Posted on 02/16/2009 10:49:57 AM PST by shielagolden
Obama May Place U.S. Under International Criminal Court
Waterboarding. Abu Ghraib. Detaining terrorists at Guantanamo Bay. Dissing Hans Blix. These, as seen by the Left, are the cardinal sins of George W. Bush’s administration. Set aside the fraternity party-like nonsense that took place at Abu Ghraib and what’s left are actions taken to protect U.S. interests.
But self-loathing Americans whose minds are confined in the cult of globalism don’t see it that way. Each of these “offenses” has at least one thing in common: they hurt the feelings of foreigners. Insensitivity to the outside world, U.S. internationalists argue, is a stain on Uncle Sam’s reputation from which we must repent.
With that in mind, one more “offense” must be included in the list of Bush’s sins. It occurred May 6, 2002, when John Bolton, on orders from the President, withdrew the U.S. from the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC). Oh, there were terrible tantrums in Turtle Bay that day! Globalists were dismayed because Mr. Bush’s rejection of the ICC was a vote for American sovereignty -- a refusal to cede authority to international government and a court that is not bound to the principles of the U.S. Constitution, far less our laws.
That could change under the Obama administration.
Two weeks ago, hope returned to the House of Hammarskjold when U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice, in a closed Security Council meeting, voiced support for the ICC. She said it “looks to become an important and credible instrument for trying to hold accountable the senior leadership responsible for atrocities committed in the Congo, Uganda and Darfur.”
The mere mention of the International Criminal Court by the U.S. Permanent Representative drew her colleagues’ attention. “What she said on human rights and international law I could have written myself,” French ambassador Jean-Maurice Ripert told Bloomberg News. Costa Rica’s Jorge Urbina said Rice’s speech “raises expectations” that the United States will submit to the authority of the ICC.
Urbina is on point. Sen. Obama said little about the ICC during his campaign for the White House. But in his first weeks as President, his actions speak less to constituents in Peoria and the Bronx than to admirers in Paris and Brussels. Obama’s trans-American constituent service includes his decision to shutter “Gitmo” and grant his first presidential interview with Al Arabiya television.
In his inauguration speech, Obama declared that “America is ready to lead once more.” He said American power “does [not] entitle us to do as we please.” In the parlance of the Left, these suggest submission to international authority, which was raised again last week when Ben Chang, spokesman for National Security Advisor General James Jones, echoed Rice’s comments about the Court. In the context of an ICC indictment for Sudanese President Omar Bashir, Chang told the Washington Times, “We support the ICC in its pursuit of those who’ve perpetrated war crimes.”
So, what will ICC engagement mean for the United States? To answer that, one must read “A Strategy for U.S. Engagement with the International Criminal Court,” written by David Scheffer and John Hutson and issued by the Century Foundation. Scheffer was instrumental in the formation of the ICC and served as Ambassador at Large for War Crimes in the Clinton administration. Hutson was the Navy’s Judge Advocate General from 1997-2000.
The report is stunning in its frankness, heartbreaking in its eagerness to sacrifice American citizens for some nebulous “global good.” The authors’ complaints begin with the Bush administration’s unwillingness to subject Americans to ICC indictments. They explain:
Any path toward support of the ICC will require examining long-standing concerns about the exposure of U.S. military service personnel and American political and military leaders to the court, whether or not the United States is a state party to the Rome Statute. (emphasis added)
A cornerstone of the ICC is that its jurisdiction extends only to those nations that ratify the Rome Statute. By subjecting the U.S. to the ICC even as a non-participant, the authors have turned the Rome Statute into a “living document.” It should be noted that the ICC itself is doing the same. Last week, Lois Morena Oncampo launched an investigation to determine if Israel can be prosecuted for attacks on Gaza. Israel is not a party to the ICC.
Scheffer and Hutson continue, stating the implications to the U.S.
“If the United States were to join the ICC,” they write, “one would have to accept at least the theoretical possibility that American citizens (particularly political and military leaders) could be prosecuted before the ICC on charges of committing atrocity crimes.” And without the protections afforded by Constitutional and laws.
What do Scheffer and Hutson mean when they suggest U.S. “political leaders” can be prosecuted by the ICC for “atrocity crimes"? See paragraph one.
The precise wording of only one oath of office is mandated by the U.S. Constitution. It is the presidential oath. It reads "to preserve, protect and defend" the Constitution, not merely support it. Most other federal, state and local oaths of public office incorporate that phrase. Tragically, few politicians at any level appear to take that oath seriously. Which brings me to the second part of your reply to me:
The Constitution is supreme over laws and treaties...
It's critical to grasp the correct -- and plain -- meaning of Article VI, Section 2.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land...
Any treaty duly signed by a U.S. president and ratified by the Senate is, together with the Constitution, the supreme law of the land. Without question, conflicts in the language of a particular treaty and the language of the Constitution can occur. Such conflicts would have to be addressed in the legislation passed by Congress to enable executive action for the provisions of any treaty.
The whole thing can become a legal quagmire, especially with something as explosive as the ICC treaty. This is why it's absolutely critical to try to stop ratification of the ICC treaty in the Senate. And issues like this are exactly why I'll repeat as long as necessary that ELECTIONS HAVE THOUSANDS OF CONSEQUENCES.
I love that. Did you make it yourself?
-PJ
I think you cleared that up for me in a previous post. I defer to your explanation!
That document is mine, also. I am not arguing against your broad point that the Constitution belongs to "the people." What I am doing is trying to get people here to grasp what we have lost and what we need to try to get back if we are ever going have the Constitution mean anything other than to be a butt wipe for federal politicians.
So how does that happen? I'm thinking a walk across America, THE AMERICANS, millions of us, 'storming the Bastille', ousting the senate and congress; visualize tar, feathers, pitchforks, and Jimmy Stewart. We 'hired' them, let's 'fire' them.
I'm willing to take over the congress, but there are to many keyboard warriors who are comfy behind their computers. Of course, I'd start walking, and 4 people would join me. People, this isn't a game anymore. Guess what? Marxim's here, it's now and it's real.
I'd organize this is a nanosecond if there was the will of real constitutional Americans. Everyone talks and talks, and types and types. When the rubber hits the road, excuses range from my job, my family, my whatever is foremost, I cannot be bothered with a the simple concept as freedom and liberty. Taking for granted our country and way of life. We assumed it would be there forever and this would never happen to us. That was our biggest error, we got comfy.
Well, it's here, it's now, and it's happening. Want a revolution? Want to live by the constitution? Typing on a web site doesn't work, actions do. Anyone willing to explore this? Anyone willing to say, enough is enough? Anyone want to fight? Anyone willing to put their money where their fingers are? Actions are what's needed. A million people ousting congress, and restoring our country is what's needed. Or will YOU wait until someone else does it? Aren't you tired of waiting for that someone to do something? Hey everyone, WE ARE THAT SOMEONE! I'm ready to rumble, and I'm dead serious. Someone has to start something, I'm willing to start the effort.
We can go in 'backrooms' and figure out the details. I prefer to lay it right out here, let them know, we're coming. No more secret legislation, no more queens and kings and royality!
WE NEED ACTION NOW!
Yes, they are, as subject to the treaties with the countries they are serving in.
Why is the idea of U.S. military personnel being subject to the ICC more controversial than them being subject to the laws of the British Parliament?
This is because countries with malaise towards the US like Iran, China, Russia, and North Korea could use the ICC to bring up false charges against US servicemembers and politicians.
Very true, PJ, although it's better to never allow a monstrosity like the ICC treaty to be ratified than to fight a rear guard action if it is.
President George W. Bush, to his everlasting credit, understood this. The Republican Congress of the late 1990's didn't ratified the thing after Clinton signed it. To avoid having later senates even consider it, President Bush revoked Clinton's signature. But as sure as night follows day, it was a lock that Obama and his Leftist crowd would bring it back up ASAP.
-PJ
Tough for now, but the Left is so close now that they can smell victory. If they succeed in getting this ratified, it will, in effect, bring the U.S. under the heel of the embryonic world government the international Left has been slowly constructing in Europe. Not only must this monstrosity be defeated, we must find a way to put a stake through it's heart and kill it permanently.
From the Left's perspective, they only need to elect a few more Democrats and/or northeast liberal Republicans. I absolutely hate the term RINO because it's so overused that it's lost all substance. But any Republican who would consider voting to ratify this thing most definitely is not any kind of Republican I would recognize.
No!...a "civil war" does not apply to what is coming and cannot happen here.
If he does, then what he does deserve is a "2nd revolution" that restores the former Constitutional Republic.
Subject to civil and standard criminal laws, yes, but not if those laws conflict with U.S. laws in any drastic way. For example, so-called honor killings are legal in some countries, but U.S. law considers them murder.
The real point of the ICC treaty is subjugate all U.S. law to the embryonic world government slowly being created by the international Left. It's an EXTREMELY DANGEROUS piece of crap that no serious U.S. president would ever sign, nor any serious U.S. senate ever ratify.
Another point. Gen. Jim Jones, a former Commandant of the Marine Corps, is in favor of a law that would place the military under ICC. If a purge happens, the senior staff levels would probly support the Administration, against their own troops. And you wonder why Hadetha was allowed to go forward ?
No, it's a violation of the sovereign's right of self-government.
Barack Obama is not a sovereign. The sovereign in this land is the People of the United States.
Among the powers of the sovereign is the judicial power, which We delegated to a Supreme Court and such inferior courts as Congress has seen fit to ordain and establish.
The so-called "International Criminal Court" is not an Article III court, and neither is Barack Obama.
He can't delegate a jurisdiction nor a power which he lacks, so the idea that he can "place U.S. under International Criminal 'Court'" is absurd on its face.
The first people on ICC’s list to be “tried as war criminals” are the IDF, the Israeligovernment, and the Israeli “settlers.” Coming in second would be our own military in Iraq and Bush.
The people who are demanding that Bush be brought to trial, are the same whose truly treasonous crimes should be investigated first.
Please disseminate widely.
Civil Disobedience.
And if that does not work,
Civil War.
Yeah, good reply. Next victim..... Do you have any PLANS?
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.