Obama May Place U.S. Under International Criminal Court

humanevents.com ^ | 02/10/2009 | Thomas P. Kilgannon

[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.

[Fudd Fan]

Oh, HELL NO!

And keep your eyes on the Law Of the Sea Treaty, too, amidst other distractions.

This monster has to be stopped right now.

[Wolfstar]

I hope the Pubbies have it in them to mount such opposition. They will certainly be able to count on every freedom loving conservative in the country...

Really? I have strong doubts about that given the inability on the part of many on the Right to grasp big picture politics.

[Wolfstar]

Just one more thing for the next President to rescind.

Can't be rescinded if the Senate ratifies the treaty. This Senate will, I'm convinced of it.

[deannadurbin]

I didn’t stipulate the ways in which it could be stopped.

:)

[Cicero]

Would this be constitutional?

It’s arguable, but I would say yes, for all practical purposes, unless there is a civil war.

All he has to do is put through a treaty. And I don’t think that’s beyond possibilities, even if it needs 67 votes.

Look at the Geneva Convention. We are subject to that, because we signed on to it. And in recent times it has been extended way beyond what the text actually says. For instance, the Geneva Convention does not apply to terrorists or irregulars who are not properly in uniform, but try to tell that to our current politicians, judges, and opinion makers.

The Geneva Convention should actually work against terrorists and guerillas, but in practice it always seems to work against us—because we let it.

[RC2]

No they don’t care. Until it is to late to do anything about it.

[unkus]

But, just like many Germans learned, it will be too late to do ANYTHING about it.
_____________________________

If they come for you, take out as many of them as possible.

[rigelkentaurus]

I understand what you are saying, but I have seen no evidence that we will arise and assert our constitutional rights.

Look at all of the violations of the Constitution have already been happening? The practical result is what I said, because the country will not step up and assert our rights over our governmenet. And the country will not arise over this either, as much as I wish we would...

[dbz77]

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.

Are not U.S. military personnel subject to the laws of foreign states that they visit?

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?

[Wolfstar]

The Constitution belongs to us, not to the courts, the feds, the congress or any other usurper.

Actually, the Constitution belongs to the states. It is their rules for how the federation they created would be run. If only the states could recapture the sense of their own power over the feds, but they're too busy sucking on the federal tit to do so.

[dbz77]

Placing American citizens under foreign criminal jurisdiction is a violation of the 11th Amendment isn’t?

No. If this were the case, extradition treaties would be unconstitutional.

[ElayneJ]

“Especially the part about suspending Habeas Corpus, imposing martial law - stuff like that.”

Yes!! I’ve thought all along that he’s laying the groundwork for suspending habeas corpus. That’s why he’s conjuring up all the comparisons to Lincoln. When the time comes, well, Lincoln did it, you know...

[mojitojoe]

If he does, then he deserves a civil war in return.

He will get one, that you can be sure of. He’s moving VERY fast. He has to gain control NOW or he fears he won’t be able to. We under under a coup d’etat and it people can’t see that, I don’t know what else to say.

[Wolfstar]

Thank you for saying that. It bears repeating.

Too bad it isn't correct. The Constitution belongs to the states, and through them to us, the people.

[nathanbedford]

There are incentives for liberals to submit the sovereignty of United States to extra -national organizations.

First, and most important-at least up until now-as the shining city on the hill, America stands as the linchpin obstacle to the worldwide success of socialism. American sovereignty, American exceptionalism, American laissez-faire capitalism (such as it was), America's dedication to the rights of the individual, are all anathema to communism. Sweep away the idea of American sovereignty and the last stumbling block for the worldwide dominion of communism goes with it.

Second, international treaties and submission to international courts having to do with human rights and/or war crimes, as well as tribunals of arbitration over trade, are ways to modify the American Constitution without the bother of submitting Obama' s notions to the constitutional requirements for amendment. Look for Obama, that is if he cannot exploit the financial crisis fully enough, to try the back door for his schemes by way of treaties and executive agreements, some of which he might vouchsafe to make public.

Third, I believe that leftists are powermongers because it is not just the Constitution which they find repugnant but the first two commandments. As Ann Coulter said at the end of her book, "they would be gods." In rebellion against God, liberals are compelled to play God. Megalomaniacs, they naturally seek the grandest platform for the out workings of their egos. There is no greater arena in which to play God and the whole world. Hence, the drive to one world government.

However, I do not expect Obama to surrender any sovereignty if it might curtail his own power to rule here in America in the meantime. He will either have to participate in the making of the rules internationally or he will take his marbles and go home. He might try to cut a deal, Clinton style, in which he seeks an international role as a sort of czar of the world after he concludes his administration here-if he does not take a page from Hugo Chavez's book and contrived to make himself the Messiah for life. If he does try to cut a deal for a career after this administration, look for him to sellout America's interests in the war against terrorism in exchange for that gig.

However Obama plays it, you can be sure that your liberties will have nothing to do with it.

[dbz77]

Yes. Especially the part about suspending Habeas Corpus, imposing martial law - stuff like that.

The only difference is that Lincoln's opposition were actually bad guys.

[mojito]

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.

Obama is the Manchurian Candidate, and he means to destroy America as a nation. Words can't express the loathing I have for this Marxist.

[dbz77]

If they come for you, take out as many of them as possible.

Perhaps we should learn more about chemistry.

[Tailgunner Joe]

At least someone elected the British Parliament. Nobody elected the ICC.