share your data - how nice).
Then there's the new (June 2003) International Seafare's ID card - it's required for anyone anywhere working as a seafarer. Once issued, it will be BIOMETRIC, with the worker's digitized picture and a digitized fingerprint.
The global citizenry has begun, and the US isn't fighting it as much as you're led to believe. Guess who was behind the push for the biometric international Seafarer's card?....The US! (and I can prove it)
11
posted on
07/30/2003 4:27:24 AM PDT
by
bets
To: TonyRo76
Imagine the long term implications. First, our all-volunteer military would start shrinking FAST when kids realized that they could end up in some foreign prison simply for doing their jobs. As our military shrinks, our power to deal with nuclear blackmail (like from North Korea) would vanish, as well as any chance of preventing other countries from developing into nuclear powers intent upon blackmail. Imagine Iran, North Korea, Libya, et al, ALL demanding massive foreign aid.
Meanwhile, said Dem Prez has signed the Kyoto Treaty as well and our electric bills double. Our economy falls further, and of course, they raise our taxes to pay for more social programs to "jumpstart" the economy. You know, tax our way to prosperity. Our country falls into a recession, then into a depression. A few more Al Qaeda attacks and we'll be in worse shape than Mexico.
When the rioting starts, the Dem Prez asks the UN to come in because our own decimated military can't handle the problem. The UN is given jurisdiction over the US and the precedent is set for the UN Charter to outrank the Constitution. And that's it. America is done. It could be accomplished in one four year term.
To: TonyRo76
"ICCs job is to prosecute individuals involved in the aforementioned offenses particularly when their own nations courts are unable or unwilling to do so. I would be alot more proud of Bush if he had protected more than elected officials and the military from this court. As it stands individual American average joes, may still be at risk from this kangaroo court. There has been no mention by any political body that American citizens are immune from this court. Anyone who thinks this court will not further it's power to cover hate crimes, such as Christian preachers offending the sensibilities of sinners, hasn't learned much.
To: kattracks
Bush did the right thing by keeping the US out of the ICC although a future liberal/Democrat president may reverse him. Also, there are unelected SCOTUS Justices who are sympathetic to an international court system.
Will rulings from the ICC stand as precedents for liberal SCOTUS justices, and find their way into American law ? It seems that the American Constitution itself doesn't provide enough latitude for some liberal justices.
14
posted on
07/30/2003 4:57:38 AM PDT
by
Noachian
(Legislation Without Representation is Tyranny)
To: MissAmericanPie
...Anyone who thinks this court will not further it's power to cover hate crimes, such as Christian preachers offending the sensibilities of sinners, hasn't learned much. Check out FR Post from today:
Ethnic Intimidation because in PA they already nullified the Constitutional right to freedom of religion and speech w/House Bill 1493 passed 12/02, making preaching anti-homesexual scriptures illegal.
15
posted on
07/30/2003 4:57:57 AM PDT
by
bets
To: Noachian
I heard on a mainstream news report (back when the US rejected participation) that the UN's cool reaction was this: Fine, you can be on probation for 1 year, but then after that YOU MUST participate. There is no option to reject it after the 1 yr "probation." Enrollment will just automatically happen.
Did anyone else hear that? I tend to believe it.
Has anyone heard of the international courts I listed in the above post? Seriously, we're already participating in international tribunals.
16
posted on
07/30/2003 5:02:15 AM PDT
by
bets
To: TonyRo76; kattracks; A_perfect_lady; Evil Inc; MissAmericanPie; All
In 1776, our founding fathers when severing our ties with England and King George III, listed among their grievances:
"He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation."
"For depriving us, in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
"For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
"For abolishing the free System of English Laws
establishing therein an Arbitrary government.
"For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:"
Amazing how history seems to always repeat itself.
17
posted on
07/30/2003 5:05:53 AM PDT
by
expatguy
To: kattracks
Bump
18
posted on
07/30/2003 5:06:11 AM PDT
by
sport
To: TonyRo76
...As we have seen many times in recent decades, the U.S. is both willing and able to prosecute American wrongdoers even in the very highest positions of power...
With one horribly notable exception.
The wife of that exception will sign us up when she gets in.
Socialist murderers have nothing to fear from the Kangaroo court.
To: kattracks
Why is there a US Judge on the
International Court of Justice?:
Present composition of the Court
President
Shi Jiuyong (China)
Vice-President
Raymond Ranjeva (Madagascar)
Judges
Gilbert Guillaume (France)
Abdul G. Koroma (Sierra Leone)
Vladlen S. Vereshchetin (Russian Federation)
Rosalyn Higgins (United Kingdom)
Gonzalo Parra-Aranguren (Venezuela)
Pieter H. Kooijmans (Netherlands)
Francisco Rezek (Brazil)
Awn Shawkat Al-Khasawneh (Jordan)
Thomas Buergenthal (United States of America)
Nabil Elaraby (Egypt)
Hisashi Owada (Japan)
Bruno Simma (Germany)
Peter Tomka (Slovakia)
Registrar
Mr. Philippe Couvreur (Belgium)
20
posted on
07/30/2003 5:10:16 AM PDT
by
bets
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-65 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson