I'm sorry, you're right. Like Kyoto, Clinton gave his token nod to it, knowing his signature at that point was as meaningless as his word - it would never ever ever be approved by the Senate. His support was a symbolic sop to the world government wing, but (IMO) he would never have signed on if he thought it might actually be binding. He was evil, but not stupid.
48 posted on 08/05/2003 11:28 AM PDT by dead (Perdicaris alive or Raisuli dead!)
I agree with you on the merits of your comments, but I think there's much you're not addressing here. Let me explain.
While Clinton's signature was meaningless as far as what the United States' Senate would back up, it was not considered meaningless on the world stage.
The U.N. was so desperate to get the ICC approved, it let world leaders sign on for their nations, even if their nations legislative bodies hadn't gone through proper motions to legally back up that signature. Clinton's signature, not worth a damn to us, was cherished by Kofi Annan. Once a certain number of world leaders signed on, the ICC was ratified, whether that ratification was approved legally or not, in the nations who's leaders signed on.
Futhermore, the number of nations required to sign on to ratify the ICC was something like 65 (approximate from memory) out of some 160 to 200 (I don't know what the exact figure is). There wasn't a two thirds requirement. No, the ICC ratification only required something like 35 to 40% of nations to sign on.
Thus the signature of Bill Clinton loomed large. If even the United States was willing to sign on to this, since a super-power would have the most to lose, smaller nations shouldn't have anything to fear. In fact, it could make them equal to the United States before the eyes of an ICC. What a deal...
The US leader's signature on this document emboldened other nations to sign on. Not only did Bill Clinton's signature constitute all that Kofi Annan needed, but his signature encouraged others to sign on. He actually helped push this thing through his signing on board.
Leadership means having to stand out in front of the pack and explain why you must or mustn't do something. It doesn't constitute signing on board claiming it's meaningless. It doesn't involve looking the other way while other nations sign on to this. It reguires a clear head and a willingness to take bold reasoned action to stave off global actions that 'will' come back to haunt you.
You see, once the ICC is ratified, France, Germany or any of the other nations that "so called" signed on to promise never to prosecute the US before the ICC, can't stop the ICC from bringing charges of it's own. Once ratified, the ICC takes on a life of it's own. The water was cold before it came into being. It's luke warm now. In ten years it will be boiling while we fiddle on.
In the United States, we ratify new ammendments to the Constitution by having states sign on. I think it's two-thirds of the state houses that must sign on to ratify an ammendment. But once an ammendment is ratified, it is the law of the land in all 50 states. The ICC is the law over every nation of the world.
We can choose to say that we are not bound by the ICC. The fact is we are. We did not take bold action to assure that a world body would not be set up over us. It is a reality today. We are going to rue the day when we ever allowed this thing to rear it's ugly head. It may not have an army to enforce it's will, but we are becoming so intertwined with our globalist ferver, that we will have no choice but to work with the ICC or suffer the consequences.
Bill Clinton's signature helped usher that in. George Bush's complacence sealed the deal. If you seek to claim that you are a bold conservative leader, you can't in the same breath claim that it took you fifteen months to figure out the ICC was a terrible idea, thirty days after it was known it was a certainty that it would be ratified.
That's incorrect. The ICC is a mere treaty. There is nothing about it that raises it above the status of a "treaty". It is therefore binding only to nations that signed and ratified said treaty, and even then limited in scope and reach to their own sovereign territories.
Without an enforcement arm of significant strength, any court is an irrelevant dog and pony show.
I agree that our leadership should have rejected it forcefully, upfront, and immediately. But they didn’t.
So now, the ICC, and the UN, could in theory claim some moral high ground if they “convict” an American leader or soldier, but that’s it. They can’t enforce any sentence, or extradite anyone, or invade our offending nation to force regime change. They could only make a political statement. And hopefully our congress/president would react accordingly and defund the UN.
If you seek to claim that you are a bold conservative leader…
That claim would really be a bit of a stretch, ICC or not.