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.
However, anyone who understands that Obama is an avowed Marxist, and that the current Congress is loaded with far Left Dems, could see this coming a mile away.
Elections have consequences. Conservatives must learn to play the game of politics effectively, starting with the fact that you never, ever, EVER win by losing.
In a nutshell, here's Obama's message:
Foreign born, non-citizen President.........giving America away.....
Given the ground situation that would be a joke. African militaries are pathetic, with the exception of the Egyptians and some ‘Arab’ units in North Africa.
However American soldiers have served under foreign commanders before in the world wars.
When Average Americans start going up in front of the ICC for hate-crimes like DARING to speak against the gay lifestyle, standing against Obamaunism, etc,etc, many Americans will begin to realize what they have done.
But, just like many Germans learned, it will be too late to do ANYTHING about it.
Yeah, well, I didn't think McCain-Feingold was constitutional either.
constitutional means only what the current members of the supreme court want it to mean. I have no confidence that 5 of the current court members are even literate. They will sign off on this just as soon as it gets to them.
_______
I must disagree.
The Constitution means what We The People say it means.
The Constitution belongs to us, not to the courts, the feds, the congress or any other usurper.
Never happen with this, no way
If a President signs a treaty, and if the senate ratifies it, then that treaty becomes the law of our land.
United States Constitution, Article VI, 2nd paragraph
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; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
It would have to be stopped in the Senate. Good luck with that given the current makeup of the Senate.
The commander of the current UN mission in Sudan is from Nepal, a nation ruled by elected maoist communists.
Yes it would if the Senate ratified the treaty.
It doesn't need to be. Any treaty signed by a U.S. president that is ratified by the Senate becomes the law of the land. No disrespect to either of you, but the tragedy, as I see it, is that so many conservatives don't know the Constitution enough to understand this.
There. All better now.
And you think the Left cares about this?
The minute he does that, the International court will try to indite Bush and Cheney.
That will be worth a war!!
Just more anti-American Globalism....first its Free Trade, then its surrender of more US soverignity.
I hole the Free Traders/Globalists responsible for this, and those in both parties. Free Trade was the first step in the surrender of American soverignity.
The Constitution belongs to us, not to the courts, the feds, the congress or any other usurper.
Thank you for saying that. It bears repeating.
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.