[Mikey]

This article should be a wake up for a lot of Americans. There are however a few comments (below) in this article that bug me.

"The ICC also does away with rights granted Americans under the Constitution..."

Our rights are not granted to us by the Constitution or any other man made decree or document.

"The United States said it won't place itself under the ICC's jurisdiction, even though other democracies ."

Article 4, section 4 of the Constitution for the United States for all those who believe we are a democracy.

[saveliberty]

Woo hoo! Let's undo more bad agreements. Like paying money to France.

[Jim Robinson]

It's all Bush's fault.

[Paleo Conservative]

Article 4, section 4 of the Constitution for the United States for all those who believe we are a democracy.

Article IV.

Section 4 The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

[Jim Robinson]

But, but, "George W. Bush is a globalist ushering in the New World Order."

[reed_inthe_wind]

The ICC - isn't that a terrorist organization?

[Tempest]

Definately a good thing the President did here and a good thing at insuring American soverignty.

[Carthago delenda est]

If I'm not mistaken, the ICC does not recognize the right of the accused to face the accuser, and it has no prohibition against double jeopardy prosecution. There are no appeals. Every nation gets one vote for procedural matters: the United States would have as much say over the composition of the court as, say, Iran.

Signatories to the ICC also recognize the right of the organization to pursue "war criminals" residing within their borders; the agreement would atrophy the entire concept of national sovereignty. If the U.S. signed this treaty, a group of bureaucrats could legally enter the United States, arrest Henry Kissinger, and whisk him off to a kangeroo court in The Hague.

Ain't gonna happen, leftists. Take your one-world peace plan and go pester someone else.

[Senator Pardek]

I loved this guy in "Barney Miller".

[TigersEye]

The British "war crimes" reportedly arise from its use of some 70 cluster bombs, each of which contained 17 "bomblets," as well as its use of artillery shells that also contained bomblets. In other words, they used weapons of war to conduct a war and fought to win. Under ICC rules, that is evidently a war crime.

Cluster bomb the ICC.

[savedbygrace]

This is a great move by President Bush.

[BykrBayb]

But thanks to the foresight of the current administration, the ICC has no jurisdiction over U.S. servicemen or the U.S. officials who prosecuted the war. Just over the British who thought, "Gee, what a great idea!" when it was presented to them.

WHOO HOO!!!!

[Libertarianize the GOP]

ping

[edwin hubble]

"Our rights are not granted to us by the Constitution or any other man made decree or document. "

Exactly.
Some of the opposition to the passage of the Bill of Rights was specifically based on the premise that the Government Has No Power to Grant us ANY Rights.

*** Our Rights are and will always be ours. The government does NOT and cannot 'grant' them to us.

*** The Bill of Rights LIMITs and RESTRAINS the Federal Government from Taking our rights. It NEVER granted ANYTHING.

Now, having said that, the Bill of Rights 'guarantees' our already existing rights.

Article 10 mystifies the modern leftist judiciary. They cannot comprehend it... so they ignore it. It doesn't "exist" in modern law.

What is this "incomprehensible" amendment?

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

...give the ICC the right to review U.S. court decisions and re-try individuals...

The day that happens I will quit, throw up my hands and move to an island in the South Pacific.

[HuntsvilleTxVeteran]

GREAT

clintoon should have been removed for this treason.

[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.

[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.