Hate to say 'I told you so ...'

World Net Daily ^ | anuary 22, 2004 | Hal Lindsey

[Mikey]

The United States has "unsigned' the 1998 Rome Treaty that would put America under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court treaty that Bill Clinton signed on Dec. 31, 2000.

The Bush administration took the unprecedented step of "unsigning" an international treaty because, well, simply put, it doesn't trust the international community. Dubbed the "Rome Treaty," it puts signatory nations under the jurisdiction of the International Court at the Hague, grants ICC prosecutors extraordinary powers and grants ICC officials lifetime immunity.

The Rome Treaty would give the ICC the right to review U.S. court decisions and re-try individuals if the ICC determines decisions "were not conducted independently or impartially," or were for the purpose of "shielding the person concerned from criminal responsibility."

The ICC also does away with rights granted Americans under the Constitution, like the right to confront one's accusers, due process, trial by jury, a public and speedy trial by an impartial jury, and protection from cruel and unusual punishments. So Bush "unsigned" it.

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

If that happens, make room in that boat because I'll be in it with ya along with a lot of other freepers

Sounds like a plan. We can start our own damn republic.

A Free Republic.

[Cicero]

As I said on an earlier thread, George Bush was very wise to refuse to agree to subjecting Americans to the tender mercies of international courts.

Tony Blair strongly favors the New World Order, as he demonstrated in that speech at the NATO anniversary celebration before the attack on Belgrade.

Hopefully this will be a wakeup call to him. England has been a historical source of political freedoms. If they knuckle under to the EU and the NWO, they will lose all of that. In fact they have already lost many of their freedoms.

[Cicero]

The Founders never believed that Americans were granted rights under the Constitution, as you say.

Those rights are UNALIENABLE, because they were given to men by God.

[Mikey]

" clintoon should have been removed for this treason."

Removed and tried for treason.

[Mikey]

" Sounds like a plan. We can start our own damn republic."

"A Free Republic."

We can call it the Republic of Freepland. We can call the capital city Jimrob city.

[FITZ]

Bump to that --- this is a very good move. We need to be a sovereign nation --- we don't need this internationalism.

[TomasUSMC]

Good move by W. Keep July 4th Independence Day, don't let it become interdependence day.


God Bless U.S.

[11B3]

Why not just stay here and vote from the rooftops? Someone has to stay and make the left miserable (or worse).

It's good to see the President is back to form on internationalism. Might as well go whole hog, and dump the UN altogether. (For that, he'd belong on Mt Rushmore.)

[philman_36]

Another article with a little more information behind the decision.
U.S. WILL NOT SIGN ON TO INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT, BUSH SAYS
President Bush says the United States will not sign on to the International Criminal Court (ICC) because as the nation works to build peace around the world its diplomats and soldiers could be dragged "into this court and that's very troubling."
Snip..."President Clinton signed this treaty, but when he signed it he said it should not be submitted to the Senate," Bush told reporters. "It therefore never has been, and I don't intend to submit it either."
Snip...Though the dispute is jeopardizing U.S. participation in the Bosnian peacekeeping mission, Fleischer said, "The President thinks it is a vital matter of principle to protect American men and women peacekeepers. We are involved deeply, globally, and the United States has a lot at risk."
Snip...President Bush, Fleischer explained, "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."
Snip...Asked why the United States does not then become a participatory nation and, therefore, get those protections, Fleischer responded:
"Because we think the ICC is fundamentally flawed. And so, too, did President Clinton when he signed it. And the point in signing it, according to President Clinton, was to negotiate changes to it. Those changes were not agreed to by the ICC. And Congress, in an overwhelming bipartisan nature, opposes United States participation."

Glad to see this "unsigning" happen though the original "signing" should've never taken place. Bubba just throwing out political hot potatoes was all it was.

[gnarledmaw]

Finally, a conservative action from the Bush Whitehouse. The only question I have is, was it an accident or was he just board now that he's completed the Democrats wish list?

[lilylangtree]

Whew! Notice when RAT Clintoon signed it--Dec 31, 2000. Another sin to add to his long list. Another item to throw at Hitlery when she gears up for her campaign in 2008.

[Capitalist Eric]

Counting the posts until someone (other than my post) mentions these words: illegals and amnesty. Your comments are solicited.

Ummm... Somehow, I'm a little confused. How, may I ask, should either the words (as YOU specified) "illegals" or "amnesty" figure into this particular thread...?

Or are you just trying to start a fight, as on the last thread we traded views on...?

[Johnny_Cipher]

Somehow, I'm a little confused.

No comment :)

How, may I ask, should either the words (as YOU specified) "illegals" or "amnesty" figure into this particular thread...?

Probably because I didn't say the words you are referring to. Another poster did - all I did is quote them. However, there is a tiny but persistent cadre who seems to want to interject "illegals" and "amnesty" into every other thread, and I thought it might be fun to watch them try to do it in this one. Of course, you're obviously not a member of that tiny but persistent cadre or you would be trying to start a flamewar and drag comments in from other threads.

Or are you just trying to start a fight, as on the last thread we traded views on...?

Did you have a comment about this particular thread?

[Bikers4Bush]

Why would I mention either when it has nothing to do with it?

I was under the impression that this had basically already been done since we had been getting agreements from member nations for us to be excluded.

Still it is at least a step in the right direction.

[Johnny_Cipher]

Still it is at least a step in the right direction.

Then we've found something on which to agree. Good.

[gooleyman]

Tony Blair strongly favors the New World Order

-----
And how ironic that he'll be the first one prosecuted by the group for his countries participation in the overthrow of that "good guy" Saddddam.

[gooleyman]

The only question I have is, was it an accident or was he just board now that he's completed the Democrats wish list?

-----
Aw, Here we GO!!!

[Lazamataz]

Illegal Amnesty.

[Publius6961]

Dubbed the "Rome Treaty," it puts signatory nations under the jurisdiction of the International Court at the Hague, grants ICC prosecutors extraordinary powers and grants ICC officials lifetime immunity.

This is an even dumber idea than what the U.N. has become.
Has there been a book written about this? I would love to read about the development of the concept, who proposed it, what the ostensible purpose was, who pushed it, and who signed it.

It would take a thread all its own to demonstrate that the concept itself is unworkable under any circumstances. But the inevitable result is easy enough to demonstrate. All such "agreements" result in a bureaucracy that takes funding from the rich productive societies, and seeks out those same productive societies to prosecute because... well, they signed the damned thing, didn't they?

But you can count of the other law of the universe: they will never go and deal with real evil. Too dangerous, you know.

Good riddance.

[Publius6961]

The ICC also does away with rights granted Americans under the Constitution, like the right to confront one's accusers, due process, trial by jury, a public and speedy trial by an impartial jury, and protection from cruel and unusual punishments. So Bush "unsigned" it.

Why did Bush need to unsign it?

How can Clinton, or any other delusional megalomaniac (well meaning or not) sign away my constitutional rights?
Input from Constitutional attorneys and professors would be extremely useful here...